Sitting of 7 December 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that briefer supplementary questions and much briefer ministerial replies to supplementary questions have been a great blessing in recent days.
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

      Falkland Islands
      Mr. Michael Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the gross national product of the Falkland Islands for the years 1974, 1975 and 1976; and what is his estimate for the current year.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The gross national product of the Falkland Islands was £2·307 million for 1974 and £2·768 for 1975. No figures are available for 1976 or 1977. The colony lacks a statistics department and maintains only the basic statistics essential for taxation and cost of living purposes. Lord Shackleton's Economic Survey of the Falkland Islands gives the gross national product figures from 1965 to 1974. The 1975 figure is based on a projection of these figures. It would be misleading to project these figures further.
      Mr. Hutchison: Does the Minister agree that the gross national product is not really static in the Falklands and that the greatest enemy to their future progress is the political uncertainty? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is need for diversification, and the extension of the airfield? Will he do his best to bring these things about?
      Mr. Rowlands: The question of the islands' economy being static was a matter for reference in Lord Shackleton's report. It was he who in that report drew attention to the static nature of the economy. The greatest difficulty or bar to the development of the islands' economy is the dispute that exists between ourselves and the Argentine Government.
      Mr. Corbett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one way to underwrite the assurances already given by Her Majesty's Government that no change will be made in the status of the Falklands without their consent and agreement would be for the Government to examine again ways in which they will enable the islands to get on with some of the developments that they want to carry out?
      Mr. Rowlands: We are getting on with the job of trying to ascertain which development projects can be got off the ground within the islands. The much broader issue of resources around the islands is subject to economic cooperation with the Argentine Government.
      Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on policy towards the continued independence of the Falkland Islands.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Falkland Islands are not independent but are a United Kingdom dependent territory. There is no demand at present from their population of 1,950 people for independence.
      Mr. Stewart: Does the Minister confirm having received a message from the new Legislative Council that it is opposed to any change in its present status? Does he accept that if there is any suggestion of making any change during negotiations with Argentina in the face of opposition from the people of the islands, it would be totally resisted by hon. Members in every party in the House and by people in every part of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Rowlands: I think that we have given full and adequate assurances, repeatedly, in the last few months that we will not bring anything to this House which is not acceptable to the islanders themselves.
      Mr. Jay: Do I understand my hon. Friend now to have given the simple

      1361
      undertaking that there will be no change in the constitutional status of the islands without the consent of the people there?
      Mr. Rowlands: I have repeated it over and over again. We will not bring anything to this House—this is the firm assurance I have given—which is not acceptable to the islanders themselves.
      Sir Bernard Braine: In spite of that, the House continues to be mystified. Why are the Government negotiating at all with a Fascist-type dictatorhip about the future of a democratic British community? How does the Minister square that with his very proper decision not to extend economic aid to Bolivia, which has an identical régime? Does he share the concern so properly and firmly demonstrated by the United States over the continued violation of human rights in Argentina?
      Mr. Rowlands: On the first part of the question, we are negotiating because, following my visit to the islands and by agreement with the islands council, it was decided that it was necessary to have negotiations on the economic and sovereignty issues. Otherwise we would let the stalemate of the position of the islands continue, and that would be a much worse prospect for the islanders themselves.
      Mr. Grocott: Whether we are talking about the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, or any of the remaining small dependent territories of the Commonwealth, is it not important for the Government to have serious long-term strategy for them all, so that we at least have some idea of what we intend for their future?
      Mr. Rowlands: Yes. I agree that there is a need for a comprehensive strategy towards all our remaining dependent territories, although each of them presents us with different problems. We have been working on this, and the process of accelerated decolonisation, where that is the wish of the people in those territories, is the basis of that policy.
      Mr. Luce: May I welcome the Minister's reaffirmation of the fact that there will be no change in the sovereignty of the islands without the full consent of the islanders? Will the Government now give and demonstrate a
      1362
      proper commitment to the islanders by undertaking a full range of investment and development projects along the lines of the Shackleton Report?
      Mr. Rowlands: We are endeavouring to do just that. A number of development projects are already in hand. One of the most important areas is in internal communications. Road building is now under active consideration, along with the whole question of the air services. In a number of areas, therefore, we are trying to implement the Shackleton Report.
      Mr. Thorpeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will seek a declaration from the International Court at The Hague that Argentina has no valid claim in international law to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
      Mr. Rowlands: No. Sir. In the absence of acceptance by Argentina of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the Court would not entertain an application by the United Kingdom for such a declaration.
      Mr. Thorpe: I thank the Minister for that information, of which I was already aware. Will he confirm that Argentina has not accepted that part of the Hague Convention whereby it agreed to be bound by the decision of the International Court? Does this not shed some light on its lack of competence in international law in laying claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? May we take it that the question of sovereignty is not a matter that the Minister regards as being for negotiation in his New York meetings later this month?
      Mr. Rowlands: On the first part of the question, yes, that is the position. On the second part, I cannot say what the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to say. Sovereignty has been part and parcel of the terms of reference of the negotiations and will therefore be subject to negotiation in New York.
      Mr. James Johnson: In view of the long-standing dispute with the Argentinian people on this matter, does the Minister think that a halfway house, or even a beginning house, could be joint efforts in commercial activities with the hope of better understanding each other?

      1363
      What is my hon. Friend doing about the joint Anglo-Argentinian effort on deep-sea fishing, for example, or on sea-bed exploration for oil?
      Mr. Rowlands: These very issues are an intrinsic and integral part of the whole negotiations. They are not just about sovereignty they are about the whole issue of political and economic cooperation between Britain, Argentina and the Falkland Islands.
      Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely it is time the Government Front Bench realised the growing economic and strategic importance of the Falkland Islands and dependencies. The only way that we can strengthen this situation is by putting in the proper investment and implementing the Shackleton Report. Until then, the Government are hithering and havering and riving a series of ambiguous, totally disingenuous and unsatisfactory answers on this issue.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) made a statement rather than ask a question. If everyone did that, it would be agony.
      Mr. David Young: Will the Minister confirm that the Falkland Islands are insistent on maintaining links with Britain? Will the British Government maintain at all times their sovereignty over those islands unless a referendum indicates otherwise? Will he further see what economic co-operation can take place between Argentina and the Falkland Islands?
      Mr. Rowlands: That is exactly what the negotiations are about. They are about the form of economic co-operation between Britain, the Falkland Islands and Argentina. Sovereignty issues are also involved. I repeat yet again that we shall not bring any proposals to the House unless they are acceptable to the islanders.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the Minister aware of the widespread opinion that the British Government would give away the Falkland Islands if the House of Commons did not constantly stop them? Will he cease exercising this pressure on the people of the Falkland Islands to accord with the defeatism of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
      Mr. Rowlands: The hon. and learned Gentleman does a grave injustice and disservice to the islanders. They are a determined and resilient people and they will not be bullied by Ministers or the House. The negotiations are those that were arranged and agreed with the island councillors when I met them earlier in the year.

      Chile
      Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is prepared to make it his policy to institute an economic boycott of Chile.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Government continue to keep all aspects of United Kingdom-Chile relations under review, but they do not believe that an economic boycott would be an appropriate or effective way of achieving the stated objectives of British policy.
      Mr. Thorne: I welcome recent statements on Chile by the Secretary of State, but is it possible to assure the House that there will be no more military equipment spare parts exported to Chile in the foreseeable future?
      Mr. Rowlands: We have terminated any arms sales to Chile. We have been fulfilling only the existing contracts that we are obliged to fulfil.
      Mr. McCrindle: Is it not clear that the Government's policy towards Chile has led to static trade between the two countries, whereas trade between Chile and some of our EEC partners, especially West Germany, is booming? Will the hon. Gentleman estimate against how many countries we should have to impose an economic boycott if we applied the criterion of disagreement with their Governments?
      Mr. Rowlands: We do not plan to have an economic boycott on Chile. The trade figures with Chile are not bad. They have not gone down badly in the past year or two, despite our strong stance on this issue.
      Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that deep disgust has been felt at the statement made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about Chile, which is a brutal

      1365
      dictatorship and which the hon Gentleman conveyed as a democracy? Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his recent statement that our stance is even more determined on Chile than it has ever been so far? Does he agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Every question that I ask is always too long for the Opposition. It is an honour with which I shall have to out up Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing of a military nature should go to Chile to uphold its ferocious régime?
      Mr. McCrindle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) did not convey to me his intention to attack me in the House, may I say, through you, that if the hon. Gentleman can produce any statement that I have made to the effect that the present Chilean régime is a democracy I shall publicly apologise?
      Mr. Flannery: Splendid. It is quite evident that Chile is not a democracy by any standards, and does not even begin to approach one.

      Gibraltar
      Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his negotiations in Strasbourg on 24th November with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the future of Gibraltar.
      The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): My discussions on Gibraltar with the Spanish Foreign Minister. Sr. Oreja, in which the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Gibraltar House of Assembly, Mr. Maurice Xiberras, took part, were held in a friendly, co-operative and constructive atmosphere. We have agreed to hold a further such meeting in the new year.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: During the discussions—as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Spanish Foreign Minister was strengthened by the presence of Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Maurice Xiberras—was the right hon. Gentleman able to convey to the Spanish Foreign Minister the fact that far from being a sign of weakness, especially in the new atmosphere in Spain.
      1366
      the lifting of frontier restrictions and restrictions against British subjects would be a sign of strength and would do more than anything to make meaningful negotiations possible?
      Dr. Owen: The Spanish Government are under no illusion about the Government's position on this matter, in that if they were to show a gesture of reconciliation and friendship by lifting restrictions I believe that that would encourage good relations between the Gibraltarians and the Spanish people.
      Mr. MacFarquhar: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that his stand on behalf of the Gibraltarians will be as firm and on the same principles as the stand declared on behalf of the people of the Falkland Islands?
      Dr. Owen: Yes. I think the problems are different, and they need to be seen as such. I believe that the British Government's attitude in Gibraltar is that we will agree to anything that the Gibraltarians agree to, and we have explained that in many other parts of the world. We are trying to encourage a dialogue to eradicate some of the misunderstandings and suspicions that have existed for so many years.
      Mr. Kershaw: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind in any negotiations the desirability of using Gibraltar for a BBC radio transmitter?
      Dr. Owen: I shall certainly consider that.

      Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
      Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement about progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty.
      Dr. Owen: There has been good progress in the tripartite negotiations. The Government welcomed President Brezhnev's statement of 2nd November. The negotiations resumed on 5th December and we are seeking progress on the outstanding issues, so as to achieve a lasting comprehensive test ban treaty.
      Mr. Forman: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the main outstanding problems are those of adequate verification of these tests and the wider participation by nations such as France and

      1367
      China, which will eventually have to be brought into the discussions? On the Soviet offer, which the Government welcome, does the Foreign Secretary not believe that it is now seen to be a little hollow, since it is evident that the Soviet Union was not planning to hold peaceful nuclear explosions for the three-year period in any case?
      Dr. Owen: When I was in Moscow, Mr. Gromyko put very strongly to me the Soviet wish to have PNEs, and it has been a long-standing Soviet position that they need to have such explosions. I do not, therefore, think that I can agree with the hon. Member. This was a significant step forward for the Soviet Union. On the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question, verification is one of the central problems still to be resolved, and that will obviously be the subject of negotiation. As to the participation of other nuclear weapon States, that is a matter for them, but it is desirable that the agreement covers all nuclear weapon States.
      Mr. James Lamond: In his statement on 2nd November Mr. Brezhnev also suggested that the Soviet Union was ready to reach agreement about a simultaneous halt in the production of nuclear weapons by all States. Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on that proposal?
      Dr. Owen: We remain ready to enter into any negotiations on our overall objective of comprehensive disarmament, and the cessation of new weapons systems would be extremely helpful. But this is very difficult to achieve and one must adopt a piecemeal approach, starting with a comprehensive test ban treaty.

      Overseas Representation (CPRS Report)
      Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the report of the Central Policy Review Staff on overseas representation.
      Dr. Owen: I have received representations and advice from the institutions reviewed in the report and from their staffs and from a large number of individuals and other bodies in the fields of industry, commerce, the academic world,
      1368
      the arts, and the Church, as well as from members of the public, both in this country and overseas. A notable contribution to the continuing debate was made in another place on 23rd November.
      Mr. Goodlad: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern that is felt because some of the much-criticised recommendations in that report are already being put into effect? Can he say which of those recommendations are being put into effect? Is it the Government's intention to interfere with the overseas service of the BBC?
      Dr. Owen: We have deliberately not made decisions on the report, which is now being considered by the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee. We are listening to all views on this matter. One of the recommendations, to which I think the hon. Member referred, is one of the issues that are being examined. I am not yet in a position to announce any decision. I want to take account of the Sub-Committee's view before I make a decision.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to confirm the figure in the report which shows that its preferred solution would be about 54 per cent. more expensive than the existing set-up?
      Dr. Owen: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to one aspect of the report which would have a consequential cost because of the merging of the separate Diplomatic Service and the Home Service in the initial period. That is an aspect that must be considered.
      Sir Anthony Royle: Is the Secretary of State aware that this whole exercise has been a total waste of public money? Is he aware of any other country that has a more efficient or effective Diplomatic Service than our own?
      Dr. Owen: No, I am not aware of such a country.

      Rhodesia
      Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding Rhodesia.
      Dr. Owen: The Rhodesian incursion into Mozambique and the security situation within Rhodesia emphasise the

      1369
      urgent need for a negotiated settlement. The United States Government and ourselves remain convinced that our joint proposals provide the basic framework of a settlement. I shall be discussing the situation with the United States Secretary of State later this week.
      Mr. Molloy: In view of President Kaunda's statement yesterday and bearing in mind his fear that if elections take place before independence civil strife will result, will my right hon. Friend make urgent efforts to contact President Kaunda, who has a great contribution to make? Will he assure President Kaunda that his apprehensions will be fully considered at any future conferences?
      Dr. Owen: I understand President Kaunda's apprehensions, but I remain absolutely convinced that the only way to settle this dispute between differing nationalist leaders is to have an election. I respect and admire President Kaunda and I much regret that some of my re-remarks have caused ill feeling. That is not reciprocated in any way by me. If he reads my statement he will see that it is a very balanced statement on the issues.
      Mr. Amery: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, regrettably or otherwise, the Anglo-American proposals in the form presented to the different African Governments—white and black—are now in ruins? There is now a breathing space. The question is whether he is to double the stakes on a losing game or stand back and see what progress can be made with the Rhodesian régime and those African leaders who are at present in Rhodesia and whether any agreement that they might reach would or would not be acceptable to this House.
      Dr. Owen: The issues are complex. There is a choice between continuing the arms fight or negotiating a settlement. The principles that have been laid down will be those on which any negotiated settlement must be based. How that is to be achieved is for history to decide. The Anglo-American initiatives are as they are. I do not believe that they can be written off as easily as the right hon. Gentleman implies.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: What action is my right hon. Friend considering with the Americans to bring pressure to bear on South Africa? Does he not agree that South Africa remains the key to the Rhodesia problem and that it would be ended in a week if South Africa stopped supporting the régime?
      Dr. Owen: I have never hidden the fact that I believe that South Africa is of great importance, as are the front-line Presidents. South Africa would help us even more than it has done over the last few months if it were convinced that a negotiated settlement would be viable, that there would be fair elections, and that law and order would be maintained. That is an issue on which there are still. regrettably, considerable differences of opinion.
      Mr. John Davies: Does the Secretary of State realise that the absolute adherence that he pays to his own initiative can be very counter-productive? Does he further realise that there is every advantage in seeking to bring all those concerned within Rhodesia into negotiations? In all those concerned I include the representatives of the Patriotic Front. Could the Secretary of State not use his influence with them and with President Kaunda to ensure that the genuine initiative that he took with Mr. Smith is the principal vehicle towards a settlement?
      Dr. Owen: I have no amour propre or pride of ownership on this issue. The principles of international acceptance and of fair and free elections are fundamental. I do not believe that this can be achieved if negotiations are narrowed down to involve only the nationalist leaders inside Rhodesia. The Patriotic Front must be involved and negotiations must be set in a climate that the world will accept.
      Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you accept that when the Foreign Secretary, or anyone else, speaks in French he should do so properly?
      Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be glad to come to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for advice.
      Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his efforts to achieve a settlement in Rhodesia.
      Dr. Owen: I have recently held discussions in London with representatives of Bishop Muzorewa as well as with the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole. Later this month, I hope to see Mr. Nkomo. We shall continue our efforts to achieve a political settlement. Independence must involve a genuine transfer of power to Government representing the majority of the people following free and fair elections based on universal adult suffrage.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: In spite of seeing Mr. Nkomo, does the right hon. Gentleman's franglaisian reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) mean that he is beginning to repent his masochistic obsession with the Patriotic Front? If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to help, will he at least refrain from hindering Mr. Smith and other Rhodesian leaders in seeking a solution from the ballaot box rather than through the barrel of a gun? Is there anything wrong with self-determination for Rhodesia?
      Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman's expression "masochistic obsession" typifies the sort of abuse that seems to come out of everyone on this issue. I am pursuing the path of peace, and I will continue to do so, no matter where the criticism comes from. I shall not stand in the way of any initiative from any quarter which contributes to a genuine peace initiative.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there can be no transfer of power or a settlement of the problems of Zimbabwe without the full-hearted co-operation and consent of the Patriotic Front? Does he further accept that unless and until Her Majesty's Government are willing to take action on oil sanctions in order to prevent oil from reaching that country, there is no possibility of any transfer of power by the Smith régime?
      Dr. Owen: As my hon. Friend knows, I have always held the view that the Patriotic Front is a crucial element in any negotiated settlement. It is hard to see any settlement from which it was
      1372
      deliberately excluded being successful. The armed struggle would merely continue. Equally, I make it clear that if there is to be a negotiated settlement there must be compromise. No party to the discussions can hold a total veto over the others if there is to be a peaceful negotiated settlement.
      Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the front-line Presidents that, while they have a legitimate interest in the future of Rhodesia, they cannot expect to have a veto on any settlement that might be acceptable to the black and white communities in Rhodesia?
      Dr. Owen: I have said often in this House that no party in this situation can have a veto if we are to get compromise and a negotiated setttlement. The frontline Presidents are of crucial importance, as South Africa is. They are the parties in the situation who can sustain the continued armed struggle from either side. Therefore, we must take full account of their responsible statesmanship. The front-line Presidents have been of crucial help over the last few months, as, indeed, has South Africa. At the moment, because of differences of opinion, we are a long way from reaching the necessary compromise for a settlement.
      Mr. Whitehead: When my right hon. Friend sees Mr. Nkomo, will he use his best endeavours to persuade him that the Patriotic Front should commit itself to an election before independence, because that is the best guarantee that it has not only of being able to share in power peacefully in Zimbabwe but also of avoiding civil war?
      Dr. Owen: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I shall continue to say what I have said to the Patriotic Front on numerous occasions—that elections hold the key to resolving the issue of who should be president and who should form the Government of the new Zimbabwe. It must be for those who wish to live in a free and independent Zimbabwe to make that choice.

      Middle East
      Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude on

      1373
      progress towards a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.
      Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the Middle East.
      Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the Middle East situation.
      Dr. Owen: The Government have welcomed President Sadat's bold initiative in visiting Jerusalem. We hope that the meeting summoned by President Sadat in Cairo will carry forward preparations for a peace conference involving all the parties. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed the full range of Middle East problems with Mr. Begin during his recent visit.
      Mr. Walters: Since it is impossible to achieve peace in the Middle East without resolving the Palestinian issue, did the Foreign Secretary obtain from Mr. Begin, during his visit, assurances that he will respond to President Sadat's initiative and make the necessary territorial concessions on the West Bank?
      Dr. Owen: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by Mr. Begin on Sunday evening, which referred to some of these issues.
      Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only territorial response from Israel since President Sadat's visit has been the creation of six new settlements on the West Bank? Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence to encourage from Israel a far more constructive approach to the process of peace-making?
      Dr. Owen: I do not think that anyone who followed the progress of the talks that took place on Saturday and Sunday in London between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Begin can have any doubt of the constructive contribution that we are attempting to make to a solution of this complex and difficult problem.
      Mr. Goodhart: As the right hon. Gentleman seems so content with Soviet policy in southern Africa, what has he
      1374
      to say about the fact that the efficient Soviet propaganda machine seems intent on attempting to sabotage President Sadat's courageous and inspiring initiative in the Middle East?
      Dr. Owen: I am not certain that I agree with the preamble to that supplementary question. As far as the Middle East is concerned, I believe that there is advantage in getting back to Geneva. I think that that should still be our objective as part of comprehensive negotiations. I believe that there are advantages in the two co-chairmen playing a responsive and responsible rôle in the negotiations.
      Mr. Corbett: While my right hon. Friend is involved in helping towards a settlement of the wider issues in the Middle East, will he give an undertaking that he will not forget—I am sure that he will not want to do so—the bitter problem of Cyprus? What are the prospects of a resumption of the inter-communal talks there?
      Dr. Owen: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that troubled island, but until the presidential election takes place in February it will be difficult to take any new step forward in intercommunal talks. I am studying the issue very closely.
      Mr. Dykes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as he himself implied, Mr. Begin has already clearly referred to the Palestinian cause and suggested that there can be negotiations along those lines? Does not that contrast with the deplorable and negative attitude of the other Arab States towards President Sadat's initiative? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something further about that?
      Dr. Owen: I would prefer the Arab world to remain united and to negotiate from a united front. There would be advantage in that. But those who are genuinely seeking peace in the Middle East cannot constantly be held down by the inability of one section to agree. We must surely all work for unity in the moderate Arab approach which has been amply demonstrated in the last few months during the period of the various initiatives taken by the United States Government.
      Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it correct that a vast new supply of arms to Egypt from Britain is under consideration? Secondly, in order to protect the fragile peace in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend prevent the supply of all British arms to either side in order to avoid the Middle East becoming a tinder box?
      Dr. Owen: The cardinal principle, which is difficult to apply, in deciding on arms shipments to the Middle East is that one should not, by a particular shipment, upset the balance of power and alter the ratios. The United Kingdom has tried to avoid doing that under successive Governments. I know of no massive shipment of arms, but we have traditionally, for many years, been arms suppliers to Egypt.
      Mr. John Davies: May I revert to the speech made by Mr. Begin on Sunday? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Begin's allusion to his preparedness to negotiate with true representatives of the Palestinian Arab people represented a very important statement? As, unfortunately, owing to Mr. Begin's illness, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) and I were unable to see him yesterday, can the Foreign Secretary tell us anything further as a result of the discussions that he himself had on this very salient issue for the future?
      Dr. Owen: I think that the fact that in his speech Mr. Begin made reference to the Palestinian Arabs owes a lot to the discussions that took place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and him. It was, of course, on that issue that a lot of the discussion was bound to concentrate. The fact that Mr. Begin came out of the meetings and made his statement is testimony to the progress made during the discussions.

      Departmental Staff
      Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conveniently available figures he has for the number of officials of his Department born in Scotland.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): Officials employed by my
      1376
      right hon. Friend's Department are drawn from every region. But in selecting them we are not influenced by their places of birth, provided they meet the usual nationality requirements. Figures showing how many were born in Scotland are not available except at disproportionate cost.
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will acquit me of asking for things at disproportionate cost, since my Question asks for "conveniently available figures". Will the Government reflect, over the coming months, on whether they might not produce an objective study of the costs and other ramifications of devolution and the effects on the British Diplomatic Service—in particular, the costs of representation of a separate Scottish State in the Nine and elsewhere, not excluding the costs of a Scottish embassy or high commission here in London?
      Mr. Luard: As a former member of the Diplomatic Service, I assure my hon. Friend that there is no shortage of Scottish people at every level. They are present in alarming numbers already. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a total disaster for the United Kingdom and, indeed, for Scotland to break up the Diplomatic Service. I am convinced that the great majority of the Scottish people realise that they have far more influence by Scots being able to occupy important positions within the United Kingdom Diplomatic Service than if there were an independent Scotland.
      Mr. Henderson: We welcome the Minister's information that there will be enough members of the Civil Service of Scottish origin to occupy the Scottish Foreign Office within the next few years. Will the Minister assure his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that, despite all his efforts, there is no possibility of his being appointed our first High Commissioner in London?
      Mr. Luard: I do not think that anybody in the House has ever doubted the availability of gifted Scottish people, but what many of us believe is that they are better devoted to helping the United Kingdom Government to pursue the interests of Scotland as well as of England than they are in trying to represent an independent Scotland.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

      Political Co-operation
      Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet his colleagues in the other member States of the EEC to discuss the development of political co-operation.
      Dr. Owen: The next political co-operation ministerial meeting is to be held in Copenhagen, under the Danish Presidency. on 13th and 14th February 1978.
      Mr. Dykes: In the context of the overall development of political co-operation, was the Foreign Secretary upset that the French Government apparently prevented the issuance of the united statement on the Middle East at the time of President Sadat's visit to Israel?
      Dr. Owen: The President of the Council tried to get a Presidency statement on the Saturday, I think it was, but it proved impossible to achieve unanimity. But we, in fact, agreed a statement which was helpful when the Council of Foreign Ministers met on the Tuesday following. I was very happy to have a statement on the Saturday and equally happy to have one on the Tuesday.
      Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in the Common Market, will he also tell them that the hon. Gentleman who tabled this Question about political co-operation in Europe—the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—was the same man who was acting as a go-between between the Common Market Commission and the Tory Party Central Office in an attempt to undermine Britain's oil revenues? Will he tell his colleagues that we are not having any of that?
      Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out two things. First, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not indicate to me in advance that he would be raising this matter. Secondly, and even more important, the Secretary of State for Energy made a totally false allegation, which I hope he will withdraw, on something that he has misconstrued, and he has not yet apologised for it.
      Dr. Owen: I will only say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that before I go to the next political co-operation meeting I shall try to improve my French.

      European Parliament and United Kingdom Parliament
      Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise in the Council of Ministers the future adequacy of co-ordination between the European Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): The question of the relationship between the European Assembly and this Parliament is primarily a matter for the two institutions themselves, which both may wish to reconsider after direct elections. I doubt whether the Council of Ministers can assist at this stage. The British Government have made plain in this House and elsewhere their position on the powers of the European Assembly.
      Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that his answer adds up to the fact that nobody knows so far how co-ordination will work? What leads him to think that the European Members of Parliament will be the exception to the general rule that capable and ambitious people tend to seek to maximise their power and influence?
      Mr. Judd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated this very point at some length the other night. I remain convinced, together with colleagues, that the main accountability of the European Assembly will be through Ministers to this House, and this House will, therefore, continue to attract maximum talent.
      Mr. Spearing: Is not the position quite clear? Does not my hon. Friend agree with the statement of the former Commissioner, now Lord Thomson, in the Lloyds Bank Review last July, when he said that from the moment of direct elections the new European Assemblymen will cease to be colleagues of Members of this House and, instead, become rivals? Is not that clear and is it not also clear that this House and this Parliament have no part in the written constitution under the Treaty of Rome?
      Mr. Judd: But I am sure that my hon. Friend will also agree that, as we discussed the other night at some length and on other occasions, the functions of the European Assembly are in no way to be compared with the legislative functions of the House. I do not believe that the sort of person who is interested in a legislative role will be attracted to the European Assembly in the same way as people will continue to be attracted to this House.
      Mr. Marten: Can we once and for all rule out the dotty suggestion that Members of the directly elected European Assembly, if any, should be Members of the House of Lords?
      Mr. Judd: We are to discuss later, in the context of the Bill now before the House, what methods of election are to be used. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will put his views forward very forcefully then, and they will be dealt with by the Government.
      Mr. Jay: If my hon. Friend thinks that the main avenue of accountability would be through the Council of Ministers to this House, what is the point of direct elections?
      Mr. Judd: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that on many occasions many of us in the House have said that, wherever public bodies exist, it is better that the people who belong to them should be elected rather than that they should be appointed indirectly.
      Mr. Hurd: Developing that point, may ask whether The Times was accurate this morning in its account of what the Foreign Secretary said at the Summit Conference about the direct elections Bill? If it was accurate, was this not a very deeply partisan and misleading statement? Would it not be better to correct it now by acknowledging that in recent weeks, and again this week, the obstacle to progress with the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the electoral system but is simply the continuing refusal by the Government to provide adequate days for discussion?
      Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not so. He knows very well that if the House decides to opt for the regional list system there is every reason
      1380
      to believe that the date that has been set as the target will be met.

      President of the Commission
      Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC Commission.
      Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend expects to meet Mr. Jenkins, the President of the EEC Commission, at the Council of Ministers meeting on 19th and 20th December.
      Mr. Crawford: As Mr. Jenkins' colleague, Industry Commissioner Davignon, has said that there should be no cutback in the steel industry in the EEC, why are the Government decimating the steel industry in Scotland?
      Mr. Judd: The Government are faced, as are all Governments with steel industries in the countries for which they are responsible, with a major international steel crisis. In tackling that crisis, the present Government have very high in their order of priorities the protection of the interests of individuals and communities that are dependent on the industry.
      Mr. Ronald Atkins: When the Foreign Secretary meets the President, will he advise him of standard Civil Service practice, namely, not to criticise the Ministers of the component Governments, not to take part in controversial public debate, and to remember that the members of the Commission are the servants and not the bosses of the EEC?
      Mr. Judd: I think that it is well understood that the present Government believe very deeply that the main political responsibility for the life of the Community lies with Governments and the politicians within those Governments.
      Mr. Biffen: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the President of the Commission, will he inquire from him what rôle the Commission sees for itself in making available European funds for fighting the Strasbourg elections, and will he ensure that this House is fully apprised of the Commission's views on how that money is to be allocated?
      Mr. Judd: Obviously the management of elections is an important and sensitive

      1381
      issue. We shall want to be very satisfied, just as we would in the context of elections in our own country, that this has been handled with all appropriate propriety and that no arrangements are being made about which any of us, on either side of the House, would be unhappy or suspicious.

      Enlargement
      Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed enlargement of the EEC.
      Dr. Owen: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, published in the Official Report on 22nd November.
      Mr. Marten: While being basically in favour of enlargement, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the percentage of workers in agriculture in the countries that one hopes will join is 36 per cent. in Greece, 28 per cent. in Portugal and 23 per cent. in Spain? As compared with the British percentage of only 3 per cent. of workers in agriculture, will not that really heavily tip the advantage in favour of the vested interests in agriculture in the Common Market to the detriment of the United Kingdom?
      Dr. Owen: It certainly would if one were to follow into Mediterranean agricultural products the same policy that exists predominantly for northern agricultural products. Therefore, it is the British Government's strong intention to resist any such increase, which could shift the agricultural budget from its present 70 per cent. of overall Community budget up to over 90 per cent.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: As 70 per cent. of the budget is already going to agriculture, does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall have to abandon the CAP before we consider bringing in countries such as Greece, Spain or Portugal?
      Dr. Owen: There is not quite such a well developed CAP for Mediterranean products. I do not believe that we can exclude doing something about Mediterranean agricultural products, but the price of doing so must be one of making changes in the rest of the CAP. That
      1382
      is why we attach such great importance to radical changes.
      Mr. Townsend: What link, if any, does the right hon. Gentleman see between early settlement of the Cyprus dispute and the proposed enlargement of the Community?
      Dr. Owen: Not very much. I do not think that the Cyprus dispute is in any way connected with the EEC. Good relations with some countries, such as Greece, which is an applicant to join, are important, but I do not think that anything can replace a better dialogue between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots.
      Mr. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the considerable political advantages of enlargement, particularly by strengthening democracy in southern Europe?
      Dr. Owen: Yes, Sir. I think that that is one of the central objectives and why one is prepared to pay a limited but reasonable economic price for enlargement. That price is to be carefully calculated, but the whole concept of the European Community is above all political.

      Reform
      Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in explaining to the other member States of the EEC the propositions for reform set out in the Prime Minister's letter to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party.
      Dr. Owen: Copies were sent out to our eight partners in the Community and the issues raised have been discussed on frequent occasions since then.
      Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to avert misunderstandings, both here and in the EEC, about our seriousness of purpose in achieving these reforms, it is important that we should put forward specific proposals as quickly as possible? When might we expect that to happen?
      Dr. Owen: The most important thing is that we should negotiate against the background of firm, well-worked-out policies. Changing the common agricultural policy will not be done overnight,

      1383
      but one needs to know where one is aiming to be in three or four years' time if one is to achieve sensible reforms in the day-to-day negotiations that go on throughout the Community. We are fundamentally in negotiations the whole time in doing Community business.
      Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman make plain to all the Ministers in the EEC that the British Government are wholly opposed to any progress towards economic and monetary union and that, indeed, economic and monetary union in the EEC is wholly inconsistent with control by the British people of their own economic affairs?
      Dr. Owen: That is too simple a presentation of a very complex problem. There is no doubt that the divergence of the economies of the Community of the Nine is not in the interests of Britain or of the whole Community and that ways of achieving, sensibly and step by step, over time, a greater convergence of the economies of the Community, is a thoroughly beneficial policy, which we shall support.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the reforms outlined in the Prime Minister's letter may be pushed through the Community much more rapidly is to have the closest possible contact with other Socialist and Social Democratic Parties in Europe? Will he press the Labour Party International Committee and the National Executive to work in the closest possible way with sister parties in Europe to achieve those ends?
      Dr. Owen: I certainly believe that political relations across countries are a very important force which can be harnessed to the good of national interests as well as the political beliefs of the various parties. The Socialist grouping in the European Community and the European Assembly is very strong—in fact, the majority grouping. Therefore, I would welcome these changes.
      Mr. Watt: Will the proposals for reform include a proposal for reform of the common fisheries policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to our Danish partners that unless they stop forthwith their wasteful industrial fishing
      1384
      methods there will be no fish stocks left for any of the partners in the EEC?
      Dr. Owen: My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been battling for reform of the common fisheries policy for some months. That preceded the Prime Minister's letter. It is a central plank of our policy that we wish to have reforms in the common fisheries policy.

      Common Policies
      Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the President of the EEC Commission what actions need to be taken by member States to further common policies of the Community.
      Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend already has frequent occasions to discuss Community policies with Mr. Roy Jenkins; for example at EEC Council meetings when the development of specific common Community policies is under review.
      Mr. Warren: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why, when the British Parliament sits for longer than any other Community Parliament, we find it impossible to find time to debate major common Community issues, such as the aerospace policy for the Common Market, which has been outstanding for debate in this country for more than two years?
      Mr. Judd: There arc, of course, big problems of time in this House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as was brought out in debate the other night, the Government are looking seriously and urgently at the whole issue of improving the method of scrutiny to make sure that hon. Members throughout the House have an opportunity to monitor in more detail what is going on in the Community.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it the Government's general intention that the members of the EEC should keep in step in regard to a common foreign policy? When will the Government come into step with the West German Government, which recently decided not to provide export

      1385
      credit guarantees for companies which trade with South Africa?
      Mr. Judd: Political co-operation is a very important part of the life of the Community. Naturally, on crucial issues facing us all it is better to achieve more progress working together than to posture independently as individual countries and fail to achieve effective common action. There are many ideas to be exchanged. As my right hon. Friend has already indicated this afternoon, in southern African policy we are constantly updating the appropriate action that we can take together.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman bring home to the EEC that the common agricultural policy is quantitatively so large a part of the totality of common policies that it cannot be based on the distortions inherent in an artificial rate of the green pound?
      Mr. Judd: One of the matters which give me a great deal of anxiety is that if the credibility of the financing of the Community is to be maintained we must look very seriously at the proportion of the budget taken up by the common agricultural policy.

      Direct Elections
      Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with relevant EEC bodies about the proposed timetable for direct elections to the European Parliament.
      Mr. Judd: The Council of Ministers has reviewed the progress of legislation in the member States but there has been no discussion of any change in the proposed timetable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will refer in his statement to discussions at the European Council on 5th and 6th December.
      Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister make clear that he will try to come up with a valid reason for the slippage appearing in the United Kingdom timetable, and will he say whether he has told our European partners that he has said that this is due to internal Labour Party disputes or opposition by both the Labour Government and the Tory Opposition to the concept of proportional representation?
      Mr. Judd: As I have already said in answer to a previous question, whether
      1386
      we meet the target date is very much in the hands of every hon. Member. If there is a decision to accept the Government's recommendation of a regional list system, there is no reason why we should not meet the target date next summer.
      Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no real internal Labour Party dispute on the question of direct elections? The Labour Party, as such, is opposed to direct elections. There may well be people in the House who support them, but that is not the party in the country. Is my hon. Friend also aware that the National Executive of the party and its so-called International Committee have not accepted the manifesto from our European partners, because it is federalist in concept? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicated that he was opposed to federalism, I should like to know where we stand.
      Sir Anthony Boyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to have to listen to an internal Labour Party dispute throughout the afternoon?
      Mr. Speaker: It is always interesting.
      Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that we are well aware of the position of the Labour Party and its National Executive. On the federal point, not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it plain that we are not committed to the concept of a federal Europe.
      Sir Frederic Bennett: On the basis of the last question, does the Minister agree that there are one or two other problems standing in the way of rapid progress towards free elections in Europe, other than the method of election? Are we not now the odd man out in being the only country that has not completed the necessary legislative process to hold the elections next year?
      Mr. Judd: We are not the only odd man out; I still maintain that the method of election has a great deal to do with whether we meet the target date.
      Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of this country are not all that passionately interested in direct

      1387
      elections or anything to do with them? Is he further aware that they are gravely disappointed that many of the things promised at the time of the referendum have not come true, that they were cheated, and that it would be to the benefit of the Commission if it concentrated on trying to reduce European unemployment instead of messing about with ideas of federalism or any form of direct elections?
      Mr. Judd: I certainly endorse the point inherent in my hon. Friend's question, which is that in the final analysis the way in which the Community will be judged will not be by theological discussions about institutions and structures but by the policies which do or do not come out of it in the interests of the ordinary men, women and children who make up the member countries of the Community.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I realise that the Government probably wanted to avoid Question No. 14, in view of the comments of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) yesterday, may I ask for guidance on grouping, because Questions Nos. 9 and 11 appear to be almost identical, and it would have saved time and made for much better debate if the Minister had advised you that he would prefer to take them together.
    Mr. Speaker: The grouping of Questions has nothing to do with me; it has to do with Ministers.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (SUMMIT)
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I will, with permission, make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 5th and 6th December, which I attended together with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The Council began with an exchange of views on the current economic problems of Europe, including those caused by the low rates of growth in the econo
1388
mies of the member countries, and the high unemployment that exists throughout the Community.
I directed attention to the problems of international trade and payments and pressed for a co-ordinated Community response to them. The persistent deficits of many countries, which are the counterpart of the massive surpluses of some OPEC countries and Japan, are exerting deflationary pressure on the economies of the world and making it harder to pull the Community out of recession and reduce unemployment. This situation is increasing protectionist pressure in the United States as well as in the Community. The Community needs to take a position.
There was wide support for this assessment, and that future stability in oil prices would also be very helpful. The Council equally recognised the need for energy-saving policies. The President of the Commission was invited to intensify his consultations with the Japanese Government on these matters.
The question of budget contributions in 1978 and 1979 was resolved. We maintained our opposition to any change in our interpretation of Article 131 of the Treaty of Accession. In consequence, we and others will maintain our different interpretations of the article, and will pay accordingly. The resulting budgetary deficit will be filled by a contribution from all the member countries according to their own choice of one of four approved methods. If there is still a very small residual gap, it will be dealt with by Finance Ministers.
The contribution of the United Kingdom towards filling the gap is likely in 1978 to be £40·6 million out of the deficit of £265 million. In 1979 both the deficit and the United Kingdom contribution should be only about a third of those figures. On the basis of this agreement the Community will now construct its budgets from 1st January next on the basis of the new European unit of account.
The Council agreed to renew the Regional Development Fund with substantially increased resources totalling 1,850 million European units of account for the next three years. The combined effect of these increased resources and of the change to the use of the European unit of account is that the value of the

1389
Fund in sterling terms will be more than doubled. The net value to the United Kingdom and the benefit to the regions, including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, will thus be increased. We retain about 27 per cent. of the Fund.
Approval was given in principle to a proposal by the Commission to establish a new borrowing facility of 1,000 million units of account to promote investment and support sectoral policies in the Community. This facility will be managed by the European Investment Bank.
The President of the Commission called for a re-examination of the ideas for instituting at some time in the future economic and monetary union. There was a general disposition to await the views of Finance Ministers on the Commission's suggestions before the European Council attempted to form a view.
The European Council took note of the current situation on direct elections.
It was agreed in principle to establish a European Foundation to promote contacts within the Community. Foreign Ministers will examine the proposals for a foundation, and report back to the European Council.
During the meeting the Council considered certain ideas for closer co-operation against terrorism, and discussed current international problems, particularly those of Africa and the Middle East. I took the opportunity to inform my colleagues of the wide-ranging discussions which I had with Mr. Begin at the weekend. During these Mr. Begin assured me of his determination to seek a comprehensive settlement and to find a just solution to the problem of the Palestinians. I informed Mr. Begin of the Government's support for continuing discussions on this basis between Egypt and Israel, leading at a later date to wider negotiations and a settlement.
Mrs. Thatcher: I assume that there will be a separate statement on fisheries policy, because the Agriculture Ministers were meeting on Monday and Tuesday. I should like confirmation that there will be a separate statement. I shall confine my points to the Prime Minister to three.
First, the Prime Minister said that the Council discussed the economic situa
1390
tion. Is it true that there was very considerable difference of view about how to tackle inflation and growth, and that those countries that have been most successful at tackling inflation were very loth indeed to risk the gains they had made by putting them in jeopardy if they reflated?
Secondly, the statement makes no reference to steel. Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us would find it very difficult to believe that the Ministers did not discuss steel, in view of the seriousness of the situation here and elsewhere? As the position is governed by treaties of the Community, will he say whether there is anything to report on steel negotiations?
Thirdly, with regard to the rather trite phrase that "The European Council took note of the current situation on direct elections", did the Council take note of the fact that, in the week of the Summit, the Government provided no days at all here for debating Europe, and that only 132 out of 308 Labour Members voted for direct elections, compared with 229 out of 280 Conservative Members? That shows the whole difference in attitude towards Europe. Is it the Prime Minister's intention to provide time for a genuine free choice on electoral systems before Christmas?
The Prime Minister: The Agriculture Ministers were meeting concurrently and therefore the Heads of Government did not discuss fisheries policy. I shall certainly have a word with the Minister of Agriculture about making a statement.
It has been a standing view of the Germans that they do not wish to be pushed into reflation if it is likely to endanger their monetary stability. At the same time, I think that the German Government, like other Governments, are becoming increasingly concerned about the rise in unemployment in their countries and the failure of their economies to grow, despite a low inflation level. I think that there was perhaps more of a meeting of minds on this occasion than on others. One of the interesting ideas which came forward and which I think will meet with a lot of support from my hon. Friends—
Mr. Skinner: Does that include us?
The Prime Minister: On this occasion yes. While we all want to see growth in the manufacturing sector and in the service sector, there is more that we may have to do in the public employment field in order to provide both services and work. We have not heard this view expressed quite so clearly before among a number of those who were present.
I raised the matter of steel, of course, because there are very direct interests here, but the discussions are going on separately. We reached no conclusion. Indeed, this is not a subject on which it would be possible for the Heads of Government to reach a conclusion, although the issues are extremely serious.
On direct elections, I notice that the right hon. Lady is constantly attempting to ensure that we are saddled with the responsibility for the delay. [Interruption.] Well, I am not denying it, so I do not see why hon. Members have to push it so hard. [Interruption.] The Opposition are so anxious to get a clear verdict on this. I have consulted the Leader of the House and, while I do not want to anticipate anything that he might have to say, I have a feeling that all hon. Gentleman on the Conservative Benches will have a chance of proving their virility before Christmas.
Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree that the most important part of the discussions was what he calls "pulling the Community out of recession and reducing unemployment"? If, as he claims, the Council agreed with his assesssment, is he able to tell us any more about what action it agreed might be taken?
Can he confirm or repudiate the suggestion that appeared in the Press that he and the Foreign Secretary appear to have abandoned all prospect of meeting the deadline on direct elections?
The Prime Minister: No. I shall be interested to see how the voting goes when the issue comes up. If the House takes a decision before Christmas, that in itself will decide on what date the elections can be held. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Opposition Members should not be so sensitive about this. They will have a chance of taking a decision, although I am not sure that they are so keen about taking a decision now that we are coming up to it.
1392
On the question of recession, the line to be pursued here—it is not the only line but it is a most important line—is that we are endeavouring to ensure that the discussions that have taken place between the United States and Japan are not concerned wholly with the relationship between those two great countries. The Community has a position on this, because the growth of the Japanese surplus is undoubtedly having a debilitating effect on the growth of economies elsewhere. I want to see these discussions broadened out as widely as possible.
No immediate conclusion can be drawn, but I asked the President of the Commission either to visit Japan—he probably will not do so, because he was there a few weeks ago—or perhaps to invite the Japanese to come to Brussels to discuss these matters more closely.
Mr. Noble: While discussing international trade did my right hon. Friend raise the question of the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement? Does he accept that there is some satisfaction about the renegotiation but grave concern about the transitional arrangements? If he did not raise it, will he take an early opportunity to raise the question of the transitional arrangement with his European partners?
The Prime Minister: This matter did not come up yesterday, but the Secretary of State for Trade is discussing these matters continuously and urgently with his colleagues in the European Community.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the Prime Minister in a position to say anything about the proposal that part of the resources of the Regional Development Fund are now to be applied directly by the Commission outside the national quota arrangement? When dealing with direct elections, did he explain to his colleagues that on the only day of the Committee proceedings so far, Ministers did not appear interested in making any progress with the legislation and Government business managers made no attempt to seek to close the prolonged debates largely maintained by Labour Back Benchers?
The Prime Minister: I have always understood that on matters of this sort it is out of order to discuss what happens

1393
on current debates or current Bills, whether at Question Time or following statements. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. The non-quota possibility arising out of the Fund was touched upon, but was not agreed. It has been left to the Finance Ministers or the Foreign Ministers to consider. In any case, it will only be a small proportion of the total Fund.
Mr. Stoddart: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the Financial Times on 3rd December indicating that the German Finance Minister expects British oil resources to be drawn into the Community? Did he tell the Council of Ministers that United Kingdom oil resources would remain under the control of the United Kingdom and that all financial benefits would accrue to this country? If he did not do so, will he do so now?
The Prime Minister: No emphasis is added by constantly reiterating a position that is well known. I did not actually see the report in the Financial Times, but I do not always believe all that I see, even in such a responsible and authoritative paper as that, especially when, as on this occasion, I was present at the meeting and know what was said.
Mr. Tapsell: Was there discussion by the Council of Ministers of the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 124 of the Treaty of Accession and Article 67 of the Treaty of Rome to make certain specific liberalisations in exchange control before 1st January next year? Is it the Government's intention to honour those obligations or to apply for a further derogation?
The Prime Minister: The matter was not raised.
Mr. Tapsell: What about derogation?
The Prime Minister: Since the matter was not raised at the Council, I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Jay: While I welcome the Prime Minister's success in limiting in some way the size of the United Kingdom budget contribution, can he confirm that, nevertheless, this year's contribution of about £700 million will rise by £400 million to over £1,100 million next year?
The Prime Minister: I cannot give the figures in total, but perhaps if my right hon. Friend puts down a Question he will get an answer. The actual increase in the United Kingdom's contribution to the budget will be £40 million out of a total deficit of £265 million. That £40 million will have to be added on to the contribution that we have already agreed.
Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind the enormous importance of the Middle East to the economic position of Europe and its economic future, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity of denying reports that he had been nudged by Mr. Begin into accepting that the EEC should take a less active rôle in the Middle East affairs?
The Prime Minister: No. I would not altogether deny that. Mr. Begin took the view—I have some sympathy with it—that at the present stage of direct discussions—now that for the first time the contestants have been brought face to face—it would be better if Europe adopted what in transatlantic terms is a supportive rôle rather than coming out with a solution of its own. That seemed to make a lot of sense. I put it to my European colleagues that we should not advocate solutions but should urge both parties into a proper negotiating position. I would certainly not press the Community to come out with more public statements. I conveyed that to my colleagues and I hope that the House will agree.
Mr. Watkinson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he detects a weakening in the resolve of the German Government to expand their economy since the Downing Street Summit? Will he continue to press as diplomatically as possible upon the German Government the necessity for them to lead an expansion in Europe if we are to move out of recession? Can he also indicate what the attitude of the United Kingdom Government is to economic and monetary union? Is it still one of opposition?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the German Government's resolve has changed, but I do not think that they had the success that they hoped for during the Downing Street Summit in May. Indeed, getting growth in the economy is a problem that is baffling all the members of the Community. I

1395
am bound to say—I hope that it will not be taken amiss—that this country is going to have a bigger improvement in its rate of growth next year than any other member of the Community, partly because of the success of the economic policy and partly because of North Sea oil.
My hon. Friend is right about having to proceed with some diplomacy in these matters, because we are concerning ourselves with the sovereign rights of another country. The German Chancellor understands our position on this and he has explained his position very clearly. I am quite certain that he would like to see a faster rate of growth if he can get it. I am sure that he and his Government will be working as hard as possible to get that and to reduce unemployment in Germany as, indeed, we all wish to see it reduced in France, Britain and elsewhere.
With regard to the economic and monetary union, I adopted the position that we have continuously adopted, namely, "Show me". Let us see how this new system can be of benefit to the United Kingdom in its recession as well as to Europe. I hope that it can be something more than another centralising unit. But so far I have not been able to see the relationship between the two. It is for the Commission and others who advocate this view to come forward and demonstrate this to us, if they can. If I were shown that this would be to the great advantage of the United Kingdom, we would want to look at it. So far, however, we have not seen that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I seek the help of the House? If hon. Members will limit themselves to one supplementary question each, that will enable me to call more of them. We are taking time out of a debate covered by a timetable motion.
Mr. Rees-Davies: Adhering to your advice, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister this question? In dealing with the Middle East, did he discuss the Cyprus problem, and is he willing to undertake an initiative in response to the letter and request of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for an initiative to try at least to go towards a solution of the problem?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We did not discuss Cyprus on this occasion. As regards the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I refer him to the earlier answer that I gave.
Mr. Roper: Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the 1,000 million units of account borrowing facility? Will this be lent to member States over a fixed period, or is it a revolving fund?
The Prime Minister: There is no time limit on the Fund. It will be handled by the European Investment Bank and it can be used for infrastructure as well as for direct investment in manufacturing and other industry.
Mr. Spearing: A few moments ago my right hon. Friend was optimistic about reaching some conclusion before Christmas on voting methods. Is he aware that the Committee is discussing only "Clause 1 stand part" and that it has only just started that discussion? Will he understand that his optimism will be interpreted as meaning that we shall have two days next week? Can he go further and tell us whether it will be a procedural motion or a two-day debate next week?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot answer any of those questions.
Mr. Crawford: May I bring the Prime Minister back to the question of steel, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? Did the Prime Minister meet Industry Commissioner Davignon? Since Industry Commissioner Davignon said that there should be an increase in investment in the steel industry in the EEC, why are the right hon. Gentlemen's Government decimating the steel industry in Scotland?
The Prime Minister: I did not meet Commissioner Davignon.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to increase the size of the Regional Fund will be welcomed in areas such as my own in the Northern Region? Can he say to what extent the United Kingdom will benefit from this proposal?
The Prime Minister: We have contributed about 21 per cent. to the Fund and we get back about 27 per cent. The

1397
net help to us will be about £30 million a year—perhaps £100 million over the three years.
Mr. Marten: As the Prime Minister discussed direct elections and as amendments on the subject which I wish to raise are out of order on the Bill before the House, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position about the pay and allowances of any directly elected Members? Is it for the Council of Ministers to decide the rate, or is it for the Assembly itself to do so? Certainly the Community is dragging its feet on this, and I am sure that no one on the Opposition Benches will vote for the Third Reading of the Bill unless we know the pay and allowances that are proposed.
The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a Question on the subject. We did not discuss it yesterday.
Mr. Dalyell: Is it premature to ask my right hon. Friend to enlarge upon what he said about some European rôle in the public services employment sector?
The Prime Minister: I cannot enlarge on that. It was one of the ideas which emerged from the discussion, but it was not made more concrete.
Mr. George Gardiner: When members of the Council were taking note of progress on direct elections, did the Prime Minister point out to them that the system proposed by the Government in the Bill was by no means inviolate and that, even if the House of Commons voted to accept a system of proportional representation, there was still considerable scope for argument about whether the economic planning regions provide the best basis for that and that, at the end of the day, in terms of the speed of implementation, there may not be very much difference between the systems proposed?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I did not point that out.
Mr. Flannery: When my right hon. Friend reported to his colleagues in Europe his discusions with Mr. Begin, was he able to convey to them that withdrawal from the occupied territories and a homeland for the Palestinians were essential prerequisites to achieving peace
1398
in the Middle East, because that is the only way in which we shall attain it?
The Prime Minister: The discussions with Mr. Begin, which I reported, were of great assistance to me in understanding the developments. For the first time, I found myself discussing with the responsible Israeli Prime Minister matters of substance instead of matters of procedure. I do not think that it would be helpful—indeed, it would not be proper—if I were to go into details about the nature of his approach to this problem. What is important now is that the two principal countries are meeting face to face and that we should encourage them to go on discussing these matters privately.
I have explained to Prime Minister Begin the view of Her Majesty's Government on these issues, and I am sure he will take that into account. I think that Mr. Begin and President Sadat, with whom I also had contact last week, will ensure that whatever discussions they have can be enlarged into a wider grouping of Arab States so that a comprehensive peace agreement can eventually be signed.
Mr. Crouch: Much as we admire the Prime Minister's achievements on the current economic problems of Europe, the Regional Development Fund and the budget achievement, is he aware that many Opposition Members are concerned at his failure to live up to the great traditions of British Prime Ministers to extend democracy in Europe and that, if anyone is dragging his feet today, it is the Prime Minister on this question of achieving direct elections next year?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) always tries to be a fair controversialist, I know. As regards direct elections, there have been great difficulties in this country and in the governing party. Everyone understands that. I have the responsibility of trying to ensure that we observe our obligations to Europe and that I do not divide my own party and allow in the Opposition. That is a perfectly understandable position—
Mr. Skinner: A national objective.
The Prime Minister:—as well as being a national objective! I agree with my hon. Friend. In pursuance of that, I seriously invite those of my hon. Friends

1399
who are opposed to this to allow us to reach a conclusion on this matter—
Mr. Skinner: In the national interest as well.
The Prime Minister: I have given a lot on this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has to give something, too. I think that we shall be able to reach a conclusion on this matter before Christmas. I understand that this is the prospect. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury will not think too badly of me.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting some generous concessions on the budget from our European partners. If his hopes of getting a resolution of the direct elections question are not borne out and there is little prospect of having them next year, will that mean that the other countries will go ahead, anyway, or will the remaining eight countries wait for us?
The Prime Minister: I understand that France especially would not want to go ahead unless we were there also. So I think that the consequence will be that, if we cannot meet the date, the elections will be postponed to 1979. I have said before and I repeat that that will not be the end of the world. After all, the Six waited for many years before we joined. It is now 20 years since the Community was established. I cannot believe that it will make all that difference if it is 21 years. What is important is that we should carry out these procedures properly. There is no great enthusiasm for European elections in any part of the country. What I think we have to do is to ensure, therefore, that there is a proper procedure and that the matter is properly carried through so that no one can complain at the end of the day that decisions were wrongly arrived at. But we have got to carry it through. We have all entered into an agreement to do so, and we must do so.
Mr. Rost: The Prime Minister referred to the discussions on energy conservation. When do the Government intend to bring forward some initiative so that we can do as much as is happening in Europe to pursue such policies?
The Prime Minister: It is an important question which is concerning the Government at present. I hope that over the next few months leading up to and perhaps including the budget some such measures may come forward. The Government have a series of propositions, and they have embarked upon a study of them.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that gone are the days when Prime Ministers came back to this House from Europe talking about the grand European design, with all the polished phrases and flourishes? Is not it significant that my right hon. Friend has nothing to offer and that all that he has been able to bring back is the demand for another payment to the Common Market? Is not it now apparent that only a large section of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House can stand up for the majority of the British people who are against the Common Market and want ultimately to get out of it?
The Prime Minister: That is the repetition of a well-known argument with which I totally disagree. One day, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover occupies this Dispatch Box, as I do, and he joins with his fellow Heads of Government in discussing these matters he will find that there is great advantage both politically in the Community arriving at a common approach to many significant world problems and—as he knows in his heart but will never acknowledge—in the growing interdependence of our economies, which makes it much more satisfactory that we should handle matters in this way. On one point I go along with my hon. Friend—I am against the harmonising of affairs in the Community for its own sake. The EEC must prove to me that harmonisation is worth while. If it does, I am there. If not, I am almost as bad as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, but not quite.
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the two hon. Members who have been rising throughout.
Mr. Adley: I agree with the importance of concentrating on major matters. In view of the difficulties which the EEC experiences in resolving major issues where there are conflicting interests, did the Prime Minister discuss the future of

1401
Europe's aerospace industry? If not, will he agree that there is a need for Heads of State to take the lead and form a plan to produce and maintain a European aerospace industry?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that and therefore I cannot add to what has been said in reply to Questions that have been put down. I agree that it is an important matter, but I do not know whether the Heads of Government meeting is the right arena for its discussion.
Mr. Newens: Can my right hon. Friend say how far it is now accepted that there can be no permanent solution to the Middle East problem without recognition of the national aspirations of the Palestinian people? What attitude is now being taken towards the Palestinian Liberation Organisation? Is there recognition that some representative voice of the Palestinians must be heard and must be present at any permanent peace conference?
The Prime Minister: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a significant sentence that was inserted in Prime Minister Begin's speech on Sunday night about the position of the Palestinian Arabs. I do not wish to go further than that at present. He recognises the need for discussion.
I have made clear our position on the PLO. While it fails to recognise the existence of Israel and to deny that existence, I do not see how we can have dealings with it.

POLISH SHIPBUILDING ORDERS
4.2 p.m.
Mr. Ridley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The disclosure that the Polish ships deal will cost the taxpayer £85 million, and the need for an immediate statement by Ministers on the financial arrangements."
I submit that this has become a specific matter because of the disclosures in the newspapers this morning. It is extremely
1402
important, partly because of the very large quantity of money which appears to be involved, and because of the extremely disadvantageous nature of the contract that that was fixed up. It makes the recent scandal over the Crown Agents seem like a vicarage tea-party.
The matter is urgent because speculation is rife about the Government's action in relation to this deal. We must have the facts. The facts were promised in another place some months ago, but the Government are refusing to disclose them, despite all their protestations about open government.
This is an intolerable situation because it leaves the House of Commons out of the control of its own financial arrangements for matters such as this. It leaves the Government unaccountable for what they have done in this shameful transaction. It threatens the jobs of thousands of British seamen who will be forced to go out of business if the ships are ever built.
The matter is of such scandalous and serious proportions that the Government must be brought to book. I request you, Mr. Speaker, to grant an early opportunity to debate this matter and for the Government to answer to the House about what they have done.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The disclosure that the Polish ships deal will cost the taxpayer £85 million, and the need for an immediate statement by Ministers on the financial arrangements."
The House knows that I do not have to decide on the importance of an issue. I am limited to the narrow question whether the business should take precedence over that set down for today or tomorrow.
I have taken into account everything that the hon. Member has said, but I have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

POLISH SHIPBUILDING ORDERS
  BILLS PRESENTED
    EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION
    Mr. Ted Fletcher, supported by Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Tom Urwin, Mr. Edwin Wainwright and Mr. Frederick Willey, presented a Bill to modify the duties of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service with respect to references of recognition issues: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 13].
    EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Ian Mikardo, supported by Mr. Ted Fletcher, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Tom Urwin, Mr. Edwin Wainwright and Mr. Frederick Willey, presented a Bill to validate agreements by independent trade unions for restricting references of recognition issues to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service; and to amend the law relating to unfair dismissal following lock-outs or strikes or other industrial action in connection with recognition issues; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27th January and to be printed [Bill 14].
    ESTATE AGENTS
    Mr. Bryan Davies, supported by Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Michael Ward and Mr. Ken Weetch, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the carrying on of, and to persons who carry on, certain activities in connection with the disposal and acquisition of property used or intended for use, in whole or in part, for residential purposes; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 15].
    PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, supported by Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Ken Weetch and Mr. John Cartwright, presented a Bill to prevent the exploitation of children by their use in the production of films or photographic material of an obscene or pornographic character: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10th February and to be printed [Bill 16].
    POST OFFICE WORKERS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION)
    Mr. Norman Buchan, supported by Mr. Denis Canavan, Mr. Joseph Dean, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Tom Urwin, Mr. John Ovenden and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth, presented a Bill to limit the extent to which industrial action by workers in the Post Office falls within the ambit of the criminal law: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17th February and to be printed [Bill 17].
    SMALL BUSINESSES (PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT) (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. David Mitchell on behalf of Mr. John Osborn, supported by Mr. David Mitchell, Mr. John Cope, Mr. John Love-ridge, Mr. Esmond Bulmer, Mr. John Wakeham, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. George Younger, Mr. Robert Rhodes James and Mr. Andrew MacKay, presented a Bill to assist in the creation of jobs by small businesses and others by providing for Industrial Tribunals to hold preliminary hearings in respect of claims for unfair dismissal and to exclude employment of less than one year from certain provisions of the law relating to employment protection: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24th February and to be printed [Bill 18].

    CONSUMER SAFETY
    Mr. Neville Trotter, supported by Sir Raymond Gower, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Hamish

    1405
    Watt, Mr. George Younger, Mr. Ronald Atkins, Mr. John Cope, Mr. Michael Thomas, Mr. Tony Newton, Mr. David Young and Mr. John Wakeham presented a Bill to make further provision for the safety of consumers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27th January and to be printed [Bill 19].

    COMPANIES (QUALIFICATION OF COMPANY SECRETARIES)
    Mr. John Cockcroft, supported by Sir John Hall, Mr. Michael Ward, Mr. George Gardiner, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Peter Hordern, Mr. Neville Trotter, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. Jack Dunnett, presented a Bill to make provision for the qualification of a person to act as Secretary to a company; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 20].
    SALE OF SALMON
    Mr. Peter Morrison, supported by Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. John Knott, Mr. Ian MacCormick, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. John Farr, Sir John Gilmour and Mr. Charles Morrison, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of salmon and sea trout unlawfully acquired and taken; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 21].
    ARMED FORCES (REPOSSESSION OF DWELLINGS)
    Mr. Churchill, supported by Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Julian Critchley, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Reg Prentice, Mr. Norman Tebitt, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, Mr. Victor Good-hew, Mr. Robert Banks and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to facilitate the repossession of dwellings owned by members of Her Majesty's Forces; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10th February and to be printed [Bill 22].
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. David Madel, supported by Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Michael Joplin, Mr. David Knox, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. David Mudd and Mr. Cranley Onslow, presented a Bill to enable electors who are away on holiday at the time of a Parliamentary election to vote by post or by proxy; to make provision in respect of the registration for electoral purposes of certain persons resident abroad; to make further provision for the registration for electoral purposes of wives and husbands of members of the armed forces; to provide for the correction of the register of electors; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17th February and to be printed [Bill 23].
    RATING
    Mr. Robert Hughes, supported by Mr. Hugh McCartney, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. David Price, Dr. Alan Glyn and Mr. John Hannam, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to relief from rates in respect of premises used by disabled persons and invalids; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 24].
    PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT
    Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, supported by Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Clement Freud, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. David Walder, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. William Shelton, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Norman Lamont, Sir Anthony Royle and Sir George Sinclair, presented a Bill to recognise, establish and make provision for a public lending right for authors; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24th February and to be printed [Bill 25].

    CIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION)
    Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, supported by Mr. Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Greville Janner,

    1407
    Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Edward Gardner, Mr. John Watkinson, Mr. Ian Lawrence and Mr. Kevin McNamara, presented a Bill to make new provision for contribution between persons who are jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage and in certain other similar cases where two or more persons have paid or may be required to pay compensation for the same damage; and to amend the law relating to proceedings against persons jointly liable for the same debt or jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 26].

    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
    Mr. Ronald Atkins, supported by Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Margaret Bain, Mr. Tom Litterick, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Stan Thorne and Mr. Leslie Spriggs, presented a Bill to provide for public access to information held by Department of State, local authorities and other public bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 27].
    CONTROL OF ENCAMPMENTS
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards, supported by Mr. Jerry Wiggin, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, Mr. John Wells and Mr. Richard Crawshaw, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to certain encampments and gatherings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 28].

    NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
    Mr. T. H. H. Skeet, supported by Mr. John Spence, Mr. Evelyn King, Mr. Keith Stainton, Mr. Frank Hooley, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. David Mudd, Mr. Neil Macfarlane and Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, presented a Bill to make provision for
    1408
    the development of the nuclear industry and the management and disposal of nuclear waste by the establishment of a Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Committee and a Nuclear Waste Disposal Corporation; to make provision with respect to the functions of each body; to authorise loans and guarantees in connection therewith; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 29].

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974 (AMEND MENT)
    Mr Ivor Clemitson, supported by Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. Dan Jones, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. John Cope, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mr. Bruce Grocott and Mr. Mike Thomas, presented a Bill to amend The Local Government Act 1974 with respect to investigations by Local Commissioners; and for purposes connected therewith. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 30].
    DUTIES OF COMPANY DIRECTORS
    Mr. Adam Butler, supported by Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Esmond Bulmer, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, Mr. Tim Renton and Mr. David Price, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the duties of directors of companies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 31].
    INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS
    Mr. William Whitlock, supported by Mr. Sydney Tierney, Mr. Philip Holland and Mr. Edward Lyons, presented a Bill to implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, adopted by The United Nations General Assembly in 1973: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 32].

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), the Motion relating to Energy Policy and Nuclear Energy may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock or for two hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Bates.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND BILL
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 5th December]
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. This will be a brief point of order.
  The Committee knows that we are in difficulty with amendments and clauses which are affected by the timetable motion and which are not called at all. I give you early warning, Mr. Murton, that some of us regard Amendments Nos. 144 to 146 as most important. We express the hope that when you are arranging these matters in advance it will be possible to take those amendments, so that there is the opportunity for the Committee to vote.
  The amendments relate to the British Waterways Board, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, and forestry interests, both public and private. All of those matters are now being added to subjects in which doctors, civil aviation experts and others are concerned. Various groups in Scotland are now becoming more aware of what is happening, and the more they are finding out, the less they like the Bill. This is a recurring pattern among those who are gaining knowledge of these provisions. Therefore, I hope that matters that affect groups of technical people in Scotland will be taken at some time when they can be discussed and voted upon.
  The Chairman: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all the points he raises in his point of order on specific amendments will be taken into account when the selection is made.

  SCOTLAND BILL

    Clause 35
    POWER TO MAKE CHANGES IN LAW CONSEQUENTIAL ON SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY ACTS
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 16, line 15, after 'Kingdom', insert
    'insofar but only insofar as it pertains to Scotland'.
    The Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 118, in page 16, line 21, after 'section', insert
    'if it affects any part of the United Kingdom whose government is not changed by this Act and'.
    Mr. Macmillan: Before I deal with the amendment, may I make a suggestion which may be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) who is now occupying the Opposition Front Bench and the Government to consider.
    I suggest that the Business Committee should be reconvened to see whether we may take "injury time" out of the proceedings on this Bill. What are already short debates on important clauses are being further curtailed by the necessary and equally important matters relating to Europe, the Polish ships order and other matters, but it seems a little hard that when we are under a timetable procedure we are unable to discuss such important matters as were raised a little earlier by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) relating to a number of groups of people in Scotland who will be affected by this legislation.
    I hope that these matters will be discussed between the Front Benches so that we may not lose any time that has been allocated to us. This will be unlikely to add more than three-quarters of an hour to the proceedings and will not normally mean the Committee sitting after midnight. I hope that this matter will be considered through the usual channels.
    If I may deal with the amendment, I hope during this discussion to obtain an answer to the question I put to the Minister of State last night on Clause 34. I shall ask it again because it is also relevant to Clause 35 and to Amendment No. 115. If a United Kingdom Minister, whether acting on his own or as agent for a Scottish Secretary or Scottish Assembly, wishes to obtain information from a Scottish Secretary or the Assembly, he can do so if the Secretary of State for Scotland so requests. However, this House cannot insist that a Minister, who is accountable to us in theory at least, should be able to obtain through the Secretary of State from a Scottish Secretary information relating to actions of Ministers, who again are theoretically responsible to this House, when
    1412
    acting as agents or on their own. It is an important factor that this House cannot get its hands on such information, and the situation will be doubly uncertain if this amendment to Clause 35 is not accepted by the Government.
    Clause 35 as it stands means that the Government of the day can use their majority to push through an order in council on subordinate legislation which under the rules of this House cannot be amended but must be accepted or rejected. Such an Order in Council can enable the Assembly to legislate for the United Kingdom. This legislation will mean that we shall be unable to obtain information from the Assembly because it cannot be forced to provide such material. That situation arises because of our failure to amend Clause 34 since an Order in Council allows the Assembly to legislate for other parts of the United Kingdom. United Kingdom Members of Parliament, Scottish as well as English, will be powerless to obtain information which they require in order to see what the Assembly is up to. That Assembly can even alter the provisions of this Bill because it says so specifically.
    The Government by Order in Council can alter the provisions of this legislation once enacted, including Schedule 2. Schedule 2 governs the legislative competence of the Assembly. Therefore, by Order in Council which is unable to be amended by any Member of this House, subject—and one is grateful for small mercies—to the affirmative procedure, the Government may use their majority to alter the legislative competence of the Assembly, whether the Assembly likes it or not, and indeed whether it is requested by the Assembly. They can increase or decrease those powers. This will be asking for trouble. If the powers of the Assembly are increased at the expense of this House, that will cause trouble here, and if its powers are decreased in other ways it will cause trouble in the Assembly.
    I shall not repeat previous discussions on the relationship between a devolved Assembly and this House. The nature of our amendments makes that situation clear. It is fitting in some ways that Clause 35 should be the first clause under the subheading that always tends to be a most sinister element in a Bill—that is, the subheading that refers to the

    1413
    supplementary and reserve powers that the Government are seeking and which they are, as usual, saying they will not need to use, but which will be used in fact by some later government to the detriment of the liberties of the people.
    We have received, as usual, during the course of debates on the Bill, the normal ministerial defences of the extension of powers. We have heard the defence that as in the Victorian story of the illegitimate child—this extension of power is only a little one and not very important. We have heard the defence that the situation that has been described by hon. Members on both sides of the House is unlikely to occur. I do not accept that any more, and I hope that the rest of the House and the country will not either, for time has proved it false.
    I was a junior Treasury Minister in 1963 and I remember the arguments about ministerial discretion put forward during the course of legislation on export credit guarantees. Even then we were not strangers to incomes policy, but at no time then did anyone imagine that credit would be refused to a firm to force it to carry out an incomes policy—that was not even a policy but simply a guideline—and that it would be used to expand Government by prerogative away from the will of Parliament and the people.
    Throughout their history this Government have made any defence of unlikelihood untenable. They have allowed powerful groups to operate beyond the rule of law and have themselves operated unconstitutionally and extended Government prerogative to an extent that would make a Stuart green with jealousy. They are continuing to do that through the legislation introduced in this clause.
    There is a total of four amendents down to this clause, and, together, they are intended to do two things. They would legitimise the Long Title of the Bill. The Long Title now says:
    "To provide for changes in the government of Scotland and in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies."
    As the clause now stands, it is plain that "certain public bodies" includes the Government of the whole of the United Kingom, as well as affecting hon. Members and the Crown. If it were amended the Bill would indeed be about the government of Scotland.
    1414
    The second object of the amendments is to make the marginal description of Clause 35 truthful. Not only is the Title entirely false as it now stands, but so is the marginal description of the clause. It says that it is a clause giving
    "Power to make changes in law consequential on Scottish Assembly Acts."
    It is more than that. However, it would become only that if one of the amendments—I think it is Amendment No. 117—were accepted by the Government because that would remove the words "or expedient" so that the Bill would read:
    "further provision as appears to Her to be necessary in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act"
    The removal of the words "or expedient" would go some way towards justifying the description of this clause as making consequential changes following Scottish Assembly Acts. No doubt the Government will say that is what they wish to use the clause for, so why not amend the clause so that it cannot be used for another purpose—as it can be now?
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Administration that brought before the House the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill 1973 and that there is an almost entirely similar provision in Section 38(2) of that legislation. Did the right hon. Gentleman feel these doubts at the time that that was discussed?
    Mr. Macmillan: Even the most stubborn, bloody-minded expatriate Scot can learn from experience. I wish that the Government Front Bench could do so, too.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am probably the last hon. Member here who should say this and it should not lie in my mouth, but the Committee is in difficulties because it seems that the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) is discussing the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I ask whether we are on Amendments Nos. 115 and 118. Some of us think that Amendment No. 430 is extremely important. Does the Chair wish us to make our speeches before the guillotine in one lump and leave it at that?
    The Chairman: I disagree with that point of order. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) is speaking to his amendment, and I do not intend to amend the selection in any way.
    Mr. Macmillan: I take the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian, and I, too, think that Amendment No. 430 is important.
    Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 would confine subsections (1) and (2) to Scotland and the people of Scotland. The wording of the two amendments is slightly different but, together, they are designed to confine the clause to Scotland. Amendment No. 430 is part of the same scheme, because there is a danger of the powers of the Act being extended if there is an Order in Council. That would automatically happen if Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 were not carried. If they were not carried, Amendment No. 430 would be even more important. Equally, Amendment No. 117 is included in the amendments that we are now discussing because that would remove the expediency reason for using the powers contained in the clause. It is therefore the weakest of the amendments.
    The Chairman: Order. I said that we were now discussing Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 together, in answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian who raised the point, and I said specifically that the selection was shown in the way that it is. We are discussing Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 only.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am sure that if the Committee were wise enough to carry these amendments the point that the hon. Member for West Lothian wanted to make in the other amendments would be covered. If one considers how the wording of Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 would alter it, the clause becomes clear. I shall not read them now in order to save time.
    If one asked what these amendments would take away from the people of Scotland the answer would be "Nothing". That is partly because Schedule 2, paragraph 8 enables the Assembly to legislate on borderline cases. We have already discussed that and therefore, from the Assembly's point of view there will be no need for extra powers to enable the Assembly to legislate for the United Kingdom in the way that
    1416
    these amendments seek to prevent. The amendments take away the power of the Executive to decide, in a form unamendable by the House, to use its majority to put forward changes that could not be altered, that, because of what happened on Clause 34, could probably not be questioned in operation, and that would thereby increase the power of the Executive.
    4.30 p.m.
    It one looks at the whole group of clauses in this part of the Bill, one can see that they are a cynical preparation that will enable the Bill, once it becomes an Act, to be extended to cover separation or federation with the minimum amount of amendment and possibly even by Order in Council. That seems to be possible under Clause 35 as it stands. It is a more dangerous extension of administrative power than we have seen for a long time and it is more likely to cause conflict than anything we have seen for some time. It is all the more sinister because, in putting it through, the Government seem almost unconscious of the dangers they are about to face.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend see any reason, under the clause as it stands, to prevent a Scottish Assembly from insisting on separation and the Government in this country making an Order in Council, consequential upon that, permitting the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom? Where is there anything in the clause, if it is not amended, to prevent that?
    Mr. Macmillan: That is a valid point which can be developed later. I had deliberately left out the awkward constitutional points which this could raise, but since my hon. Friend has brought them in, I must say that there is something extremely distasteful about using an Order in Council, which is debatable, but not amendable, and to put it into a Bill in this form, to make major constitutional changes that will put the Crown in an extremely difficult position. No Privy Councillor should do that.
    Unless the amendments are accepted, the Bill will apply to the United Kingdom. I do not see how any amendment or new clause referring to the government of the United Kingdom, England, Wales

    1417
    or Northern Ireland in relation to Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole can be out of order. If the amendments are not acceptable to the Government, the Committee must look to new clauses—some of which have already been put down and will be followed by others—to limit the powers of Scottish Members here and to discuss their numbers and constituencies and the problems of regionalism in other parts of the United Kingdom. There will also have to be new schedules listing those matters which must never be devolved. That negative power will be required in any Act that contains this clause as it stands.
    Mr. Dalyell: Last night, the Minister of State referred to nightmares that I might have about the Bill. In the nightmares, one canard which does not feature is one of the issues implicit in Amendment No. 115. I do not think that it does the case which I and others put forward very much good to claim that the Scottish Assembly will be able to make many laws affecting England. There may be minor problems from time to time, but I do not see this as a major problem, and I wish to put that on the record.
    Some of us want to hurry on to Amendment No. 430, so let me just put this question to the Minister of State. Is it realistic to say exactly what the devolved and non-devolved powers are to be?
    The memorandum of the Faculty of Advocates issued on 22nd February 1977 says on page 3, paragraph 4:
    "the Faculty expressed the view that it was impossible to draw a satisfactory line of demarcation between devolved and non-devolved matters in the manner proposed in the White Paper. The provisions in the Bill, which are discussed in more detail below, reinforce that view."
    Of course, that was the Scotland and Wales Bill, but I get the impression—though the Faculty has not yet produced a memorandum on this Bill—that many of the difficulties that it went on to outline between devolved and non-devolved matters are continued in this Bill.
    May I ask the Minister of State, when he is speaking for the Government and as a lawyer—in the presence of the Lord Advocate—whether in light of the fears expressed by the Faculty, the distinction between devolved and non-devolved mat
    1418
    ters is adequate? This is an issue which arises at various stages in the Bill and not least out of Amendment No. 115.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Minister of State has just used the Northern Ireland Bill as a precedent, but he will realise that it was passed in very different circumstances from the passing of this Bill. In fact, it was passed in emergency circumstances. Are we now discussing this Bill in emergency circumstances in Scotland? I do not think so. I think that we are discussing a straightforward and substantial constitutional change. The clause makes one of the most major changes in the whole Bill.
    The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that he did not think that the Scottish Assembly would wish to legislate for England or for any other part of the United Kingdom than Scotland, but that is not the point of the clause. It gives power to the Secretary of State here, by Order in Council, to alter the laws of the United Kingdom consequential upon a Scottish Assembly Act.
    Mr. Harry Gourlay: Subject to the approval of the House.
    Mr. Page: Subject to approval by having before us a draft which cannot be debated line by line or amended.
    Mr. Gourlay: We shall be able to vote.
    Mr. Page: Indeed, we shall be able to reject it, but why bother with the Bill at all if that sort of legislation on major constitutional matters is to be pushed through by the majority in power at the time?
    Let me give a fairly simple example. Under the schedule of devolved powers, the Scottish Assembly can legislate on criminal penalties. Suppose that it decided to pass an Act restoring capital punishment. I admit that I should be delighted, but take the case of two muggers who mug someone in Liverpool and then go to Glasgow and mug someone else there. Say that one returns to Liverpool and is convicted there and the other remains in Glasgow and is convicted there. The one in Glasgow might get thrashed while the one in Liverpool might be put on probation. There would be an outcry.

    1419
    People would say that we cannot have that and that it is most expedient for the same penalties to apply in Scotland and in England.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am not sure which courts the right hon. Gentleman has been in recently. My impression was that when offenders came before the same court there could be different punishments for the same offences, depending on the circumstances. In any event, the laws in Scotland are different, and in some cases the penalties for certain offences and crimes are different. I cannot see what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at.
    Mr. Page: When I endeavour to give a colourful example, it is natural that hon. Members should try to pick holes in it. Let me pick a hole in what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said. Let us suppose that birching was made mandatory in Scottish law. That is one case in which the Scottish law might be changed. There might be two people who have exactly the same blame and responsibility for an offence but would be punished differently. There would then be an outcry that the law and the penalties should be the same in both countries, and, therefore, it would be necessary or expedient under the clause to alter the laws of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is experienced in legal matters, despite what I indicated earlier. Is he suggesting, because of his contention that the same laws should apply and that there should be the same penalties in all parts of the United Kingdom, that Scots law should be integrated with English law to form a common code under which each citizen of the United Kingdom could live? The right hon. Gentleman is on the horns of a dilemma. He has to admit that the Scottish legal system is distinct and separate and that the people of Scotland want it that way, but he is also trying to get round the fact that the system needs to be nurtured and taken care of within its own legislative framework.
    Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is suffering from two misconceptions. I am not advocating that the law should be the same. I am saying that it may
    1420
    be thought necessary or expedient that it should be the same. [Interruption.] I seem to have lost the attention of the Committee for some reason, but it is only a temporary distraction.
    One can apply this argument not only to the example of corporal punishment but to any aspect of law where the Secretary of State here will think it necessary or expedient to have uniformity in the law. That is not legislating for Scotland. It is legislating for the United Kingdom to bring the law into line with some provision of a Scottish Assembly Act, which can come before the House of Commons by an Order in Council under Clause 35. That order need not apply to Scotland in any way. Under this clause it can be justified by the Minister who advises the Crown saying that it appears to him that it is necessary or expedient to have uniformity in the law on the subject in question. The Minister therefore lays an Order in Council in draft before the House for affirmative approval.
    It has been suggested that, because the draft order will be laid before the House and will need affirmative resolution before it is passed, that procedure is quite safe because we can debate the order and possibly even reject it against the Government's majority at the time. I am sure that hon. Members know perfectly well what happens to a draft order when it is laid before the House and is backed by the Whips: it goes through. We cannot debate it or put down amendments to it. It is not like ordinary legislation at all. It can be steamrollered through by the Government in office, justified merely by the fact that an Act of the Scottish Assembly has been passed—uncontrollable by the House of Commons—which makes it, in the opinion of a Secretary of State here advising Her Majesty, necessary or expedient that we alter our law here.
    4.45 p.m.
    These amendments would prevent such a happening because they would restrict anything done by such an Order in Council to Scotland. It might well be necessary, and the House might so consider, that the Secretary of State here should advise Her Majesty to make an alteration in the law of Scotland to correct something which the House thought had

    1421
    been wrongly done by the Scottish Assembly. These amendments would restrict such matters to alterations in the law of Scotland.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said, the amendment would legitimise the clause in line with the Long Title—
    "changes in the government of Scotland."
    But the clause as it stands provides for alterations in the laws of the whole United Kingdom, and to that extent it ought not to remain in the Bill unamended.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall be brief, having in mind the point already made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), that there are other important amendments which the Committee wishes to consider. But I must protest at the outset that it is a disgrace to the House of Commons that matters of this importance have to be dusted aside without adequate discussion and that further amendments on the Notice Paper will not be dealt with as they should be by a sovereign Parliament simply because a guillotine has been imposed and, what is more, made worse by the fact that we are not even allowed the injury time consequent upon the statement made by the Prime Miniter.
    I ask you, Mr. Murton, to take seriously the initial point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) when he suggested that the Business Committee ought to consider whether the guillotine procedures could at least give us the injury time that we lose as a result of statements. [Interruption.] This is a matter which concerns all parties in the House, and I hope that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) will agree that it should be put and will support it.
    The clause as it stands would provide a licence to the Government of the day to commit a constitutional outrage on the English. Whether there be precedents in Northern Ireland legislation or not, what it does, in effect, is to permit a subordinate Assembly in one relatively small part of the United Kingdom to trigger off changes in the law, made under delegated powers, which are unamend
    1422
    able and which will affect the rest of the population.
    There are, of course, the two provisos. The first is that the Government of the day should believe such a change to be necessary or expedient. But Governments always think that their legislation is necessary or expedient. Otherwise, they would not bring it forward. The second proviso is that the draft Order in Council shall be laid and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) have plainly shown that that does not permit effective amendment, modification or revision. That procedure means only that, perhaps late at night, a major change will be brought forward and be steamrollered through without discussion.
    We are not speaking here of minor changes. We are speaking of changes which can affect the lives of all our constituents in any of the matters within the purview of the Scottish Assembly—matters affecting education, transport and so forth—the warp and woof of the life of the people of this country.
    If the Scottish Assembly were to decide to extend its powers, if it wished for example, to move into fields different from those within the Bill, and the Government of the day were to conclude that it was necessary or expedient by a draft Order in Council to permit that action to be legitimated, all that the Government would need to do under the clause as it stands would be to lay such an Order in Council and bring it before the House. Then, if there were a majority available to them, that would be the end of it, and the Scottish Assembly's action would be thus legitimated.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that any such action by the Scottish Assembly would be ultra vires under the powers provided by the Bill.
    Mr. Griffiths: As the clause stands, if the Government took the view that it was necessary or expedient and consequential upon an action of the Scottish Assembly, it would be open to the Minister of the day to bring before the House an Order in Council of that kind.
    Mr. John Smith: With respect, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he suggested that the Assembly might extend its own powers and that that would be legitimated by use of the Order in Council. I am pointing out that the Assembly would have no such powers. It would be ultra vires under the powers in the Bill, so the condition precedent which would have to be met to make it "in consequence of" could not arise.
    Mr. Griffiths: With respect to the Minister, I ask him to examine line 16 of Clause 35, where he will see the words in brackets:
    "including any provision contained in this Act."
    It is precisely "this Act" which sets out where the vires stand or do not stand, and, as I see it, so long as those words within brackets remain, it would be possible for the Scottish Assembly to move into areas which its majority might legitimately think that its competence included. The Government might agree or disagree. I do not wish to carry on an extended argument, but does the Minister wish to intervene again?
    Mr. John Smith: I do not wish to bandy words with the hon. Gentleman across the Floor, but the Committee ought to remember that the point of the clause is that it has to be "in consequence of" an Act of the Scottish Assembly. The Assembly has no power to extend its powers, so provision could not be used in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I leave it at that, but I want the Committee to be under no misapprehension such as that into which the hon. Gentleman, perhaps quite innocently, may be leading it.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to the Minister, and I shall not continue to debate with him across the Floor, but I ask him to look carefully at the clause. I shall be obliged if he will put in writing to me his reading of the situation.
    Mr. John Smith indicated dissent.
    Mr. Griffiths: I come now to my second point, a simple and practical point, and I shall be brief because I know that others wish to speak and we want to get on. By these amendments we seek to prevent an English backlash. I must give the Minister a warning. If we have a situation in which the English believe
    1424
    themselves to be discriminated against, as, indeed, they are by the Bill, and they find that, because the Scottish Assembly has taken some action—the Minister and I can debate whether it be within the vires or not—touching education, punishment, local government or transport, and the Government of the day conclude that it is necessary or expedient to extend that action of the Scottish Assembly to the rest of the United Kingdom, that will be done.
    But I warn the Minister that the English, though slow to anger, will sooner or later grasp what is being done. They will come to understand that the Scottish over-representation in the House of Commons is working to their disadvantage and that special and unique provisions made available to the Scottish Assembly are not available to the English. They will conclude that they are being discriminated against, and their anger, though slow to rise, will be sure, fierce and never ending.
    If the Minister does not like these amendments, let him say how he will achieve their purpose, which, quite simply, is to prevent a situation in which actions of the Scottish Assembly can trigger off Orders in Council which apply to the English without the English representatives in the House of Commons having any opportunity by argument to amend, to revise, or to modify such Orders in Council brought in by the Government of the day.
    The representatives of the English will be able to vote—the Minister is right about that—but they will not be able to amend, revise or modify anything brought before the House under delegated legislation arising from some action of the Scottish Assembly.
    That cannot be right. I warn the Minister that, unless he can deal with this point, he will be sowing the seeds of great anger among the English, anger which he and I will come to regret.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree totally with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said about over-representation in Scotland. I should like to see that overrepresentation continue because of the nature of Scotland, but it is a fact that is as clear as daylight that from the moment

    1425
    the Bill becomes an Act, if it does, the days of over-representation for Scotland are limited. The pressure from England for a reduction in the number of Scottish Members will grow swiftly.
    I cannot agree with my hon. Friend about appealing to the Government to allow "injury" time. It is a farce to pretend that there is proper opportunity to debate the full implications and provisions of the Bill. If there were injury time it would, in the nature of things, clearly be limited. It might have the effect of salving the Government's conscience, but it would do nothing in reality to reduce the farce. It is better to leave the Government to get on with it and to take the full blame for the inadequate opportunity that they are allowing us to debate the Bill.
    Clause 35 as it stands is yet another example of how inadequate is the limitation of the extent of the powers and provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) rather surprisingly said that on this occasion he was not unduly concerned. I think I am right in saying that he said that the clause is not one of the major problems, although occasionally it might cause minor problems. The hon. Gentleman may be proved right, but there is no certainty about what he said.
    Mr. Dalyell: How were the citizens of Devizes or Bury St. Edmunds affected by what was done in Stormont?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not think that that is a reasonable parallel. We are dealing with a totally different situation. What may or may not have happened in Stormont in the past is not necessarily a precedent for what might have happened if Stormont had continued to exist.
    I emphasise a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds touched. When the electors in England vote for a Member of Parliament, whether their choice is elected or not, they expect the person elected to be responsible, so far as he or she can be, for the course of events controlled until now from the House of Commons. If the clause is left unamended, the majority choice of the electorate will no longer be in such a position of power to exer
    1426
    cise influence on events. There is no doubt in my mind but that the Assembly will not merely exercise direct control in Scotland. The fact is that it will affect the course of events and the nature of the law in England.
    Mr. James Dempsey: I am interested in the argument that the hon. Gentleman is advancing and I ask him to answer a question. When he talks about the Scottish Assembly influencing the law of England, is he suggesting, for example, that the Scottish Assembly could activate an issue presented under the auspices of the Secretary of State in an Order in Council to interfere with the immigration laws of this country?
    Mr. Morrison: That is precisely what I am suggesting. In my interpretation of the clause, that is what could easily happen if the Bill should become an Act.
    5.0 p.m.
    When the Minister of State replies, he will argue that that is not the case and that the Bill is not like that. I suspect that he will argue as he did when we were debating certain consequences of Schedule 2(8), but in my opinion we must judge the Bill as it is drafted and not on the basis of the opinion of the Minister of State. The hon. Gentleman may put a reasonable and attractive interpretation upon what is in the Bill, but there is no certainty that others will interpret this measure, should it become an Act, in the same way.
    I hope that for once the Minister will accept an Opposition amendment. If he does not, I believe that yet again he will be adding to the sum total of conflict, muddle and disillusionment among the public. I am thinking of the public in England as well as in Scotland, because, above all, it is those in England who will be indirectly affected by what we are now debating.
    Mr. William Small: Once again there is the appearance of the English disease and the repetitive position of the English. All I know about the English is that they are haunted by ghosts and ghoulies, usually headless, clanking their chains through their castles enveloped in fear and terror.

    1427
    This is the most poorly drafted amendment that I have ever seen. It seeks to insert
    "insofar but only insofar as it pertains to Scotland".
    I hope that some legal luminary will be able to tell me the meaning of that repetitive phrase. This legal jargon is not even literal. It does not mean a thing. To that extent it is an imperfect amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "to that extent", which is "insofar".
    Mr. Small: Very well, let us say pro tanto. I want to clear my mind and the minds of others. It may be that those who have tabled the amendment are talking to the innocent. The meaning of the clause is perfectly simple in every aspect. It is well drafted.
    It seems that the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) is afraid of a red Socialist revolution and an Assembly in Scotland. That is his great fear. He need have no fear of the SNP, because at best its members are tartan albinos. They have no red blood in their veins. If we talk about the Loch Ness Monster or the White Stag of Arran, these picturesque topics will surely attract the English to visit the Assembly to observe it operating. They will have an interest in the preservation of Scotland's environmental amenities.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small), bearing in mind the interesting phrases that he produces. I am sure that we all enjoy his contributions.
    It has been said that this is a fairly simple clause. So it is. We are dealing with an amendment that seeks to weaken it and to prevent it from taking the effect that the Government have in mind.
    I know that we cannot fully trust margin notes, but in this instance the note reads:
    "Power to make changes in law consequential on Scottish Assembly Acts".
    I suspect that the Minister will explain some of the trip wires that exist before any Scottish Assembly Act can take effect and before the procedure under the clause can be operated.
    1428
    It is clear that many of the worries expressed, particularly by Conservative Members, have been exaggerated, and if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not fear the consequences of this particular clause and says it is a de minimis situation which will rarely be invoked, hon. Members need not worry too much about it [Interruption.] I hope always that the arguments are related to the amendment and the clause.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Although the fears of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) may not be very great, is the hon. Member convinced that our interpretation of the clause cannot be realised?
    Mr. Wilson: I would probably like to see the clause in much stronger terms allowing for continual upgrading of the powers of the Assembly. I am not sure that I am satisfied with the clause as at present worded, but that is to approach the matter from the other point of view.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the hon Member not agree that it would be most helpful to the Committee on this difficult matter if some of the shadow Law Officers were present?
    Mr. Wilson: Whether the shadow Law Officers or the Law Officers themselves are present is a matter for the Government and the Opposition to determine.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made the valid point that he wanted to see a stronger wording of the clause. One of the difficulties with the clause without our amendments is that it is possible for the Assembly to act in such a way that a Minister would be entitled to say that an Order in Council laid before this House would be consequential, when the purpose of that Order in Council was to reduce the powers of the Assembly consequent upon its actions and would thereby lead to conflict between the Assembly and this House.
    Mr. Wilson: The valid point is the one about conflict. However, I would look at the matter from another aspect. One of the repeated arguments against this Bill is that the Scottish Assembly would be in a continual state of trench warfare

    1429
    with Whitehall and Westminster. The clause seeks to provide an area in which there can be co-operation, where the rigidity of statutory terms in the Bill can in certain respects be relaxed, and where, should difficulties arise under Clause 35, action can be taken through an Order in Council to remedy those difficulties.
    If hon. Members have any worries about the situation, they must surely be alleviated by the fact that an order must be laid before and approved by each House of Parliament—not just the democratically elected House of Commons, but the undemocratically selected or inherited House of Lords. The two Houses of Parliament, dominated by a substantial English majority, have, unfortunately, the last say. So I cannot see why this set of amendments is necessary in the context of Clause 35.
    If hon. Members were worried about the prospect of difficulty between the Scottish Assembly and the House of Commons, it could arise over the delay in getting enabling legislation through the House of Commons, thus creating a situation whereby Scottish Assembly Acts are partly in force, but are affected by the need for parallel legislation within the House of Commons. We know and have had experience of this in relation to Scots law when there tends to be a delay before the law of Scotland is given effect. We have before us the chance of a quick method by which minor changes—and I stress that—can be made in order to bring Scottish Assembly Acts into force in the way intended.
    The argument being adopted by hon. Members in support of these amendments would tend towards the contrary effect. I have one question for the Minister concerning the extent to which he feels that any doubt or confusion about the powers of the Assembly might be clarified. If there is sufficient doubt to make a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council necessary, that sort of doubt, which is a genuine doubt and not one arising from political conflict, would have to be resolved by separate Westminster legislation. If there is doubt as to whether the Scottish Assembly has power to legislate in a given way in terms of the interpretation of the Bill, would Clause 35, amended or unamended, be sufficient
    1430
    to allow such necessary clarifying changes to take place?
    The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) did not answer to my satisfaction the question of a possible demand emerging that in the United Kingdom there should be one law for crimes of a similar nature with the same penalties in Scotland and England. Regardless of my political stance, I believe that there is a strength in diversity as well as the oft-quoted strength in unity about which we hear so much in this House. It is a strength when there are different codes of law because they can have a cross-pollinating effect and strengthen each other at times. There must be times when the principles can become confused as between one court of law and another, and the law therefore weakened.
    Mr. Graham Page: What would the hon. Member say if the Secretary of State advised Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to bring the Scottish law into line with the English law, because that could be done under the clause?
    Mr. Wilson: The mistake that the right hon. Gentleman is making is to look at the terms of the Bill and the Scottish Assembly in a vacuum. In practice, these things would not happen, and unless and until there was opinion in Scotland and England for such radical changes, they would not take effect. However, I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would suggest as an improvement the assimilation of the Scottish legal system with that of England.
    I do not foresee any real difficulty with the operation of the clause. I see no need for the amendments which have been suggested by the Opposition. I hope in this case that they will have the grace to withdraw them rather than put the House to the unnecessary trouble of rejecting them.
    Mr. Dempsey: I shall be brief in view of the desire of the Committee to proceed to other amendments. However, I have been trying to follow the arguments of right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, especially in the light of my study of Clause 35. I understood that the Scottish Assembly had certain limited powers and had been delegated certain functions, and it is in those areas that the Assembly is entitled,

    1431
    through the Secretary of State, to improve and strengthen the operation of those functions. I can see no argument against that.
    However, I fail to understand how that can be interpreted to mean that the Scottish Assembly could ultimately bring about alterations in the laws and policies of the United Kingdom. That is what the Conservatives are arguing. How could anyone by any stretch of the imagination suggest that the Assembly, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, could activate a change of policy in the endeavours to secure a settlement in Rhodesia? That is what is being said this afternoon.
    I think that very heavy weather is being made of these amendments, which are unnecessary. When the Assembly gets into operation and applies the powers legislated for by this House, it will realise that it must be able to change and strengthen those powers, and there is no reason why it should not be allowed to do so. There is no reason why the rest of the United Kingdom should not fall into line with Scotland if the Scots are operating a sounder and more sensible policy. It would not be the first time that such a thing has happened. Only recently I supported a successful amendment to police legislation to bring English provisions into line with those of Scotland.
    5.15 p.m.
    In many of these respects there will be a certain amount of gain from experience. Why should not the Scottish people have the power to decide for themselves? For example, if in their wisdom they decide that young people should attend an educational or training establishment until they are 18, surely they are entitled to do that. If that proves to be a more sensible approach than that taken in the rest of the United Kingdom, it is up to Parliament to examine it.
    I become rather annoyed and irritated at the constant references to the 71 Members of Parliament from Scotland. One would think that the United Kingdom Parliament had no control over Scotland, but it has. The Scottish Assembly will operate through a block grant which is approved by the House of Commons. If
    1432
    that grant is £1,000 million, the Assembly will have to operate within that total. If it is £3,000 million, the Assembly will be able to build more houses and provide more opportunities. That grant will be determined by the House of Commons. We shall have the ultimate control over what is spent north of the border.
    Having listened to all the arguments, I feel that the Minister of State is on the right lines. It would be a mistake if he were to accept any of the amendments and thereby prevent the Scottish Assembly from improving itself.
    Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has made a valuable contribution to the debate. He brought us some common sense and I appreciate what he has said.
    I am not guided by a knowledge of constitutional law or by the party Whips. The divisions on the Bill go right across party lines. Although I represent a South of England constituency, I do not argue on the basis of the so-called "Deep South" opposition to Home Rule. Yesterday I listened to much of the debate, but I made no contribution. Today I have listened to the whole debate and I find that it has not been a waste of time. I give all the contributors to the debate the benefit of the doubt by saying that not one of them has been trying to trip up the Bill on its way to becoming law.
    I shall not be sorry to see the Bill become law, although it is not perfect in all its parts. I am not well versed, experienced or guided in any way on constitutional law, but perhaps as we proceed we shall find elements in the Bill which, after our mature consideration, will be seen in the light of experience. Perhaps we shall discover that the Assembly and the working of the Bill are not so much deficient as not efficient. We might discover situations which are seen to be to the disadvantage of good devolved government in and by Scotland and to good legislation in the United Kingdom. We may have to improve the situation.
    In the last 50 years—or perhaps it is 500 years—we have had only one experiment at dispersing government from Westminster. We are not experienced in creating new constitutional legislation.
    Mr. Nick Budgen: It appears that my hon. Friend believes that the Committee wishes to give too few powers to the devolved Assembly. Does my hon. Friend support this clause? He seems to want to make it easier for the Scottish Assembly to have bigger and better powers as it has bigger and better conflicts with the House of Commons.
    Mr. Crouch: One of the dangers of giving way is that one might lose one's way. I do not wish to do that. I respect my hon. Friend's intervention, but I believe that there is a feeling among many hon. Members who are against the Bill that we should constrain and restrict the powers of the Assembly so that it becomes nothing more than a window display in Edinburgh. That is not my view.
    I am very much an Englishman. I am concerned about my constituents and that I should continue to be able to represent them here. I am anxious that I should be able to exercise my responsibility to them in the United Kingdom. But I do not want to create something that is no more than a constitutional joke in Scotland.
    I am not against a measure of Home Rule for Scotland. I use that phrase advisedly. I do not take constitutional advice, but I listened with exasperation yesterday to the frightened voices of those who love this Parliament and who are afraid to give any powers of decision-making to the Scottish Assembly.
    It would be quite wrong to assume that the Government, in their drafting of this legislation, have left an open-ended arrangement for Scottish legislation which could affect legislation in the United Kingdom. I understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) wishes to insert the words that he suggests in order to constrain the Scottish Assembly in its relationship to this Parliament. I understand his concern that there should be no possible chance of a measure passed by the Assembly altering the law of the United Kingdom. Without the advice of constitutional lawyers, I believe that Clause 35(2) contains sufficient provision.
    I do not want us to encourage an English backlash. I do not want people outside the Committee to feel that there
    1434
    is a growing backlash here which they can take up themselves. We must not encourage the English to feel that we are giving the Scots such rights that they can break away, or break into, the United Kingdom and so distort our future legislation.
    I hope that my hon. Friends have listened to what I have said in the knowledge that I am not experienced in these matters. I speak as one who is anxious that we do not allow anyone outside—whether in England, Scotland or anywhere else—to have the impression that we are trying to limit this step towards a measure of home rule for Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is making a candid, forthright and honest contribution. Part of the difficulty, as he has emphasised four times, is inexperience. All of us, including myself, perhaps started off by thinking "This looks attractive". The difficulty is that the more one knows about this whole process, the more one understands the difficulties of having a subordinate parliament in part, though only part, of a unitary State. That is why, as they come to learn and understand more of the difficulties, so many Scottish interests, including the doctors and those involved in civil aviation and in public and private forestry, among others, have expressed so much anxiety and objection.
    Mr. Crouch: I would be the first to bow to the hon. Gentleman as the expert without being a constitutional lawyer. He has not missed a moment in this Chamber, both on this Bill and on the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session. We all respect his concern. After all, he lives in Scotland amidst constituents who could be the principal beneficiaries of this Bill giving them something that they do not now have. I, too, have witnessed him at work in his attack on the Bill. But I have often found, from my parliamentary experience, that, when one takes up a cause, the more one follows that cause, the more one stays down that path. The hon. Gentleman has gone a fair way down that path in this matter and he cannot come back now. His objections down to the very end of that path will always be heard, but I believe that he is on the wrong path.
    We are hesitant in this country to take new steps. I have never known a country

    1435
    so hesitant as Britain is today to take new steps, particularly regarding law and constitutional change. I have never seen people so hesitant as we are today about extending democracy in Europe, or about allowing the Scots to have a little measure of Home Rule. Why should we suddenly stop and say "It is not possible"? What happened before 1703? It is extraordinary that we should consider that this is something that we dare not allow the Scots to have.
    I would be the first to concede that, in parts of the Bill, perhaps even in parts of Clause 35, there may be mistakes which are not spotted by those who are greater experts than I. But we should not be so frightened or hesitant about making these changes. Above all, when we make these moves we should not make them in the spirit of distrust of the Scots themselves, of distrust of the democracy of the Scots, of distrust of the spirit of democracy which must exist there, and of distrust of the quality of the people who will take part in carrying out not just the letter of this measure but the spirit. We have to put that spirit in, not just by what is in the Bill, but by what we say and how we say it in this place. That is the only purpose of my intervention.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ian Gow: I intend no discourtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) when I say that I would find it difficult to serve as even the lowliest Parliamentary Secretary when he formed his first Administration. I find myself in full disagreement with the views that he has just expressed.
    It would be ungracious not to pay tribute to the momentary presence in our debate earlier today of the Lord Advocate. It is a matter of regret to us that he is not here now. I know that it is a matter of regret to the Minister of State that I should be referring to his absence.
    The Minister of State will not like this, but he gave the impression—perhaps it was a false impression—that somehow he, too, was resentful of the fact that we were debating Clause 35. In his first intervention he told us that we need not really worry and put down amendments, that there was nothing very important in the clause, that the powers conferred
    1436
    upon the Queen in Council would be used very carefully, and that any Minister would exercise his powers with great wisdom. That was certainly the impression that he gave.
    Clause 35 confers on the Government of the day additional power to alter the laws of the United Kingdom by Order in Council. It is true that this requires an affirmative resolution of each House, but it is the official policy of the Labour Party that we should abolish the other place, so one of the safeguards written into subsection (2) will vanish if Labour Party policy is implemented. As the situation now stands we are to have an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. But if the Labour Party has its way, there will be an affirmative resolution of one House only.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) pointed out, the affirmative resolution procedure allows no amendment and allows for a debate which, in almost every case, lasts only for one and a half hours. It is simply not good enough for the Minister of State to say to the Committee "Do not worry; the powers here will be used sparingly. Put your trust in us." That is the most fatal temptation into which a legislature can fall.
    It is, above all, the most fatal temptation at a time when the powers of the Executive have been growing constantly. It is also, of course, the pretence of every tyrant—"Do not worry about scrutinising us; do not worry about the necessity of going through the time-honoured procedures. We shall not do anything that could be objected to."
    I take two specific examples. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 sets out, in Group 4, the devolved powers of the Assembly in regard to housing and the regulation of rents. Let us make a big jump and assume that there is a Labour-controlled Assembly which decides to reduce still further the level of council house rents in Scotland. Let us suppose that the Government of the day in the United Kingdom also happen to be Labour. Would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to argue that, consequent upon the passing of an Assembly Act to reduce the level of council house rents, he could, by Order in Council, alter the law in the United Kingdom about the level of council house rents? I believe that that would

    1437
    be legally possible under Clause 35 as drafted.
    Let us take another possibility. Let us suppose that there were a Conservative Government at Westminster and a Labour Assembly in Edinburgh. Let us suppose, for example, that the Assembly decided to allocate a very substantial part of the block grant towards housing. If the United Kingdom Government and Parliament disapproved of that allocation of the block grant—over which, of course, they would have no control once the allocation had been made—would it not be possible for the Conservative Secretary of State, by order, to say that, in consequence of the Act of the Scottish Assembly allocating vast sums of money to council housing, it was necessary to restrict the power of the Scottish Assembly over the allocation of the block grant or over housing? Could that not also be done under the clause? It could be argued that in consequence of a provision made by or under a Scottish Assembly Act it was desirable to alter this very Bill when it has become an Act. There is power under subsection (1) actually to amend the provisions of "this Act".
    The Minister of State may well say that the two illustrations that I have given are far-fetched. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the way in which the powers conferred by the clause could be exercised by the Secretary of State, subject only to the possibility of a one-and-a-half-hour debate in the House of Commons and a one-and-a-half-hour debate in another place. If the Minister of State says that the powers will be used only very sparingly and only in very limited circumstances, do we not have a duty to spell out those circumstances in the clause?
    The amendment seeks to restrict the circumstances in which the powers conferred by the clause can be exercised. It is because I wish to restrict those powers and to retain the supremacy of this place as a law-making body, going through the proper procedures of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, and the responsibility of another place, and not to have merely an Order in Council, that I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
    Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), with his customary charm and humility, said that he was not a constitutional lawyer of great experience and that he wondered therefore, what would be the effect of the clause. But we do not speak in this Committee as members of one profession or another, or as representing one interest group or another. We speak representing our constituencies, and we speak most of all as Back Benchers, using what powers of common sense we have. One does not need to be a constitutional lawyer of the high standard of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) or of the very high standard of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) to apply one's common sense to the clause. All that is required is some knowledge of the basic motivation of politics and politicians, because it is in the nature of politicians both to take and to abuse power.
    It has been obvious from all consideration of the Bill that we are instituting a situation of both instability and uncertainty in the relations between the House of Commons and the proposed Assembly in Scotland. It is plain that in those battles in the future, for which we are providing the battleground, politicians in Scotland will want to extend their power at the expense of the House of Commons. We in this House of Commons, as Back Bench Members, ought to be critical of the situation that will emerge and of the inevitable motives that will be forcing Scottish politicians to blame us and to blame the Union for all their difficulties. Surely the same arguments apply when we, as Back Benchers, consider the actions of the Executive—the actions of all Executives.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) made a plaintive plea referring to the way in which the statutory provisions for the grant of export credit guarantee aid have been so disgracefully abused by the present Administration. He forgets that when he was a Minister in 1972 he supported the Industry Act, and some Back Bench Members from both sides of the House of Commons said that that particular piece of legislation could be and would be abused. No doubt when we consider the details of the Polish ships deal, we

    1439
    shall find that the Industry Act 1972 has once again been invoked by an Executive for some corrupt political purposes. So if we give power to the Executive—to any Executive—we may be certain that it will be abused.
    Let us not look at this subject through the eyes of constitutional lawyers or constitutional historians. Let us look at ourselves and at those whom we know who are practising politicians. It is the desire of every politician to obtain power. Having obtained power, it is usually the practice to retain it by whatever means that politician can use. If we do not circumscribe the never-ending desire for additional power which will be felt by politicians in Scotland and which on occasions may have to be accommodated in the House of Commons, we shall be failing in our duty. Let us, therefore, look at the clause with one object only in mind—to reduce and to circumscribe the power of the Executive so that we as Back Benchers may fulfil our single most important rôle, which is to criticise the Executive.
    Mr. Leon Brittan: I have a great deal of sympathy for the anxieties that have been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and other of my hon. Friends about the clause and for the amendment by which they have desired to seek to meet the problems that they see in the clause. However, I should like to develop my arguments in relation to that on the next amendment, Amendment No. 430, as time is so short.
    On the amendment that we are discussing, I make an observation in response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said. As he will know, many of us on the Opposition Benches—indeed, most of us—have the gravest reservations about this whole method of dealing with the problem of devolution. We object not so much to the concept but to this particular scheme. Therefore, criticising the details of the scheme is not in any sense a carping, unsympathetic or negative attempt, but rather a way of combining the very difficult tasks of, on the one hand, pointing out what seem to us to be genuinely the central flaws of a basically flawed approach and, on the other hand, where possible seeking to improve
    1440
    the Bill in spite of our basic disbelief in the fundamental concept.
    Regarding the handling of Clause 35, we believe that perhaps the best course is to consider Amendment No. 430, which I hope even my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury would agree to be a constructive approach to a problem which we think is intractable but which none the less we should like to solve.
    Mr. Dalyell: What the hon. Member has just said is an extremely elegant and legalistic way of saying that "We are still sitting on the fence as to whether we on the Opposition Front Bench want an Assembly." Will the hon. Member give me one undertaking—I ask him courteously—that before we come back after Christmas, in the third week of January when we next discuss this matter, it will be revealed to some of us who are curious about these matters whether the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) are in favour of any kind of Assembly in Edinburgh? Perhaps we may be told this as a sort of New Year present.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman does not have to wait until the New Year. Unhappily, I should be out of order if I answered him at length, but if he is really that interested in something that does not arise on the clause, I am prepared to undertake to arrange for him to be sent a copy of an admirable speech made by my right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) at St. Andrew's University.
    Mr. Dalyell: I have studied it carefully.
    Mr. Brittan: If what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about is not the absence of such a document but his inability to comprehend or agree with it, that will have to be dealt with in another way than a response to an intervention, but if he is genuinely concerned about the absence of the material, that is the material to which I would refer him.
    Mr. John Smith: It is proper for Parliament to be cautious about conferring fairly wide powers upon Ministers in any legislation, and I respect the concern shown by some hon. Members.

    1441
    Before dealing with some specific points of a more legal and constitutional character, I wish to note in passing the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who has done the Committee a great service. I hope that his speech will be studied outside the Committee as well as appreciated inside it, because it indicates that there are in the Conservative Party perceptive people who understand what the whole argument is about. The hon. Gentleman expressed his views extremely well, and I agreed with almost every word he said. It is unusual for me to be able to say that about hon. Members on the other side of the Committee.
    I am glad to see all the regular attenders on the Opposition Benches present again. There are those whom I have occasionally called the Bourbons and the "ultras" of the Conservative Party. I do not so describe the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who is a semi-Bourbon, a St. Andrews-ite, because he clutches on to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), floating as a piece of flotsam on the wreckage of Conservative policies on devolution. I think that the right hon. Gentleman made his speech at the Craw's Nest, Anstruther. He certainly appeared to give some thoughts on devolution at the Craw's Nest.
    It is these stray pieces of policy that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby has to fashion together and weld into a policy of some sort. It is time the right hon. Gentleman returned to the Craw's Nest, perhaps for his New Year holidays, and set out in more detail the Conservative Party's policy on devolution, or perhaps the hon. Gentleman could do it.
    I come now to the clause, having felt it right to draw the Committee's attention to the important speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who was rightly rebuked by the hon. Member for Canterbury for seeking to stimulate resentment in England over the constitutional changes proposed in the Bill, put forward the possibility that there could be creeping devolution by the use of the clause. He suggested that the Assembly could extend its own powers and then
    1442
    a Minister of the United Kingdom Government could use the provisions of the clause to legitimate the change that the Assembly had made—though why a Minister of the United Kingdom Government would wish to do so, I do not know.
    As I tried to point out in an intervention, that suggestion is absolutely unfounded as even the most remote theoretical possibility, because it is not a matter for the Assembly what its powers are to be. That is a matter for this Parliament. It would be completely ultra vires for the Assembly to seek in any way to increase its powers, and therefore that absurd proposition does not arise.
    But I understand the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) about the fact that a discretion is given to Ministers. However, the right hon. Gentleman underestimates—and I say this with respect, because I understand the concern that prompted his speech—the fact that an affirmative resolution of both Houses is required.
    Certainly, there are limitations to the way in which an Order in Council can be debated in the House. It cannot be amended, but it can be rejected. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not much protection because any Government can sledgehammer an Order in Council through the House by the use of the Whips. I think that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was on the same line of argument. But if that is how a Government will behave, they can behave like that over primary legislation as well.
    Mr. Budgen: And they do.
    Mr. Smith: That is to take rather a poor view of Parliament. Governments are sustained by Members of Parliament, and it is no excuse for Members to say that they are forced by their Government to do things. There have been rebellions by hon. Members on both sides of the House on many matters, including the Bill. A Government could bulldoze primary legislation through just as effectively. Admittedly, it would be more difficult, because there are more stages, but it could be done. It is very important protection for Parliament that there requires to be an affirmative resolution.

    1443
    The other important matter, which was noticed by some hon. Members, is that the power in the clause arises only
    "in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act."
    Therefore, there must be a Scottish Assembly Act which makes a change in the law before the Order in Council power can be introduced.
    The right hon. Member for Crosby, who gave us some lurid examples of muggers moving from Liverpool to Glasgow and back, suggested that the provision could be used to alter the law in England to mirror that in Scotland. I believe that that is a succinct way to put his argument. I beg to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. That would be a substantive change in the law of England. I do not believe that it could be represented by any Minister to be a consequential change. I see no Government having the nerve to try to put through in an Order in Council something of the magnitude of a change in criminal penalties, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The Committee is not helped by being given such far-fetched and unrealistic examples.
    Mr. Graham Page: I do not interpret the clause quite as the Minister does. The amendments to the law covered by the clause are to be made in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Assembly, but once that Act has been passed what matters is the opinion of the Minister here as to whether it is "necessary or expedient" to make them. It is a matter not of whether the amendments are consequential but whether it is "necessary or expedient" to make them because there is an Act of the Scottish Assembly.
    Mr. Smith: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point, but it is important to establish that the matter can arise only if there has been an Act of the Scottish Assembly. We are agreed on that.
    Then we come to the words "necessary or expedient". As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, they have been commonly used in legislation. Indeed, they were used in legislation that the right hon. Gentleman put through, such as the Local Government Act 1972. There were similar provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The words used were "necessary or proper", but
    1444
    there is not much difference between the two phrases.
    Parliament must have confidence that the Administration will use the powers with some respect for the purposes for which they are given. In almost every Act there are Order in Council or Statutory Instrument provisions fenced with such words.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister has given examples of the use of the words "necessary or expedient" in legislation relating to Orders in Council made consequential upon an Act of this House and carrying out the purposes of the Act. The order with which the clause deals is not quite the same. It is based on a Minister's judgment as to whether the order is consequential. The matter is not laid down in the statute, as in the case the hon. Gentleman quoted.
    Mr. Smith: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point in that regard. I think that this is a different provision from that which commonly appears in Acts of Parliament. But these are not strange and unusual words to appear in a Bill or in a statute. I would not want to make too much of the fact that a similar provision appears in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, but I am entitled to make something of the fact that it appears in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
    I looked up the Official Report to see how the clause was dealt with, having been struck by the almost complete similarity between Section 38(2) of that Act and what is in the Bill. I wanted to see how Parliament handled it. I found that there was almost no discussion of the matter. I do not know whether Parliament was sleeping on that occasion. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Crosby seems to think that one cannot make much of that. Certainly there was an emergency atmosphere, but, none the less, the Government of the day must have considered the matter.
    It must have been considered at least by the relevant Ministers. They must have recognised that there was a problem and that in case the Northern Ireland Assembly made a change in the law, it would be useful to have a consequential provision enabling the law to be changed

    1445
    in England. It was no doubt felt that there ought to be a clause enabling it to be done by Order in Council.
    The Government have arrived at the same conclusion. I was going to say that it cannot be so terribly wicked for us to be doing it if the previous Government did it, but that argument may have a logical fault in it. However, I am prepared to give the previous Government the benefit of the doubt on this matter.
    This is not the first devolution Bill to come before the House of Commons. The House of Commons very recently passed a devolution measure. I refer, of course, to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The Conservatives were the first to carry through a devolution Bill in the House of Commons. We do not give them enough tribute for that. It is the fact that they are not sustaining the progress achieved on that occasion that is a matter for criticism.
    There has to be some confidence that United Kingdom Ministers will not abuse the fairly broad powers given under this provision. What the Government have in mind is principally to bring the law up to date on matters where Scottish Assembly legislation bites deeper into the devolved matters and where differences emerge. It will be necessary, particularly in regard to the law on non-devolved matters pertaining to Scotland, to make consequential changes, as the names of institutions change and as policies diverge, in order to dovetail United Kingdom legislation which operates in Scotland together with Assembly legislation. That is our intention, and we have no nefarious purpose in putting this clause forward.
    Parliament is, of course, entitled to be suspicious of the Executive, but most Executives have to come forward with fairly broad provisions of this sort, and at the end of the day Parliament must trust the good intention of Ministers.—[Interruption.] I notice that when right hon. Gentlemen leave Administrations they become much more critical than when they are members of them.
    Mr. Graham Page: I think that I caught the Minister's words correctly when he spoke of an extension of non-devolved matters. I think he said that
    1446
    Scottish Assembly legislation might dig deep into devolved matters and make necessary consequential changes in non-devolved matters. This is a very serious point. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing that the Scottish Assembly could only deal with devolved matters and that therefore—
    Mr. Smith: I did not intend to convey any meaning of that sort. If I did, I apologise. There will have to be consequential changes made in the laws for which this Parliament is responsible. For example, there would have to be changes in legislation if certain institutions to which reference is made were abolished. It would be sensible to make consequential changes in that respect.
    I ask the Committee to consider the practical problems which would arise if we did not have such a provision. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby I think recognised this. If we do not have this provision, we shall have to have primary legislation every time we want to make a minor change in the law. Maybe the United Kingdom Parliament will not give such a change priority. There will then be a very untidy situation. The provision in the Bill is fenced by the authority of Parliament. Parliament must approve it affirmatively. That is a major safeguard and a sensible provision to have.
    I naturally accept that there is legitimate concern whenever such a provision is put forward by any Administration. I ask the Committee to accept the good faith of the Government in putting it forward. It is not intended to make major changes in the law but to make minor consequential amendments. I know that the powers here are drafted fairly widely but nevertheless I ask the House to accept our good faith in this respect.
    6.0 p.m.
    I have considered with some interest the submission of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I do not think that the point he makes is a major one, although no doubt we shall return to it when we get to Schedule 10. I think that we have managed to define fairly precisely in the Bill what is to be devolved. That is why there is such complexity in the schedules and why we have specified particular sections in

    1447
    particular Acts of Parliament. Indeed, the criticism has often been made that the Bill is unnecessarily complex. Complexity is the price of precision in this matter. My hon. Friend was entitled to raise the matter and he can test it for himself later when we come to deal with the devolved matters.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 430, in page 16, line 16, leave out
    '(including any provision contained in this Act)'.
    We on the Conservative side take the strongest exception to a provision, such as Clause 35, which enables the law of the United Kingdom to be altered by a simple resolution of Parliament just because a particular Scottish Assembly Act has been passed. Such a provision is, in the strongest sense of the term, totally unnecessary. If the Government are able to persuade Parliament that, as a result of Acts passed by the Scottish Assembly, it is necessary to make changes in the law of the United Kingdom, there is absolutely no reason at all why the Government should not come to the House and seek legislation of a primary kind by normal Act of Parliament to change the law of the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State has argued that the purpose of the power is innocent and innocuous and that therefore it is convenient that the law of the United Kingdom should be changed in minor respects from time to time, as a result of Scottish Assembly Acts, by the simple procedure of an order approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I took note of the Minister's words, which were very significant in illustrating the Government's approach to the problem. He said that if a whole series of changes of a consequential and minor kind were necessary in the law of the United Kingdom because of what the Scottish Assembly had done, to require such changes to be made by Act of Parliament would produce an untidy situation. I accept that it would be an untidy situation, but it is much better to have that than one which causes the sorts of anxieties and potential difficulties which are involved in the clause.
    1448
    I give the Minister the credit of accepting that in his mind—and possibly in the mind of the Government—there is no intention whatsoever to use the clause in a way which would involve major changes in the law of the United Kingdom. But the potential is there, and if the only purpose of the clause is to avoid an untidy situation arising I say to the Minister of State that surely, in order to allay the anxieties which have been expressed generally and sincerely by Opposition Members, an untidy situation would be a small price to pay. There are worse things in that situation than untidiness. Anxieties about an apparently innocent and innocuous provision being used for purposes for which it was not intended but for which it is capable of being used comprise a much worse situation than merely administrative or constitutional untidiness.
    It is in that context that I turn to the point made by the Minister of State from what has now become his favourite bedside reading—the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973—which he prays in aid whenever possible. It is a very good illustration of exactly the point that I am making.
    In the situation of the Government of Northern Ireland and provisions made by this House in relation to Northern Ireland the anxieties that I have referred to—and which have been expressed by my hon. Friends—quite understandably were not nearly as great as they are in the case of the Scotland Bill. The clear view of the people of Northern Ireland is, has been, and I hope will continue to be, in favour of the Union with the United Kingdom as, indeed, it is in Scotland. But the legislative power when it has existed in Northern Ireland has always been used in the sense of cementing the Union. Wholly different considerations and anxieties arise with regard to the Scotland Bill.
    I am, of course, conscious of the fact that in expressing opposition to the procedure whereby the law of the United Kingdom can be changed in order to avoid an untidy situation coming into existence one is going to the root of Clause 35. What I am proposing is only an amendment. But the real objection to the procedure is that the Government

    1449
    have to present the House with something on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
    I would draw the attention of the Minister of State to a slightly uncomfortable example of the difference between passing a Bill through Parliament and getting an order through Parliament. I refer to the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session. If it had just been a question of getting a resolution of the House, it would have sailed through. But it was precisely when it was subjected to the full parliamentary procedure of amendment and the scrutiny that flowed from that that the defects of the Bill became apparent to the House as a whole and further consideration of the Bill became impossible and the Bill not acceptable. A distinction has to be made.
    But although that applies to the whole of Clause 35, I am proposing a modest amendment rather than the elimination of Clause 35 at the moment. It is to exclude the phrase:
    "(including any provision contained in this Act)".
    Very special considerations apply to those words. We must remember that in this Bill we are creating a constitution. We are creating a constitution for a form of devolved government in Scotland. It is idle to pretend that it is anything other than a constitution. Most constitutions in other countries, particularly federal constitutions, are in some way entrenched. They are entrenched because special procedures are necessary to alter those constitutions. The agreement of both constituent parts, special majorities of two-thirds or three-quarters, or a whole range of entrenchments, are to be found in every constitution whereby there has to be a special sort of procedure when it is altered. In most countries constitutions cannot just be altered in the same way that we can alter an Act of Parliament.
    But if Clause 35 stands we shall have a situation in which this constitution enacted in the Scotland Bill is not only not entrenched but is put in a weaker position than an ordinary Act of Parliament. The words which I am seeking to persuade the House to delete mean that the Scotland Bill itself—the creator of the constitution and the formulation of the constitution of the devolved Scotland—may be amended by a provision merely
    1450
    designed to tidy up and, as the Minister of State said, to prevent an untidy situation.
    Whatever justification there may be for avoiding the bore of the Government having a sort of annual bits and pieces measure to make such consequential changes as are needed in the Government of the United Kingdom because of what the Scottish Assembly has done in the last year, there can be no justification for actually allowing by an order approved by resolution in each House the very constitution of devolved Scotland to be altered. That is what is happening.
    This provision then, instead of entrenching that situation by some kind of special provision, is actually enabling the constitution of devolved Scotland to be altered by a simpler, more Draconian and quicker procedure than the passage of an ordinary Act of Parliament about drains, housing, or education. That is a fantastic proposition. It seems to me that merely by talking about it as being
    "necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act."
    does not alter the fact that by the inclusion of the words in brackets it is possible by resolution of this House actually to amend the Scotland Bill itself.
    I know of no other constitution—I am not talking about the Northern Ireland Act, I am talking about other constitutions—in which it is possible to alter the constitution itself by a simpler and quicker procedure than the one by which ordinary legislation is enacted. Whatever need there may be for this power in relation to ordinary legislation, it seems to me that it is of quite a different order of magnitude to allow the constitution of Scotland to be altered by simple resolution.
    I appreciate that it has to be in the view of a Minister of the Crown and of the House as a result of a provision in a Scottish Assembly Act that the House is invited to consider that it is necessary or expedient to change the constitution. But that is no protection, because it means that within the devolved sphere the Scottish Assembly can pass an Act which is clearly intra vires, dealing with some matter at the boundary or at the border of its powers, but plainly within its powers. It could then attempt to persuade the Government of the United

    1451
    Kingdom that, as a result of the changes being made by the Scottish Assembly Act, it is clear that the limitations on the powers of the Assembly contained in this Bill are out of date—and, perhaps, have become untidy—and that therefore a change is necessary in the Scotland Bill itself.
    Therefore, inch by inch the frontiers can be extended in this fantastic way whereby a constitution itself can be amended by a procedure simpler than that of enacting ordinary legislation. I ask the Minister of State to consider this amendment seriously and to accept the view that even if he must have Clause 35—which we strongly oppose—genuine anxieties could be to some extent allayed by the removal of a provision permitting the constitution of Scotland to be changed by a simple resolution of the House.
    Mr. John Smith: I intervene briefly because it is important that I set out the Government's position. I shall do so succinctly.
    I follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments, which are classic, constitutional-style arguments. But, with respect, I feel that he has underestimated two things. First, it is not such an easy hurdle to get an Order in Council through both Houses of Parliament if it seeks to make any major change. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman appeared to ignore almost entirely the fact that this part of the clause as, indeed, the whole of the first part of the clause, comes into operation only
    "in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act".
    That condition precedent must be satisfied before an Order in Council can be made.
    I give one practical reason why it would be a useful provision for a Minister to have, subject to the approval of this Parliament. In Part III of Schedule 10, hon. Members will see that one of the techniques that we have used to define what is devolved is to list a number of Acts of Parliament and to specify which powers under certain sections are devolved to the Assembly. As the Scottish Assembly passes legislation which bites into the corpus of existing legislation, there will be a need to bring all this up to date—for example, to make changes in the detail. We do not want a special Act of Parliament passed through both
    1452
    Houses to note the fact that certain of the Acts have been abolished or amended.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Evelyn King: The hon. Gentleman has twice used the phrase "both Houses of Parliament" and suggested that that might be a safeguard. However, is it not part of the policy of his party that one of those Houses is to be abolished or weakened? In fact, the safeguard is likely to be dependent upon one House of Parliament and not both.
    Mr. Smith: That is a matter for the future. I am dealing with the present constitutional position, and I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that any legislation must go through both Houses.
    Mr. Brittan: As I understand it, on Schedule 10 the Minister is saying that it may be that some of the enactments listed in the schedule will themselves be repealed or that new ones will appear on the United Kingdom statute book which need to be included in Schedule 3. The answer to that is simple. Any such procedure necessarily involves legislation in the House of Commons. Therefore, there is no reason why such legislation should not itself contain the consequential changes in the Scotland Act to have the effect that the Minister wishes.
    Mr. Smith: There might possibly be something which could be done in terms of United Kingdom legislation where the powers are retained by the United Kingdom Parliament. But it would not apply to Acts named here where powers had been devolved to the Scottish Assembly. Therefore, that solution would not be apt in that case.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As I understand the provisions of Clause 35 as drafted, it would be possible for the Assembly to change anything in the Bill, when it has been passed—either in powers devolved or in powers not devolved—and then, if necessary, the Government could say that they accepted it and they could deal with it purely by Order in Council, thereby negating the effect of Clause 36.
    Mr. Smith: With respect, my hon. Friend is wrong about that. In the Bill there is no power to the Scottish Assembly to amend the provisions of the Bill.

    1453
    Therefore, the necessary condition precedent would not arise.
    Mr. Dalyell: I may nave misunderstood what my hon. Friend said, but he used the words "bites into the corpus of existing legislation". If existing legislation in the House of Commons is bitten into, does not that mean consequential action in this House? It is not possible to bite into the corpus of existing legislation without taking action both in the Scottish Assembly and in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Smith: It is perfectly possible. If under the Housing Acts, which are Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, powers for housing are devolved and given to the Scottish Assembly and the Assembly makes changes, those changes are effected by legislation passed in the Assembly without reference to the United Kingdom Parliament, because the powers have been devolved.
    But there are some Acts of Parliament which are specified in Part III, where there are provisions which are devolved and others which are not devolved. Therefore, it is wiser to have this provision. Where there is a certain breadth in these provisions, it is always open to Opposition Members to point out that it is possible to drive a coach and horses through them. However, I do not think that this is a situation which is likely to arise. We need fairly broad provisions so that we can bring the Act up to date and keep it up to date with proper references in it.
    The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) asks "If you want to do that, why not bring a Bill before Parliament?" We all know the existing mess that there is with miscellaneous law reform Acts where we have all sort of bits and pieces of reform collected in a lot of different Nets together. It is very difficult for lawyers, never mind the ordinary public, to find their way about them. I should like the Scotland Act to be brought up to date regularly by the use of this provision. That is the purpose behind this proposal.
    I remind the Committee of two important matters. First, it has to be in consequence of something which the Assembly has done. Secondly, there is the important and real protection of an
    1454
    affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I can see that the hon. Gentleman's argument would be valid against the previous amendment which the Committee considered. However, this amendment is to omit
    "including any provision contained in this Act".
    The hon. Gentleman cannot need that phrase if Schedule 10 requires consequential changes in United Kingdom legislation. He can need that change only to add to or subtract from that phrase in Schedule 10 itself.
    Mr. Smith: The provisions of Schedule 10 could be changed by activities of the United Kingdom Parliament. They could also be changed by activities of the Scottish Assembly operating in devolved matters.
    It is open to hon. Members to say that this is a broad provision. Of course, it is. But it is a sensible one, because we have to look at it from the point of view not just of the classic arguments about the constitution but of making this Act a useful and effective tool. There will be changes. Legislation will be passed both here and in the Assembly, and it will require changes to be made, especially in areas like Part III of Schedule 10. It seems to me sensible that powers should be given to change that.
    The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby spoke haughtily about the need for tidiness. We need to have a little more tidiness in our statute book. It is not the most important consideration, but it should not be ignored completely. This will be a very important Act. It is not a fundamental one, but it is one which will have to be studied both by Members of the Assembly and by the United Kingdom Government. It may have to be interpreted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This provision is entirely justified, and I think that I have given a good reason why it should be accepted. I hope that that good reason will be taken into account by the Committee.
    Sir David Renton: I suggest that the Minister should give an undertaking to the Committee to think again about this matter. Despite the

    1455
    clarity of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fully grasped the full implications of the amendment.
    We are dealing with a major constitutional Bill. In a Bill like this, we ought to get the principles right once and for all, even if at some later stage some of the detail contained in Schedule 10, for example, may have to be varied. I remind the hon. Gentleman that sometimes detail has to be varied even in a major Bill.
    The words which the Minister has put into Clause 35 would enable both the principles and the detail to be amended, whereas he wants only the detail amended. I should have thought that, in order to get the detail amended, he ought to follow the many precedents that there are in various types of legislation which enable Ministers to lay Statutory Instruments before the House, sometimes with affirmative resolutions and sometimes with negative resolutions, so that the detail may be brought up to date. To claim, however, that this wide power to alter any of the provisions of the Act, even if they deal with important principles, should be obtained for use by Order in Council seems to me to be quite wrong.
    I notice, and it is rather significant, that in replying just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby the Minister of State did not refer to Section 38 of the Northern Ireland Act or any part of it. It is significant and very natural that he did not do so, because the Northern Ireland Act does not contain these words.
    This idea of amendment by Order in Council is relatively new. It was first used for facilitating consolidation of Acts in 1973, passed by the previous Conservative Government—the National Health Service Reorganisation Act, Section 57, and the Pensioners Payments and National Insurance Act, Section 7. Both Acts specify that, to facilitate consolidation, amendments could be put forward by Order in Council, but our Committee on Legislation recommended that they should be subject to two conditions—affirmative resolution, which is conceded by the Government here, and that the
    1456
    relevant order should be reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Although we are dealing here with something much more important than consolidation, the Government have not contemplated making that second proviso. It could have been made. In view of these fresh considerations and what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby, I hope that this is a matter in which the Government will not be tied down to an immediate decision.
    This is a much more difficult and important matter than it appears to be at first sight. I hope that for once the Minister of State will agree that this is something from which he would benefit if he were given a chance to look at it again.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I understand perfectly the necessity for having some provision whereby it is not required that every time a change is made by the Scottish Assembly on an Act covering the whole of the United Kingdom—a change of some particular issue relating to Scotland—the Government should not have to bring forward primary legislation.
    I am far from being a legal expert, and even less a constitutional expert, but I have always understood that the law is not as commonsense people understand it but as it is written and interpreted in the courts. The more the Government try to tidy up the Bill, the greater the minefield into which they stray.
    I have assumed that the provisions of all Government legislation work because they have some specific purpose. The words in Clause 35 are:
    "any such amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it (including any provision contained in this Act)".
    Why is "this Act" specifically referred to? I think it is unnecessary in any case. If one talks about an amendment to the United Kingdom law or any Part of it, the words about "this Act" are redundant.
    Quite apart from that, by putting in these specific words we are encouraging the Assembly, if and when it is set up, to try to tinker with the Act. The Minister of State tells us, quite properly, that there are parts which say that the Assembly

    1457
    can act only within the specific competence set out in Clause 19. Clause 19 states:
    "A Scottish Assembly Act shall be law only if or to the extent that it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly."
    Clause 19 refers to Schedule 2, which spells out all the things that are within and without the competence of the Assembly. In Schedule 2, on page 42, paragraph 7 states:
    "A provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if its effect would be to amend this Act."
    The Government cannot have it both ways. Clause 35 refers to
    "any provision contained in the Act ",
    which means any part of the Act. It seems to me that there is a conflict here which has not been tidied up. In fact, this seems to make it worse. Is the Minister saying that Schedule 2 and Clause 19 totally override Clause 35 and any part of it? As it is, Clause 35 stands as an equal part of the Bill, and there is no distinction in terms of importance, relevance or competence. Therefore, I think it is necessary to remove these words, as they refer to
    "any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act."
    If we take that out, we remove the possibility suggested by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that the Assembly could perhaps, not in a dramatic way but gradually, change its powers and competence.
    6.30 p.m.
    I can foresee the possibility whereby the Assembly makes a change in Schedule 10 to bring within its competence a fairly minor matter, and the Government would say that it was easier to allow this change of the law. It would not be worth a candle to have all the hoo-ha at Westminster or to invoke Clause 36 or subsequent clauses especially if, like Parkinson's law, people who are here, after the Assembly, will not have time on their hands, and the amount of legislation will expand to fill the gap. I can see the Government saying that, on a strict interpretation of the Act, the Assembly is acting out of competence in dealing with the issue. However, they would probably add that they would let it go because they did not want a fuss and, after all, it was a
    1458
    sensible thing to do anyway, because the Assembly had exposed a loophole.
    However, if the Government let it go in that manner a precedent will have been set. What happens if the Assembly tries drastically to change its powers or move beyond an Assembly into some form of home rule? To me, a complete layman, it is wholly confusing and will lead to conflict. I understand that the Government want to avoid conflict, yet here they are certainly tempting the Assembly to try its hand a bit.
    Mr. John Smith: I intervene very briefly to deal with the point put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The Committee may find my intervention of some assistance.
    I stress one point about the breadth of the clause. It has been made out to be too wide a provision. I remind the Committee that the Scottish Assembly Act is a condition precedent to the clause coming into effect.
    Secondly, a Scottish Assembly Act must be intra vires the Scotland Act. Constitutionally, the provisions of this Act cannot be changed. That is understood by the Committee. But I have given as examples the detailed changes in the Act required to bring it up to date.
    Criticism has been made that it has been drawn too widely. I cannot see how we can easily draw it more narrowly. I have listened very carefully to what has been said and I doubt whether it is possible to narrow the clause. If hon. Members want to test it in the Division Lobbies, they should not be dissuaded. If this amendment is carried the words will be in the Bill no longer.
    I am willing to listen and to look at what has been said, but I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about my commitment. If there is concern about the breadth of the clause, I shall look at it and see whether it can be narrowed. I say that before taking any skilled advice, but personally I do not see how it could be done easily.
    Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the Minister explain a matter that puzzles me? Is it possible for the Scottish Assembly to take action affecting any of

    1459
    the legislation listed in Schedule 10 as excluded from enactments applying to Scotland? Schedule 10 sets out various Acts relating to devolved powers, but certain Acts, which on the face of them seem to have a good deal to do with devolved powers, such as the Community Land Act, are not included in the list. In other words, could the Assembly pass an Act affecting matters not included in Schedule 10?
    Mr. Smith: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to ask me something related to what I was saying, which was why I gave way to him. However, let me point out that the Scottish Assembly will have power to change the law in certain devolved areas which are defined in the schedule and referred to in various Acts of Parliament. If there are no powers in the Scottish Assembly to change any of those matters, it cannot do so. We must look carefully at the provisions of the Bill to see whether in any case power is devolved.
    Mr. John Stokes: I have listened carefully to the Minister of State on almost every day that we have discussed this Bill. We all like and admire the urbanity with which he deals with anything that comes along, but if we look behind his manner we note that he has not made any concessions. So far he has not accepted one amendment, and obviously he does not intend to do so. Therefore, behind the urbanity we see the mailed fist.
    I am glad to see that the Lord President is present in the Committee, because he has hardly been present at all. Indeed, even as I speak I see that he is leaving. However, I am delighted to see the Lord Advocate paying one of his visits to the Committee. I have the greatest admiration for the Lord Advocate and, although he has not said anything in this discussion, I am sure that he must be thinking very deeply indeed. Probably he is very worried about some of these provisions.
    Once again the Committee finds itself in a muddle on the Bill. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). In this clause we are trying to limit the legislative powers of the proposed Assembly to ensure that they do not conflict with this Parliament or, in vulgar parlance, turn the British constitution into a pig's breakfast.
    1460
    Time and again as we consider the clauses of the Bill we come up against the insuperable difficulty of trying to create a new subordinate legislative Assembly in one part of a unitary kingdom while at the same time being under an omnipotent United Kingdom Parliament. There is no answer to this insoluble conundrum, and if it were not subject to a guillotine this measure would never have a chance of getting through Parliament.
    I notice that there are now a few more hon. Members on the Government Benches than usual, and at one time this afternoon their numbers almost reached double figures. It is remarkable how few Labour Members have taken any interest in these proceedings, and occasionally a stray SNP Member takes part. I believe that the Bill must be one of the least liked and least supported measures that have come before Parliament this century. If Labour Members had not been dragooned by the Whips to go into the Lobbies, I believe that they would never have come along at all but would have been happier to stay away.
    To return to the clause and the amendment, one can pretend that we in this Chamber will seek to confine and control acts by the Assembly which, regrettably, we are trying to set up. Once that Assembly is in being, however, we all know that it is bound to demand greater and greater powers for itself. Parliament has already gone on the defensive in this matter. We have lost the will to win, and the Scottish Assembly will arrogate to itself more and more powers and will come to glory at the expense of this ancient House of Commons. We in this exercise—an exercise which may be overturned by referendum—are engaged on a hopeless task.
    I agree that it is our duty as the Opposition—and it is a duty which we are carrying out very well—to try to control and bind the Assembly as much as we can. That is why I support the amendment. In my heart of hearts, I know, as do other hon. Members, that there is no solution to the conflict and confusion of the Bill, unless on Third Reading hon. Members vote with their consciences and kill it.
    My constituents are beginning to ask themselves whether they are prepared to

    1461
    have our country's laws altered to suit the Scottish Assembly. The Committee knows my love of history, and I have been looking back seeking to find a parallel with the extraordinary situation with which we now find ourselves faced. We are trying to devolve a constitution in a State which does not have a constitution.
    The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member is not confining himself to the amendment. He is making what appears to be a Second Reading speech. I judge by the hon. Member's smile that he knows that full well. I think some reason for the larger attendance in the Chamber is that too many hon. Members are not confining themselves to the matter under discussion.
    Mr. Stokes: I always pay great attention to your comments, Sir Myer. I end by saying that on the last occasion when Parliament was involved in a great constitutional struggle which affected the whole future of England it was said—perhaps, Sir Myer, you will forgive me if I translate the Latin into English—"We do not wish to change the laws of England".
    Mr. Francis Pym: When the Minister of State intervened the second time, we hoped that he would do so in a helpful sense. At first, when we heard his words we thought that he was about to be helpful, but he couched his words in lukewarm terms. Indeed, he does not appear to have given any undertaking at all. He even admitted that his intervention might not be helpful. He said that if the Committee voted to knock out these words, the Committee would have to take note of that, as would the Government.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene the third time and say that he will take this matter away and genuinely re-examine these provisions, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). It would be only on that basis that it would be possible for us not to press this matter to a Division.
    1462
    6.45 p.m.
    I am mindful of the fact that we still have a major clause, Clause 36, which as yet has been totally undiscussed but is central and is a matter of constitutional importance. If the Minister were able to give that absolutely clear and categorical undertaking, it might be possible to spend a few minutes on the clause, but if he sticks to the lukewarm phraseology of his earlier intervention I doubt that he will carry the Committee, because what he had to say was not terribly convincing. Will the Minister be much more authoritative and categorical in what he intends to do?
    Mr. John Smith: It always happens that in Committee this kind of bargaining session between Opposition spokesmen and Ministers takes place. I have thought about this carefully, and I must make absolutely clear that I do not accept the fundamental argument which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The clause is much more limited than they suggested, for reasons which I spelt out in my second intervention. I have not changed my mind on that.
    However, the point has been made that the clause is possibly drawn too widely for the purposes for which we wanted it, and I am willing to look at that. But I do not want hon. Members to be under any misapprehension that they gave up the opportunity for voting for their amendment because of my assurances. Assurances given by Ministers which cause hon. Members to change their conduct and not to vote are dangerous, and one must be careful. I am sorry if that is not enough. I have said that I have listened carefully and shall read the speeches to see whether it would be possible for this essential power to be made narrower.
    I doubt that the amendment, if it were accepted, would achieve that result. However, whatever the result of the Division, I shall look at the matter. If hon. Members feel that what I have said does not go far enough, that is too bad and they had better protect their position in the Lobbies.
    Mr. William Ross: I am more than slightly bemused by these

    1463
    exchanges, because I had thought that we were dealing with an amendment.
    The First Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with Amendment No. 430, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to draw the attention of the Committee to that.
    Mr. Ross: I am astounded at the range of the debate. Some have talked about history and others about limiting the powers of the Assembly and all the rest of it. Let us look at the amendment. It states:
    "(including any provision contained in this Act)".
    What would be the effect of the amendment? The words would now read:
    "Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any such amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it (including any provision contained in this Act)".
    If we pass the Bill, it will be part of the law of the United Kingdom. I do not want to make many or long speeches. I shall make my speeches to the point. What would be the effect of the amendment? Would it have any effect at all?
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister say why these words are necessary? I doubt that they would do anything, and I want to know why he put them in.
    Mr. Dalyell: I feel dismayed, because it is not only Clause 36, Amendment No. 117, and the whole issue of expediency—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) reminded the Committee, we are dealing with Amendment No. 430. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock read out exactly what that amendment contains and its limitations.
    Mr. Dalyell: In that case, I merely want to say that, although I am not criticising the Chair, there is a great deal that should certainly be discussed, including the alteration of the whole basis of the power of the Secretary of State, the issue of Orkney and Shetland, Amendment No. 440 and the possible incompatibility with the EEC and the Judicial Committee. I hope that the House of Lords will look at these matters when the Bill is considered there.
    I wish to make only two points. Much has been said about the Irish parallel—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was helpful to the Chair yesterday. If he refers to Hansard, he will find that he said that the Chair ought to be tougher concerning the relevance of contributions. I am following his advice.
    Mr. Dalyell: Then I ask just one question. The amendment refers to whether the Bill, when passed, is to be sacrosanct. I consulted the learned Clerks this morning, and the sanctity issue was one of those that came up on this amendment. I ask the Minister whether, given the political situation, it is realistic to suggest that such legislation should be sacrosanct, especially when we note that the political situation deeply concerns the destination of the oil revenues. Given Scottish politics, is it realistic to think that this kind of clause can limit an Assembly many Members of which would be committed to altering the basis of the legislation and claiming the oil revenues?
    Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked a direct question. He is absolutely right. It would make no difference if one took out these provisions. They are there in order to avoid doubt. It is essential to avoid doubt. It is honest to put them in the Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was a million miles wide of the point. He keeps referring to the oil revenues, but it is not within the legislative capacity of the Assembly to do anything about oil revenues. Such power could be given only by the United Kingdom Parliament. That is why the clause could be operated only following the passing of a Scottish Assembly Act. An Act must be one that is within the competence of the Assembly to pass and, since the Assembly would have no legislative competence in this matter, my hon. Friend's point was not relevant. I do not know what he meant by "sanctity" of an Act of Parliament. Parliament can change any Act. There are not two categories of Acts, those which are sanctified and those which are not. I do not understand what my hon. Friend meant.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall be brief. My remarks will be in the context of what I said earlier. If it is the case that if the amendment were carried it

    1465
    would lead to doubt, is there not a practical problem that Acts of the Scottish Assembly might—simply because they could not put into effect the necessary consequential amendments to United Kingdom legislation—be left on the shelf until such time as Westminster got round to passing an enabling Act to make the minor changes required?
    Pertinent statements have been made today. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) rightly said that the business of the House would expand to fill the time available. One can think immediately of EEC business which needs more attention. It might be difficult for the Leader of the House to find sufficient time for the small measures that might be necessary, and so Scottish Acts might be left to gather dust. That would be a recipe for friction if delays were to arise as a result of the amendment preventing an Order in Council to make the necessary consequential changes.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 158, Noes 201.
    [For Division List No. 38 see c. 1521]
    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.
    Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 155.
    [For Division List No. 39 see c. 1523]
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 36

      POWER TO MOVE REJECTION OF CERTAIN ASSEMBLY BILLS
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 173. Noes 170.
      [For Division List No. 40 see c. 1527]
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 37

      POWER TO PREVENT OR REQUIRE ACTION
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 136.
      [For Division List No. 41 see c. 1529]
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 38

      POWER TO REVOKE SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 101.
      [For Division List No. 42 see c. 1531]
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I should like to bring to your attention the situation in which the Committee finds itself as a result of the guillotine having fallen at this time. I appreciate that the Committee is operating under the terms of a resolution passed by the House, but that does not alter the fact that we all feel that we have been put in an extremely difficult position because so many extremely important matters have not been discussed.
      The last three votes were on whether Clauses 36, 37 and 38 should stand part of the Bill. The only way in which we could make any kind of protest about the non-debate of those clauses and the

      1467
      non-consideration of any amendments to them was by voting against the clauses as a whole.
      Mr. John Smith: Ah!
      Mr. Pym: The Minister of State might well say "Ah!". The fact remains, however, that none of these matters has been debated. How else can one make any kind of protest except by voting as we have done? The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we intended to try to amend the three clauses. He laughs, but this is no laughing matter. When the European Communities Bill was before the Committee, no substantive constitutional issues were raised in the clauses, and in any case each clause was given ample time for debate under the guillotine procedure.
      Through you, Mr. Godman Irvine, I invite the Leader of the House to come here and state whether he will consider the new position of the Committee. We have not discussed Clause 36, dealing with the overriding powers of the United Kingdom Government on Bills, or the overriding powers of Government and Execuptive orders. Nor have we been able to discuss the vires position of Executive orders affecting Community matters. Nor have we been able to discuss the number and rôle of Scots Members in the House of Commons, the problem of single-Chamber legislation and the position that another place is to be put into as a result of our not being able to discuss these matters.
      The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. None of these matters can possibly be for the Chair, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. I am confident that the words he has uttered will have been heard in certain quarters, and it may be that some action will be taken.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I distinctly heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) say that he wished, through you, to invite the Leader of the House to come here and consider—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no control over the Leader of the House.
      Sir Timothy Kitson: Further to that point of order—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There is not a point of order so far. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, it would be best to use the time for debate.
      Sir T. Kitson: We are in difficult circumstances, Mr. Godman Irvine. In the last hour, we have had five Divisions. A number of hon. Members are situated in the Norman Shaw building. We have no lifts, and I think that a Division time of eight minutes is intolerable. The period should in the circumstances be extended. I gather that one lift is working in the building. It is only right and proper that you should discuss with Mr. Speaker whether there should not be an extension to the time allowed for a Division, because we cannot go on like this.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. This is a matter which is within the discretion of the Chair, and it has been exercised in accordance with whether or not there have been Divisions and whether or not people are around the Chamber. There have been occasions when as much as three minutes extra have been allowed so that people at the top end of Norman Shaw would be able to get here.
      Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Since the situation in which the Government invited the House to approve the timetable motion has now wholly changed, because it was never within the contemplation of the Government that we should pass whole clauses without any debate at all, could you advise us what protective powers you have in order to safeguard our rights and ensure that we do not go on—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am the servant of the House. Once the report of the Business Committee has been agreed to, I have to carry out the wishes of the House.
      Mr. Douglas Crawford: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It might be of assistance to the House if it can be pointed out to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that all this blustering

      1469
      cannot alter the fact that the Conservative Party voted against the override powers.
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am not absolutely certain whether we are to have longer time for Divisions. If we are, it means that we shall have less time for debate. Could not the people in Norman Shaw come over here in anticipation of a Division and then wait, as it is always on the hour every four hours?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The fact that there is additional time before the door is locked does not necessarily mean that there will be any less time for debate.
      Mr. Pym: I do not rise to a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine, but before we embark on Clause 39 may I draw the attention of the Government to, and ask for a reply on, what appears to be a mistake in the Bill which is germane to Clause 39? The clause deals, among other things, with the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975. That Act is referred to in Schedule 10, which deals with matters within the legislative competence of the Assembly and within the powers of the Scottish Executive—indeed, it says so in its heading. But the heading to Part III of Schedule 10 is
      "Enactments Relating to the Groups in Part I".
      8.0 p.m.
      On page 66 of the Bill the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 is mentioned. At the bottom of that page, in sub-paragraph (i), it will be observed that Section 18 of that Act is included. If one then turns over to the next page, one finds that Schedule 11 is headed
      "Matters Within Powers of Scottish Executive but not Within Legislative Competence of Assembly".
      Then, under Group D, in line 27 one finds the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 again mentioned. At the top of page 69, in paragraph 2(ix), one sees the powers under Section 18 included.
      In other words, Section 18 of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 is included in the Bill under the schedule which is headed
      "Matters within Legislative Competence of Assembly, and within Powers of Scottish Executive".
      1470
      and also in the schedule headed
      "Matters Within Powers of Scottish Executive but not Within Legislative Competence of Assembly."
      I should like to know which of those is correct before we embark on an amendment relating to the Scottish Development Agency.
      Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I think that I can assist the right hon. Gentleman. Schedule 10 deals with the environmental functions of the Scottish Development Agency, over which there will be legislative competence. Section 18 is mentioned in error in Schedule 11. It should be in Schedule 10 only. I hope that that assists the right hon. Gentleman. The Government will certainly see that the error is corrected.

    Clause 39

      INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC GUIDELINES
      Mr. Raison: I beg to move Amendment No. 346, in page 19, line 29, leave out 'prepare guidelines' and insert 'issue directions'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 348, in page 20, line 21, leave out 'guidelines' and insert 'directions'.
      Mr. Raison: We have now two hours in which to consider three clauses that are extremely important and unquestionably require a very thorough Committee stage examination. These are not clauses which are just open and shut. They involve a great deal of detail. They are exactly the sort of clauses for which, in a sense, we have the Committee system. To have to gallop through them, as we are having to do today, is completely monstrous. I particularly regret that there will not be time for proper examination of Clause 40, which I think is of the greatest possible importance.
      The effect of Amendment No. 346, together with Amendment No. 348, is to change the phrase "prepare guidelines" to "issue directions". This refers to the guidelines which, under the Bill, are to be given by the Secretary of State to—I assume—the Scottish Secretary, in regard to the Scottish Development Agency and certain other agencies or for certain other purposes listed in the clause. Because of

      1471
      the great pressure on our time, I intend to be very brief. I believe that there are other amendments and debates which should take up more time.
      This is an important clause. It is essential that we obtain from the Minister a clear idea of exactly what is meant by "guidelines" and exactly what they are meant to do. The question that one needs to ask the Minister first is whether "guidelines" are the same thing as "directions"—except that the word is used in a rather more delicate way.
      If one looks at other Acts of Parliament—indeed, the Acts of Parliament to which reference is made here—one finds that the wording in them is "directions". In this case we now have this word "guidelines". We are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us exactly what the difference is between "guidelines" and "directions", and why it was decided to use the word "guidelines" in this piece of legislation.
      The subject matter of the clause covers one or two different Acts of Parliament. There is, first, the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has just referred. The rubric to Section 4 talks of
      "Power of Secretary of State to give Agency directions."
      Those directions are subsequently described as being
      "of a general or specific character."
      Section 5 also confers powers to give directions in this case to do with the giving of "selective financial assistance." There are also, in other parts of the Act, further respects in which the Secretary of State has to approve proposals and in effect give directions.
      Section 2 of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965 says.
      "The Secretary of State may … give to the Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance of their functions, and the Board shall give effect to any such directions."
      What really happens under this Bill? Does the Secretary of State give guidelines to the Scottish Secretary who then has, as it were, inherited the powers which at present the Secretary of State has to give directions of a general character, or whatever it may be? In other words,
      1472
      will the Minister tell us what is really envisaged?
      Is it envisaged that the Secretary of State for Scotland, sitting either in London or in Edinburgh, wherever he is, will say to the Scottish Secretary "These are the guidelines under which you will operate ", and that the Scottish Secretary will then inherit, as it were, from the Secretary of State the duty of giving these particular directions? If that is the case, clearly it is rather a nonsensical procedure.
      The directions which the Scottish Secretary will have the power to give under these Acts of Parliament will inevitably be liable to be of a somewhat bogus nature, because they will have been determined by the guidelines already given to him by the Secretary of State in the Whitehall Government. We ask the Minister exactly what the position is.
      Once again, this makes the point that we are talking about the most incredible muddle. It seems to me that the ideal answer to this problem is that we should not give these economic powers to the Scottish Assembly at all. After all, it was inherent, as I understood it, in the strategy of this whole operation that, whereas the social policy powers would go to the devolved Scottish Assembly, the economic strategy would remain with the United Kingdom as a whole.
      These provisions are an example of the way in which the Government have deviated from the principle under which we all understood them to be operating. Therefore, the best answer is that these powers should not be transferred to the Scottish Assembly at all. Failing that, it seems to me—this is the purpose of our amendment—that it would be very much better to stick to the familiar phrase "directions" than to introduce this rather vague and uncertain concept of "guidelines".
      I ask again whether the word "guidelines" has any meaning different from that of the word "directions". The purpose of our amendment is to substitute "directions", because they are a clear and familiar concept to which we are all used. "Guidelines" is a hazy concept. Guidelines have about them a rather equivocal flavour. They sound as though they are not really meant to be taken all that seriously—though in this case

      1473
      they have a punch attached in that the Secretary of State is able to impose them. I hope that the Minister will answer these questions.
      Finally, although I am very dubious about the clause, at least it is superior to Clause 40, because under this clause the Whitehall Government have the power ultimately to lay down Government policy, whereas under the next clause, which deals with incomes policy, we have the incredible situation in which the Scottish Secretaries would have to do no more than pay regard to national incomes policy. This is not the moment at which to debate that, but if ever there were a chance to produce complete and utter chaos and appalling friction, t is to be found in Clause 40.
      Mr. James Sillars: I object to the amendment. I see no difference in practice between "directions" and "guidelines". I do not know that we can accept that one cannot take the word "guidelines" very seriously. If we were to consult the members of the Fire Brigades Union, I believe they would quickly tell us that guidelines can be directions. I am not going into that dispute, but simply use it as an indication that guidelines are what the person who determines them wants them to be. He determines what they mean, and they can mean directions. If the Secretary of State for Scotland in any future Administration were to lay down guidelines for the Assembly, they would in effect be directions.
      It is interesting that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) did not object to the Secretary of State's operating guidelines or directions
      "with the approval of the Treasury".
      That acceptance of the Treasury's approval causes my main concern about the amendment. The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that the Treasury is quite a wise body of opinion and that we in Scotland should be happy to accept Treasury guidance or directions.
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will accept that this attitude on Treasury guidance means a separate State, because if one does not accept Treasury guidance, one is then another country.
      Mr. Sillars: I do not think that that necessarily follows, although I should be happy to accept a separate Scottish State within the European Economic Community, because that is not equal to separatism, as I am sure my hon. Friend, who is one of the most intellectually honest members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, would be the first to agree.
      It does not necessarily follow that even within a devolution settlement, which the Minister of State proposes in the Bill, one needs to have the Treasury dictating every aspect of policy. The quicker my hon. Friend and the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party realise that the Treasury is not the fount of all wisdom and that it should get its fingers out of all sorts of pies, including industrial relations, the better the prospect for the Parliamentary Labour Party to remain on this side of the Chamber after the next General Election rather than, as now seems likely, on the other side.
      From 1960 to 1977–17 years—we have had two Governments in power. We have had nine years of Labour Government and eight years of Conservative Government. Throughout that period Treasury Ministers have been guided, or in my view sometimes directed, by the mandarins in the Treasury. The mandarins have certainly guided or directed the prospects and performance of the Scottish economy, which is in a shambles today. It is suffering from a process of de-industrialisation, rising unemployment and lack of opportunity for our young people.
      Over those 17 years it has not mattered much to us in terms of the performance of the Scottish economy whether there has been a Labour or Conservative Government in power, except that I must say in favour of Harold Macmillan's period in office that that was the time when we had direction of industry—probably against the advice and guidance of the Treasury—to the Fort William pulp mill, the Ravenscraig steel mill and the motor car plant in Renfrewshire. I know that I shall carry the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) with me in paying a compliment to his father.
      From 1960 to 1977 the Treasury has manipulated Minister after Minister and Chancellor after Chancellor. I am always astounded at how my right hon. Friend

      1475
      the present Chancellor can keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying "I got it wrong last time, but this time I have got it right". In one of his 14 Budgets, or whatever the number is, he will confess that he got it wrong last time but say that he will certainly get it right this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that I would carry the Conservative Party with me at least on that, and if the members of the Tribune Group were present, I am sure that I would have carried them with me as well. I am always astonished by the breathtaking panache with which the present Chancellor can forecast and boast. The only equivalent I know is Ally MacLeod, but, unlike the Chancellor, he has something to boast about.
      8.15 p.m.
      I think that I am fairly accurate in expecting that the Opposition as well as the Government will accept Treasury and Westminster control of the Scottish Development Agency, which is in essence what the amendment talks about. Such control would mean that the SDA was a Scottish puppet on a Westminster string. But one can never be sure until polling day exactly what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), on the Opposition Front Bench, will say.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State is more predictable. I think that he will argue that Treasury control, Treasury guidelines, directions or whatever, must be retained on the basis that we must maintain the essential unity of the United Kingdom, to use a well-worn phrase.
      The Government and some hon. Members falsely believe—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is guilty of this as well—that unity must be cemented by total uniformity, total harmonisation and the universal application of economic and fiscal policies. They can recognise no worth in deviation or variety, in applying different solutions to different problems which arise in different parts of the United Kingdom, whether Cornwall, the Midlands of England, or the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). They fail to accept that one can apply different solutions to the different problems that crop up because of the geographical and economic differ
      1476
      ences between different parts of the island of Britain and Ulster.
      Mr. Jim Craigen: Surely the existence of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency argues for the fact that there is a varied approach within the United Kingdom. I say to my hon. Friend "Be fair."
      Mr. Sillars: I intend to be more than fair. Anyone who examines the present guidelines in relation to the Scottish Development Agency will not find the Scottish Office allowing the SDA to depart from what the Department of Industry and the Treasury would regard as policies essential to the unity of the United Kingdom and non-competition between economic regions within it. I shall deal with the question of non-competition a little later.
      Mr. Craigen: When my hon. Friend does so, I think he will agree that even within the EEC there is now a reappraisal of the question of competition among its different areas.
      Mr. Sillars: If the EEC takes as long to reappraise the regional policy and its application as it has in altering the common agricultural policy, my hon. Friend and I will be here with beards 12 feet long and basically nothing will have changed if we rely on changes in the Community.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), West Lothian and the Minister of State, and even the hon. Members for Cathcart, Ayr (Mr. Younger) and all the rest will probably defend one position or the other—guidelines or directives. It might be acceptable to someone such as myself if they could say that we should accept the wisdom, control and direction of the Treasury because there is proof positive that it has worked to the benefit of the Scottish economy, but that is far from being so.
      There are various regions in the United Kingdom—for present purposes I put Scotland in this context, and hope that I do not offend the SNP in doing so—in which there has been a continual rise in seasonally adjusted unemployment since August this year. There is a degree

      1477
      of growth in the United Kingdom economy, but we are witnessing it in the traditionally rich areas. The old imbalance between Scotland and some other development areas is beginning to emerge once again.
      It is interesting that in the South-East, East Anglia, the South-West—which is strange—the East Midlands, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside there has been a diminution of seasonally adjusted unemployment, but in the North-West, the North of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland there has been an increase. The old patterns of imbalance between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are being reestablished. That means that we shall be first into the next recession, which might come sooner than the Chancellor has forecast. We are last in and first out. It is a continuing process of debilitation.
      Some people have argued the Treasury and Department of Industry view that the harmonisation policies have worked in the special development areas. But last month the special development areas had 61 per cent. of total unemployment in Scotland. Out of the Scottish unemployed of 185,000 about 112,000 were in the special development areas. That particular Treasury and Department of Industry policy is not working.
      With regard to the current level of unemployment in each special development area in Scotland, in West Central Scotland—the major problem in the Scottish economy at present—in November 1972 there were 71,663 people unemployed. There are now 98,157 people unemployed in that part of the Scottish economy. In Strathclyde the percentage increase in unemployment from November 1975 has been 491. That is a jump in total numbers from 73,000 to 109,000.
      In the special development areas, unemployment in Dundee and Arbroath has increased by 110 per cent. between the Labour Government coming in, in March 1974, and October 1977. In Dundee, in the period between 1964 and November 1977, there has been a 288 per cent. increase in unemployment, in Glasgow a 95 per cent. increase in unemployment, and in Edinburgh a 311 per cent. increase in unemployment. I do not think that anyone will argue that the Treasury
      1478
      finger was ever off the button in that period. One could go on and on demonstrating the lack of the Treasury's ability either to guide or direct the Scottish economy towards full employment.
      What about the Labour Government's The Labour Party's election manifesto says on page 12:
      "Labour will do whatever is necessary to bring full employment to Scotland. We shall not rest until everyone in Scotland has the opportunity of a decent, well-paid job."
      If the Labour Government intended to do whatever was necessary to bring about full employment, why has Scottish unemployment doubled in the period since Labour took office in March 1974? There is no point in the hon. Member for Ayr getting terribly excited about the possibility of putting this in his election address, for if we examine his party's performance, we find that in the Conservative election manifesto—the separate one, if I may so term it—there was a promise in 1970 about "a better tomorrow". That was the promise. It has been a long nightmare and we have never reached the dawn.
      Coming back to Labour—I do not think that the Conservatives are as irrelevant as some hon. Members may think—
      Mr. Small: Is that the intention—to come back to Labour?
      Mr. Sillars: There is no intention of that.
      Mr. George Younger: I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) wishes to be fair. He has given some excellent figures which demonstrate that unemployment was much lower under the Conservatives than under the Labour Government. Surely he should give credit to the Conservative Government.
      Mr. Sillars: I do not give credit to any party which left office with higher unemployment than when it came into office. That is the projection of Scottish unemployment from the mid-1950s onwards, irrespective of the Government in power.
      I have already given credit to the Conservative Administration of Harold Macmillan, in that it certainly directed employment to some areas of the Scottish

      1479
      economy, but I do not want to dwell on that unless I should upset the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who might believe that it was a Socialist phase inside the Conservative Party. If the Labour Government are doing whatever is necessary, why is the policy not working?
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as a result of the four years of good work of the Conservative Government between 1970 and 1974, Scotland's relative unemployment position within the United Kingdom improved and continued to improve. But in the last 18 months it has got worse.
      Mr. Sillars: I am just a simple working-class lad from Ayrshire who is totally unimpressed by someone who can demonstrate to me that rising unemployment is not in fact rising unemployment. It does not matter a tuppenny bit to my constituents that during the time that the hon. Gentleman's Government were in power the relativity was changing one way or the other, if more and more of them were going on to the employment exchange.
      The use of the relativity statistic is an escape route employed by the hon. Gentleman. It is employed by the Secretary of State for Scotland as well. He has also got the bug. It is an escape from the reality, which is that, no matter what the situation happens to be under either Government, unemployment rises in absolute terms.
      But we are not dealing with statistics; we are dealing with ordinary people, and that is what counts more than anything else. If the hon. Member for Cathcart and the Secretary of State for Scotland are to go prancing round the country at the next election saying that Scottish unemployment is round about the 180,000 or 200,000 mark, but that there is no need to worry because, relatively speaking, the position is better than ever before, there will be fewer votes cast for them.
      Conservative Members seem to want to stop me from coming back to the performance of the Labour Government. I do not know whether it is because they approve of their policy. But I intend to return to the election manifesto, in which there is talk of Labour doing whatever is necessary to bring full employment to
      1480
      Scotland. Have the Labour Government done that? There must be something wrong with the mechanism of government and economic management if the Government have done their best and, instead of their policy working, Scottish unemployment has increased by about 111 per cent. since Labour came to office.
      As to the pledge that the Labour Government would not rest until everyone in Scotland had the opportunity of a decent well-paid job, the Government must have had sleepless night after sleepless night.
      I quote next from the book "Scotland 1980", which I know the hon. Member for Cathcart regards as a dreadful publication. I shall quote from a part which at least my hon. Friend the Minister of State will not regard as having been written by someone whose opinions are not worth much one way or the other. It is the section produced by John Firn, who is not a member of the Scottish National Party. I am told that he is a member of the Labour Party. I believe him to be, but I stand open to correction. In the book he has pointed out that
      "By mid-1976, manufacturing's share of total employment had fallen below 30 per cent. for the first time in living memory, and well over 110,000 manufacturing jobs had been lost since the mid-1960s."
      Later he goes on to talk about private enterprise, and this will interest the hon. Member for Cathcart. He writes:
      "If manufacturing is less than 30 per cent. of total employment in 1980—and by mid-1977 it is already well below trend—and if the indigenous share of that manufacturing remains about the level of the mid-1970s, then it could mean that only about 12 per cent. of total employment was in the private manufacturing sector. This is a truly insignificant level, and much bigger below that of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of the other small countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark, with which Scotland is often compared. Indeed, there must be grave doubts about the ability of a sector that size to play a major part in the type of strong, export-orientated, industrial growth strategy that is required in Scotland."
      That is why we are talking about the Scottish Development Agency. I wish that we were talking about the whole public sector. If I tried to deal with that, I should be out of order. If the private sector cannot or does not have the ability to engineer the necessary recovery in terms of growth strategy in the Scottish economy, we must of necessity examine the public sector as the only

      1481
      solution—or the only potential solution—to the economic and unemployment problems in Scotland.
      In examining the public sector one must make reference to the Scottish Development Agency, which is a weapon—I use that term advisedly—which could be used for the extension of the public sector and to make the public sector much more dynamic and job-creative than it now is.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that almost every single White Paper published on the Scottish economy has shown that the biggest slump in jobs in Scotland has been in the State-controlled industries?
      Mr. Sillars: Yes, and I think that the fault has been that the public sector in Scotland has not been given positive encouragement to play a dynamic rôle in the comunity. That applies also to the guidelines which constrict the Scottish Development Agency, and which were laid upon it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who had a fit of Conservatism on the night that he finally put his name to those particular guidelines. They were described in The Scotsman at the time as "impeccably capitalistic" and that is a fair assessment of them. I want the Treasury's guidelines to be removed from the Scottish Development Agency and to allow the Scottish Assembly to determine its total remit.
      Some hon. Members from the North-East of England and elsewhere might object and say that we cannot allow the Scottish Development Agency such free rein and free authority because it would damage some of the development areas in England itself. I regard that as absolute rubbish. If we can engineer the Scottish economy so that it fully absorbs the present spare capacity in terms of industry and labour, that will do nothing but good for the other regional parts of the United Kingdom economy.
      8.30 p.m.
      If, for example, we get the Scottish economy into full employment, the purchasing power of all the people in Scotland is immensely increased. Scotland does not have a consumer-oriented economy, but if it starts to buy consumer goods, that must immediately begin to
      1482
      benefit the consumer-oriented economy south of the border.
      That in itself will have a beneficial effect. If we so engineer the situation in Scotland that we take the Scottish economy into full employment—no more shall we suffer the gibes of being the "subsidised Scots" inside the United Kingdom. We shall be able to make a net contribution to, and not take from, the general pool of resources and cash available within the United Kingdom.
      I believe that the only hope for the Scottish economy is economic self-management and resource self-management. I do not think any Unionist or centralist at Westminster can refute that, because all the evidence is there of total incompetence in relation to the performance of the Scottish economy. I see the Scottish Development Agency as a marvellous potential tool for changing the direction and the present trends within the economy.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what he is essentially saying is that the central Government guidelines to which the SDA should be subject are total budgetary control without any detailed control other than that?
      Mr. Sillars: I am arguing within this particular devolution setting. I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. Unfortunately, it is not a good example and I shall explain why in a moment. I shall embarrass the Minister of State as well. I refer to the regional employment premium.
      Had we still had the regional employment premium, we should have had about £78 million for labour subsidy in Scotland. Because of the principle of uniformity and harmonisation, there was no variation in which one could use the regional employment premium. We could not give £6 in Galloway, £1·50 in North Aberdeen, £9 in Inverness, or £6 in Clydeside. It is part of my argument that if the United Kingdom Government sets the macro-amount for any sector of the economy or any major activity by subsidisation—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not overlook that we are dealing with Amendment No. 346, which is reasonably narrow. There may

      1483
      be a debate on "clause stand part" in due course, in which case what he is saying may be relevant.
      Mr. Sillars: I think I was led astray. I think that the example I am giving to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is in order. Under the Treasury guidelines or directions that we are likely to get, I expect that the Treasury will be opposed to the kind of flexibility that I was describing with regard to the application of regional policies. I shall not go on about the REP. However, I remind the Minister of State that, although he was a great champion of REP when in opposition, he has not said very much about it since the Labour Government abolished that part of regional policy.
      I think I am in order in saying that the debates on the Bill have pointed to the fact that there is conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster built into almost every clause. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have talked about the heat, conflict and conflagration that will flow from that. I think we are talking about a real landmine.
      Mr. Dalyell: A field of landmines.
      Mr. Sillars: Some landmines are bigger than others. I do not think it is even a booby-trap. It is a major land-mine in the Bill and in the relations that will have to be established between Edinburgh and Westminster.
      The root of Scottish politics has always been about jobs. If one studies the election manifestos, the election addresses and the speeches and the debates on Scottish television—Grampian and BBC programmes on current events—one sees that jobs tend to dominate the Scottish economy and the performance of Scottish industry. If one thinks of the powers to be given to the Assembly, there is only one area in which the Assembly can properly engage in the industrial planning of Scotland, and that is through the Scottish Development Agency. It is the guidelines that will determine the Assembly's ability to engage properly or in a frustrated manner, and that will then begin to build up waves of resentment against Westminster.
      For example, the guidelines will be set by the Secretary of State for Scot land with the consent, and all the rest,
      1484
      of the Treasury. Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Cathcart, who has a predilection for Conservative Right-wing policies, were Secretary of State for Scotland. Let us suppose that the Scottish Assembly decided that, because of the importance of the public sector, it was necessary to have the power and the right to buy its way into firms in the private sector in order to protect or expand the Scottish economy. Because of the hon. Gentleman's particular political philosophy, I think that he would object, because that is anathema to the hon. Gentleman.
      Let us suppose that the Assembly decides that the SDA should have a remit to establish inventive public enterprise in various sectors of the economy—let us take timber as an example. Let us suppose it decided to give the SDA the remit to vary incentives, not necessarily to bring in firms externally in competition with the North-East of England, but to permit a growth of indigenous industry. I would take a bet from anyone that the hon. Member for Cathcart would not be able to resist the temptation of saying "No". If the guidelines did not permit him to say "No", I am sure that he would change those guidelines or the directive in the amendment in order to say "No".
      Let us suppose we have a Left-wing radical Socialist Scottish Assembly, which means that it will not be the Labour Party, which wanted to do a whole range of things. The hon. Member for Cathcart, as a Right-wing Conservative Secretary of State, would say that we had the onset of Socialism in Scotland which would ultimately sweep south of the border.
      Mr. Dalyell: That example does not apply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) or the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) would be in exactly the same position, because their supporters so require them. It is not just a question of bogies from Cathcart. Any Opposition Member would be forced by the political situation to do precisely that. That is why the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this is one of the many landmines.
      Mr. Sillars: I find it difficult to conjure up the vision of the hon. Member for

      1485
      Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) leading the Conservative Party, either north or south of the border. That is why I concentrated on the hon. Member for Cathcart. It happens to be my opinion that that would happen—
      Mr. Dalyell: Any moderate man.
      Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend is probably right—if there were a Conservative Administration in power and it believed that a Left-wing Socialist Assembly would create sufficient elbow room for Socialism to come into England and thereby infect other parts of the United Kingdom.
      I ask hon. Members to consider the hypothetical situation where a Scottish industry was in trouble. The most obvious place for that industry to go would be the Scottish Development Agency. I do it in my own constituency. I am sure that any hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency faced with industrial problems goes to Lewis Robertson and asks the SDA to make an examination to see whether it can help. We are bound to do that.
      In such case the industry will go to the Assembly and the Assemblymen will say "Yes" and that they believe that X is the solution but, unfortunately, that the guidelines to do not permit the application of that solution. What happens then is that the Assembly passes a motion, probably unanimously, irrespective of the party political make-up of its Members, demanding a change in the guidelines. That goes to Westminster, and then it becomes the political judgment of people like the hon. Member for Cathcart, or whoever happens to be Secretary of State at the time. If they are unreasonable and say "No", a potentially explosive political situation developes between the Assembly and Westminster and develops unnecessarily, because the position taken at Westminster will be the position that would be taken now in terms of that policy, and it is a failed policy. So it would be foolish and unnecesary, although that would not stop people down here.
      That is one of the reasons why I am opposed to this amendment and intend to vote against it. I shall not take part in the "Clause stand part" debate,
      1486
      although I hope that the clause will be defeated as well.
      Mr. Dalyell: There is a rider to this. Not only would it be an approach to the Secretary of State. The Assembly, conscious of its own dignity, would short circuit this position. The Chief Secretary, Prime Minister, or whatever he called himself, would be knocking at the door of 10, Downing Street on these issues. That would lead straight to the situation, and more, that my hon. Friend describes.
      Mr. Sillars: That might be the case.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: That is exactly what some of us have been trying to tell my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for several years when he was busily bashing us for saying so.
      Mr. Sillars: One of the reasons that made me change my mind was when I witnessed the performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) as a member of two separate Administrations. He is a classic example of the raging Left-winger when in opposition and at Tribune meetings who becomes a normal moderate Minister when he is in the Government. When he was in charge of Scottish land for two or three years in the Scottish Office, I do not think that there was a square centimetre ever taken into public ownership. I came to this House having been spellbound by the rhetoric and oratory of the Left-wing Member for Renfrewshire, West over the period when I was not a Member. Then I discovered that it was not the case when he was in Westminster, and I thought that it was better to go to Edinburgh. I make that confession to my hon. Friend. He is one of those who have helped to convert me since I came to Westminster.
      I am delighted to have carried so many hon. Members with me in my argument, and I anticipate that they will vote against the amendment. More importantly, I hope that they will vote against the clause when it is put to the Committee.
      Mr. Crawford: Doubtless the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is as surprised as I am to find the Conservative Party supporting an amendment which uses the phrase "issue directions"

      1487
      to a State or semi-State body. It is very interesting. But I' suppose we should not be all that surprised. After all, the Conservatives voted against the override provisions in Clauses 36, 37 and 38. I am delighted that they did so. Presumably they knew what they were doing when they voted against them.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Pym: Of course we knew what we were doing. The hon. Member must not misrepresent it, although he may take pleasure in doing so.
      Mr. Hector Monro: He always misrepresents things.
      Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said that I always misrepresent things. I am stating a fact. The Conservatives voted against Clauses 36, 37 and 38—the overriding clauses. I do not know why they did. I am not privy to the counsels of the Conservative Party, but they voted against the override provisions of the Bill.
      On the amendment, I take my text from yesterday's university match at Twickenham, about which there was an article by Mr. Gwynne Walters, a well-known Welsh referee, who describes how a fellow countryman meted out heavy punishment in the first few minutes of the game. He says that "he reprimanded the player, but the opposing captain told him not to worry because his team needed stimulation. This team was providing that stimulation."
      The Scottish National Party has had plenty of stimulation from the Conservative Party during the debates on the Scotland Bill. We have had the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) saying that unemployment in Merseyside is higher than on Strathclyde. I am delighted to inform him that he is wrong. The figures are 10·8 per cent. for Strathclyde and 8·9 per cent. for Merseyside.
      Mr. Iain Sproat: I went to the Library just three minutes ago and got the latest figures. They are Strathclyde 10·1 per cent. and Merseyside 11·7 per cent. In Glasgow the figure is 9·1 per cent. and in Liverpool it is 12·1 per cent.
      Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member is talking about relativities. He should go
      1488
      to some of the employment exchanges in the East End of Glasgow, where he would find unemployment over the 30 per cent. mark.
      The hon. Member also said last night
      "We were not able to discuss exactly how the Assembly could do it, but I should imagine, for example, that the people of England or this House might say 'We shall not bail out this miserable Scottish Assembly which has landed itself with millions of pounds of debts'".
      We are told that we are going to be bailed out by our own money, and we are supposed to be grateful for it.
      The Scottish National Party was also stimulated by the speech earlier tonight of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I was interested in his speech, so I took down his remarks, which were inflammatory. He said:
      "England, although slow to anger, will come to realise what is being done, and English anger will be fierce."
      That is a very serious statement.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Member is overlooking the fact that we are dealing with an amendment on a rather narrow front.
      Mr. Crawford: I take your point, Mr. Godman Irvine. The point about what is happening in Scotland was put best yesterday by my hon. Friend—I hope that I may call him my friend—the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) when he spoke in the context of the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish business confidence. He said:
      "Our business men do not believe that if they are stood on their own feet in the Scottish context they will be able to manage as they do now under the patronage and tutelage of people in the Westminster setting. They might be surprised by their own ability at the end of the day."—[Official Report, 6th December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1177, 1189.]
      This is the answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and other Front Bench Conservatives.
      As far as Scotland is concerned, the chamber of commerce is against us; this body and that body are against us; everyone is against us except the Scottish people. We have the stimulation of Scotland being treated in these debates like a beast in the market place. We cannot suffer it much longer. I know now how Parnell and the Irish Party must have felt in the last century in the House of Commons.

      1489
      I come to the analogy between the Scottish Development Agency and the Irish Industrial Development Authority. The Irish body has been successful to the extent that 10 years ago exports of manufactured goods were worth £200 million and now they are worth some £2,000 million. The Scottish Development Agency must be made as strong as the Irish authority. Also, we want to see a venture capital wing of the Scottish Development Agency.
      In the latest SDA report, we see the following:
      "Scotland has an unduly low proportion of companies whose ownership and management are Scottish-based, and the Agency would wish to foster indigenous industry and to encourage a long-term increase in the proportion of such companies.… The concern for indigenous companies relates partly to the need that younger men of talent should see wide career opportunities in Scotland, so that enough of them may stay to enrich the management pool and society generally."
      The Scottish Development Agency will not be able to undertake this task if the Conservative amendment is carried—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire will agree. Despite the views of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I must tell him that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) will confirm that at their meeting with the STUC that body wanted to see the Scottish Assembly as an economic power with control over the SDA. I was at that meeting with the STUC and that was what its general secretary, Mr. James Milne, said.
      Mr. Buchan: This was not what was said by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) in the House. Not only does the STUC want economic powers for the agency, but so also do the Government. The hon. Gentleman must not twist the situation in that way.
      Mr. Crawford: I cannot become involved in internal quarrels between the Labour Party in Scotland and the STUC.
      Mr. John Smith: Since the hon. Gentleman referred to the STUC, and since the Government have discussed these matters directly with that body on a number of
      1490
      occasions involving areas of devolution, I assure the hon. Gentleman—there should be no mistake about it—that the decision of the Government to transfer executive, but not legislative, responsibility for industrial affairs on the part of the Agency and the consequent guidelines were fully appreciated and agreed to by the STUC.
      Mr. Crawford: My understanding of our meeting with the STUC was that it wanted to see legislative devolution as well. If the Minister says that the STUC does not want legislative devolution, that is fair enough, but that was not what I understood from that meeting.
      Let me return to the amendment. If directions are issued by the House, I believe that the SDA will not be able to fulfil its functions. Let me quote from the SDA report, page 6:
      "If we think in terms of the complete and effective regeneration of the Scottish economy—and the Agency ought indeed to think in such terms—it must be said that the amount allocated by statute will not be sufficient. Measured against the total need, or against the total of current annual relevant investment, and assuming a period of perhaps five years, £300 million will not cover the full requirement".
      If the House of Commons is to issue directions to the SDA, it will not get the powers it needs. The Chairman of the SDA, Sir William Gray, who was quoted in the Press the other week, said that the Agency should have access to the revenue from Scottish oil.
      Whether or not the amendment is carried, I put it to the Committee—again, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire will agree with me—that in time the Assembly will take over control of the SDA. That will follow as night follows day. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will agree with that statement.
      Now the SDA is concerned about scaremongering stories put about by the Conservative Party to the effect that once self-government comes several companies will move out of Scotland. It behoves the Conservatives, if they know the names of those companies, to name them. If they cannot do, they should hold their peace.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman say in what way the SDA

      1491
      expressed those views to him? When I had a meeting with that body, it expresed no such view. It certainly named no major industrialists or trade unionists who take the view that SNP policy will help to preserve jobs in Scotland.
      Mr. Crawford: I do not think I should answer the second part of that question. I was saying that, if the Conservative Party cannot name the companies which intend to pull out of Scotland, it should hold its peace. We know what has happened to the steel industry in Scotland.
      Conservatives have refused to mention those 40 foreign banks which have come to Scotland in the last 10 years or so. Those were years when the SNP was on the up and up. The Swiss Bank is the latest one to arrive, and it will begin operations on 9th February. It is not for me to issue invitations, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to come the Swiss Bank will be delighted to have him at the opening. I suggest that this is the situation and that the international banking community is voting with its feet.
      I have more news for the hon. Member for Cathcart, again in the context of the SDA. He will be as concerned as I am about the possible takeover of one or two investment trusts in Edinburgh. I have here a letter from the deputy-chairman of the Scotland Association of Investment Trusts, which says:
      "A loss of international investment expertise accumulated for almost a century in many cases will not be easily replaced in Scotland and you can appreciate that should there be many more such bids it will be difficult if not impossible to offer a career structure in investment management. Although our numbers in terms of personnel may be small the husbandry of the country's overseas assets over many years has brought disproportionately large returns in invisible earnings. As an analogy, it is worth remembering that apart from the General Accident the composite insurance industry has had no head office management or investment expertise in Scotland since the take-overs of the late 1950s and early 1960s."
      If the amendments in the spirit and the words that the Tory Party have tabled in Amendment No. 346 are agreed, there will be even more centralisation of decision-making over the Scottish economy, away from Scotland. The hon. Member for Cathcart had better bear that in mind.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Member say whether the passing or otherwise of this amendment would affect the policy of the National Coal Board pension fund in bidding for the Scottish Investment Trust?
      Mr. Crawford: I am delighted to hear the hon. Member for Cathcart promoting the pension fund of a London-based nationalised industry. I suggest that any Scottish Government, if it were interested in its own entrepreneurs, would put grave restrictions on that.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) answer the question straight for once?
      Mr. Crawford: Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) wish to intervene?
      Mr. Fletcher: I have just done so.
      Mr. Sillars: I am getting a wee bit worried about the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) referring to me as his hon. Friend when he is defending Scottish capitalism. Is he saying that in his view no Scottish Government would allow, for example, a Scottish-owned organisation or a Scottish Coal Board to operate in the way that he is condemning? If he is saying that, he cannot call me his hon. Friend.
      Mr. Crawford: I can still call the hon. Member my hon. Friend. He cannot impute these things to me. A strong SDA and a strong Scottish economy are complementary, and the SNP will brook no interference in the SDA by this House of Commons or the Treasury in Great George Street.
      Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to the Chair for being called, because I have not been in the Chamber for a great length of time. However, I heard some of the arguments on previous occasions and I came in to hear the latter end of the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) about the economic problems that this Bill would cause.
      I want to pick up some points that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) has just made in an incredible speech. He initially claimed that the trade unions, working-class

      1493
      organisations and business organisations were all against the SNP.
      The hon. Gentleman quoted Roosevelt without naming him, when he said that all except the people were against the nationalists, but he was wrong there as well. All the polls show that only 25 to 28 per cent. of the people of Scot and support the SNP and that half those reject its policy. According to a Sunday Mail poll, 53 per cent. of SNP voters rejected the party's policy—so the Scottish people are now against the SNP.
      9.0 p.m.
      The next thing that I want to pick up is the hon. Member's attempt not to restate the untruths that were stated in the House three weeks ago in relation to the Scottish TUC position, but to retreat from that, though, at the same time, to attribute the blame to the STUC. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has virtually accused the STUC of lying. Following the statement by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that the STUC backed the SNP on where it was going in general and in relation to economic powers, the STUC issued a statement flatly denying any such thing. If the SNP Members reiterate that claim, they are accusing the STUC and, above all, its Secretary of lying. Is it any wonder that everyone in Scotland is against them? They appear to be against everyone else.
      The trouble with SNP's claim for access to Scotland's own resources in relation to oil is that it is not even-handed justice. The SNP seeks access to Scotland's resources in one respect, but also to the rest of the United Kingdom's resources in every other respect.
      The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire failed to see, as did the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, who does not so much argue a case as proceed by a series of pronunciamentos, the real nature of the beast, the real nature of the economy that we have to deal with. It is the nature of the economy that makes the assertions of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire correct when he points out the likelihood of an explosive situation arising here, but wrong in the conclusion that he draws.
      1494
      When I intervened and got a proper clobbering from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire for my pains, I wanted simply to make the point that some of us have been saying this for a long time. I have certainly been saying it in articles since 1971 and since before then in speeches.
      Mr. Sillars: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman will vote against Clause 39 standing part of the Bill?
      Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman let me make my own speech as I allowed him to make his? We shall deal with that matter when we reach it. At the moment we are on a narrow point.
      The hon. Member for South Ayrshire was right in his analysis that there is a danger of arguments over the economic situation, whether we have guidelines or directives, but his answer was wrong when he said that therefore we must achieve totally separate control within Scotland. The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the nature of modern capitalism, of the British economy and of proper working-class responses. The trouble with his speech was that he made one slightly ashamed of the term "Socialism". Above all, Socialism depends upon concrete analyses of situations and not upon a series of assertions. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech many times, though his peroration was rather better than usual: it was quite good.
      Mr. Sillars: How can the hon. Gentleman say that he has heard my speech before when he was not here to hear it and there is no broadcast of our proceedings? Is that not an absurd position for him to take, along with all his other absurd positions?
      Mr. Buchan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was brighter than that. I have heard the speech many times. I knew what the hon. Gentleman was saying, because he has said it many times before.
      The real task is to make an analysis of the economy. I did not decide to speak until I came into the Chamber about 15 minutes ago, but I have some figures that I should like to give the Committee. In 1910 the top 100 companies in Britain controlled 15 per cent. of our GNP. That is not many companies. There would probably be 100 companies in South

      1495
      Ayrshire alone. In 1950 the top 100 companies also have interlocking director-GNP. In the next 20 years up to 1970 the top 100 companies moved to a position of controlling more than 50 per cent. of the economy, and by now they probably control something of the order of two-thirds of it. In other words, the graph, which moved very slowly for half a century, has suddenly jumped, and there has been a greater and greater conglomeration of power into fewer and fewer hands, because the 100 top companies also have interlocking directorships. Therefore we have a great accumulation of power in a small number of hands.
      My second point is the vast accumulation of power and wealth of the multinational companies, which now have sufficient power to be able to overthrow a medium-sized State such as Chile. That is what happened in Chile through the operations of ITT. When I had to fight to help to save Chrysler and to retain Chrysler in Scotland, I remember meeting Mr. Riccardo, the chairman of Chrysler Corporation, and asking him how he valued Chrysler's assets in Britain. He told me "Now they are valueless". "In that case", said I, very cleverly, I thought, "you cannot object if we say that we will take them into public ownership with compensation at your own valuation"—in other words, zero.
      What I did not know in saying that we should take them over for nothing, on his own evaluation, was that he himself was saying "Please take them over, and I shall pay you £30 million to do it." He recognised that the problem to him in relation to ownership or retention of Chrysler in the United Kingdom, let alone in Scotland, was the question of penetrating the United Kingdom market. He could penetrate the market through Dodge in America, Chrysler Simca in Europe, and Colt and others in Japan. That was what he wanted access to. I felt like someone who has hit someone over the head on a dark night and been surprised when he did not fall down and then discovered when the light came on that he had been wearing a steel helmet. When we have reached the stage where the ultimate threat of taking over such companies is valueless, we see that these companies have immense power. This
      1496
      was a medium-sized multinational company.
      Given the background of the conglomeration of power and wealth in the hands of a small number of people and companies, and given the colossal power that can be exerted by a multinational company, which can destroy an economic system by its pricing policy, for example, I believe that one of the reasons for the Chrysler economic crisis was that Chrysler was selling British-made cars to a Swiss subsidiary at a low mark-up because of the beneficial tax system in Switzerland. The high rate of corporation tax in Britain, led to cars being sold here at a high mark-up, thereby reducing the apparent profits coming to the United Kingdom.
      Given that kind of ability to over-ride the taxation system of a medium-sized power such as ours, we can see the problems that could face us in Scotland. This is not just because Scotland would be a small nation. That is irrelevant to the argument. The real point is that over the period from 1910 until now there has not only been this colossal intermingling of power within capitalism itself, but there have been inter-locking companies intermingling throughout every industry.
      The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) used the word "irelevant" about some argument that he was adducing. What he has said since I assumed the Chair has nothing to do with the very specific amendment before the Committee, which is concerned with whether there are to be guidelines or directions. Even though we have until 11 o'clock, I ask the hon. Gentleman at least to be relevant to the amendment.
      Mr. Buchan: The relevance of my argument will now become apparent, because as soon as we consider the question of guidelines or directives in one area of Britain, we recognise that we are dealing with an economy that is closely integrated throughout the United Kingdom. The question, therefore, becomes whether this can best be done by directives or guidelines, which is what I am examining.
      There is a second intermingling, not only the intermingling within capitalism but an intermeshing between Government

      1497
      and the economy. The result is that, although one could have argued for us to have Home Rule in 1910 with guidelines or Home Rule in 1910 with directions, it is now a far more complex business, for the truth is that, even if we were to crack this question and create the sort of separate economy argued for by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, there would still not be effective power. The power would still be exerted by the basic United Kingdom economy, of which nine-tenths would be dominated solely by another independent Government, dominating our one-tenth because it is intermingled.
      Let me give some examples to show how difficulties would arise. At one end of my constituency we have shipbuilding. With one-quarter of the capacity of the British shipbuilding industry, Scotland has one one-tenth of the Great Britain population. In a situation where there were no guidelines or directions in relation to the United Kingdom but only unrestricted rule by the nine-tenths English-dominated United Kingdom economy, we could not expect to see any intervention to direct a greater proportion of shipbuilding orders to that quarter of the shipbuilding industry which exists in Scotland. We should get no more than cur share in any matters under Government control.
      Next, in the middle of my constituency there is Chrysler. I could not have saved Chrysler—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I could not have helped or argued to save Chrysler in the situation which I have described were we not part of an integrated United Kingdom economy. The one thing which would have gone was Linwood. That was very apparent, from the standpoint of the amount of profit rundown, and no separate Government could have stopped that because the production could have been done, and done more efficiently—not socially efficiently but more effciently from a capitalist point of view—in Coventry. Thus, shipbuilding would have been hit, and Chrysler would have been hit.
      At the top end of my constituency we have Babcock and Wilcox. This is an industry—the point is closely relevant to the amendment—which has only one basic customer, the Central Electricity
      1498
      Generating Board. We can sell some exports, and that is good. We can do some private work, and that is good. But Babcock and Wilcox would close tomorrow were it not for orders coming from the Central Electricity Generating Board.
      The CEGB is a nationalised industry. If we were to have a separate Scottish economy and a separate Scottish central electricity generating board as well as an English central electricity generating board, nine-tenths of production would come from England and one-tenth from Scotland. The English would quite rightly apply pressure for orders to go to English factories, just as we, including my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, would press that orders for the Scottish electricity generating board should go to the Scottish factory. The difficulty is that the Scottish factory could have only one-tenth of our existing orders. We could not survive on that. The factory would die.
      Thus, at each end of my constituency and in the middle there would be a massive clobbering by unemployment. I am not prepared to chant "Freedom through suffering". I am not prepared to say to people thrown on the dole "Never mind about the policies advocated by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, you have your freedom."
      Mr. Sillars: It is the hon. Member's Government.
      Mr. Buchan: I am not prepared to say that, and this is where the failure of the argument becomes clear, because it has not been pushed through to an analysis of the nature of the animal with which we are dealing. We must therefore reject the case put by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, and we must reject it especially because he uses it in aid of the kind of Socialist analysis argument advanced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
      We are, therefore, now left with the Tory Party. I think that I am right there, because the Liberals have gone. The Tory Party has very little basic concern for liberating people to have more control over their own affairs. I say in passing that the best way of liberating and

      1499
      giving more democracy to the people of Scotland would be massive public ownership of the industries of Scotland allied to an extension of democratic power and democratic control by the people of Scotland.
      When the Tories and those who think like them talk of liberty, they mean liberty for the few. I do not believe that there is liberty for the many without the ownership and control of the economy by the working people. That is the perspective.
      9.15 p.m.
      What is the concern of the Tory Party? It is concerned with the detestation of handing out power in that way, of allowing even decentralisation under democratic control to extend via the Assembly. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire is seriously wrong in thinking that we can deal with our own economy by giving total economic power to the Assembly. The Tory Party is equally wrong, but not so dangerously wrong.
      Mr. Sillars: Where is it that I am wrong if I argue pretty much the same case as the hon. Gentleman? Is he arguing that power to the Assembly translated into the public ownership of the commanding heights of the Scottish economy would not be in the interests of the Scottish people? If so, he is contradicting himself again.
      Mr. Buchan: I thought that I had already given an explanation. It seems that I shall have to adopt words of one syllable. I thought that I had explained that even if we gave such powers to the Assembly our economy would still be dominated and affected by economic decisions because of the nature of our highly integrated economy, through the intermeshing of capital and the intermingling of Government structures. The decisions would still be made in the financial and power institutions of London even if we had a totally separate economy. There are the examples of Babcock and Wilcox, Chrysler, and the shipbuilding industry.
      Mr. Sillars: That is not the point. I thought that the hon. Gentleman argued that the only solution to the Scottish economy was total public ownership of that economy. If there is total ownership of the Scottish economy in the public
      1500
      sector, that means that it will no longer be affected by the intermeshing and vertical and horizontal integration of which he speaks.
      Mr. Buchan: On the contrary, it would still be mightily affected by that intermeshing and integration. That would be the position even if we had total public ownership of the heavy electrical engineering industry. If Babcock and Wilcox were taken into public ownership, we should still have no power in terms of the United Kingdom economy. That is a fact that must be faced. To say otherwise is to create an illusion.
      We must get our hands—I thought that this is what the hon. Gentleman was in business to do—not merely on the economic levers of power, but on the economic levers of real power. I do not want levers that do not control. I want them to mean something when I have them. That means that we must have effective control over the whole United Kingdom economy. If not, we shall be in the classic position of a neo-colonial State. We shall have all the trappings of statehood but none of the effective power.
      That is the greatest illusion that we could offer to the people of Scotland. It would bring about the cataclysmic crackup that I think the hon. Gentleman wants. It would not lead to Socialism.
      Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I shall return to the real subject-matter of the amendment. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) in moving the amendment has, not for the first time in our debates, put his finger on the key section of the clause relating to the controls that will be exercised in respect of the economic and industrial powers in Scotland, especially those that are exercised through the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It is right that the clause should be debated, and right that it should be debated in relatively broad terms. It turns on the central issue of economic and industrial powers.
      I wish that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) would keep their ideological arguments, which are not necessarily directly relevant to the amendment, for discussion elsewhere and allow those who wish

      1501
      to discuss the effect of these provisions on Scotland the opportunity of doing so.
      We can get ourselves into a muddle in discussing economic and industrial powers. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, I think that in strengthening by replacing "guidelines" with "directives" we are touching on one of the main areas of conflict between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government.
      This is one of the most sensitive areas in which conflict is most likely to arise. I wonder, therefore, whether we are dealing with it properly by a system of guidelines and directives. Unless the Assembly has a real kind of discretion in the exercise of economic and industrial power, this will contribute to the failure of the kind of devolution we have in mind.
      We have to consider whether such guidelines and directives are necessary to begin with. The exercise of economic and industrial powers will be circumscribed in any case by the block grant from the United Kingdom Treasury. Therefore, to the extent that discipline will have to be exercised in the interests of the overall management of the United Kingdom economy, I believe that it will exist anyway in relation to the block grant and negotiations on it. I seriously question whether the detail of that clause and the amendment is necessary.
      I get particularly worried when I hear the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, because he seems to want centralised control of the British economy—
      Mr. Buchan indicated dissent.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am afraid that it is implicit in a great deal of what the hon. Member says. I know the reasons behind his argument, but his argument leads to a greater degree of central control, and I am opposed to that. The Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency have enormous powers concerning regional development. Regional development will flourish and succeed where there is variety within the policy. If it is too closely restricted by guidelines and directives, the variety will be lost.
      The genesis and seeds of regional policy are to be found in Northern Ireland, where regional policy as we know
      1502
      it was initiated. The policy was under the control of the devolved Government at Stormont, and it was because of that control that successful regional policy was developed in the Province. That was one of the most successful aspects of Northern Ireland's devolution. When we came to introduce regional policy in Scotland, the first area in Britain to be given it, we applied many of the principles and practices that had been evolved in Northern Ireland. Eventually we extended them to the North of England and other areas.
      We must, therefore, see variety in the exercise of the powers through the HIDB and the SDA, and with that variety we shall secure a more effective regional policy and a more effective Assembly and Executive. If hon. Members believe that with this form of devolution we must be able to exercise restraint on the economy, that restraint already exists in the financial provisions in the Bill. We do not have to write in more conflict-provoking provisions.
      Dr. Jeremy Bray: I apologise to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for not being present when he moved the amendment, but from the speech which has just been made I can gather the hon. Member's general tone. I shall not continue the arguments of my hon. Friends who have made powerful speeches on the Scottish economy generally. I shall address myself to the narrower implications of the amendment.
      I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister reply to the debate and give his definition of "directives" and "guidelines". The word "guidelines" is used in several places in the clause, one of which effectively defines it. Clause 39(1) lists the circumstances under which guidelines are to be given, and subsection (4) states that
      "A Scottish Secretary shall exercise the powers with respect to which guidelines are prepared under this section so as to give effect to the guidelines."
      I am not entirely persuaded that guidelines are the type of things that one should "give effect to". "Follow" would be a more relaxed word. That would be better than "directions".
      I think that there is a substantial difference in intent. It is not only a matter

      1503
      of using a variable "X" and saying that one must follow "X" in two different places in the clause. The argument about whether the Secretary of State should give rigid directions, perhaps on a narrow range of matters, or broader guidelines on a wider range of matters is well illustrated by the guidelines under which the Scottish Development Agency operates. They are contained in an annexe to the annual report of the Scottish Development Agency which, I understand, has been circulated to hon. Members. They have a wide range.
      Before discussing that issue in particular, I should like to discuss more widely the rôle that guidelines have played in important aspects of government, and well beyond the Government. One of the most important statements on guidelines published by any Government in the last 20 years was the White Paper on the economic and financial objectives of nationalised industries which was published by the Conservative Government in 1971. It is an admirable document reflecting the work of a Select Committee.
      For the first time, and to the shame of the Labour Party, that document really defined the job of the nationalised industries in this important respect. In terms of defining the long-term marginal costs, pricing criteria and the required rate of return of new investment, it concentrated the minds of the nationalised industries after a period of chaos and confusion under a Conservative Government who did not like nationalised industries and did not know what to do with them. A marked improvement in morale in the nationalised industries followed that White Paper.
      Guidelines need not necessarily be declarations from a Government. One of the important guidelines for the retail trade was the ingenious discovery by the Rochdale Pioneers. They decided that one could run a decent business by allowing customers to take shares and, after a short period, collect a "divi". That guideline made it possible to build a massive retail enterprise.
      Another and less happy guideline, which came from sources other than government, was the guidance on competition credit control by the Bank of England. That was made when the recent Conservative Government were in power and it
      1504
      was disastrous. It was perhaps an example of how guidelines cannot be avoided. Those guidelines were wrong, but some guidelines were needed to carry out the Government's intentions.
      9.30 p.m.
      The Agency is very close to the ground, and properly so, in its practical problems of handling many very small companies. It has to be extremely flexible in the way in which it works, but at the same time it must satisfy the public and the House of Commons that it is acting broadly in the public interest and under the intentions of the Government. I give two examples.
      A small firm in my constituency found itself clobbered because its valuation of stocks was knocked for six by a major change in the major commodity which it purchases. It lost overnight some £10,000 of its working capital of no more than £100,000. It went to a Scottish bank, explained the situation and asked for an increase of £10,000 in its overdraft limit. Far from being able to grant the increase in overdraft, the bank said that it would have to cut the limit by £10,000 because there was less asset cover. That is the kind of treatment that small enterprises are getting from joint stock banks in Scotland today.
      Needless to say, that firm very promptly changed its bank, but, following inquiries, I am afraid that the banks generally declared that they would not expect their managers to exercise a wider discretion in the matter. The firm went to the SDA, and I am glad to say that it received the necessary loan to enable it to develop in a way which has not only preserved but increased the number of jobs that it is providing in an industry in which it is extremely well established. If a bank had taken the trouble to look at the firm's books, it could easily have justified the loan.
      My second example concerns the situation which will be in the Scottish newspapers tomorrow—the position of Smiths Industries factory in Wishaw. It has been a major employer on my constituency for many years, making the 24-hour mechanical alarm clocks which have been on every chimneypiece in the land. But mechanical clocks are being clobbered by quartz crystal and the factory has lost virtually its whole business. It is

      1505
      struggling to get going in a new area, but it will be able to provide employment for only a tiny proportion even of the reduced labour force of the factory.
      In such a case, with a large labour force with a particular set of skills, and the firm's technology having evaporated overnight, one has to ask "How do we keep this enterprise alive?" The problem requires great ingenuity and flexibility, not only from the SDA but from the Government and from other private companies. It is the sort of matter that one must be able to deal with and respond to quickly and flexibly and under agreed principles which do not screw up the argument. Argument over a long period means that by the time one makes a decision the situation has gone rotten. One must act quickly in such circumstances and without long arguments on principle which can so easily bog down boards of directors and Ministers.
      The avoidance of bogging down in argument on principle is what guidelines are about. The guidelines of the SDA broadly apply the means by which it has been possible for the Agency to make a lively start. Undoubtedly, under the experience of working, and in the relations between the Agency and the Government, those guidelines will develop.
      The provisions in the Bill for the development of guidelines are simple: they require only an order which provides an opportunity to give endorsement to the philosophy of developing guidelines. It is wholly right that those guidelines should be clarified in the relationships between this place and the Assembly.
      Finally, I come to the question of whether, in order to maintain the ecomic unity of the United Kingdom, there needs to be social uniformity across the regions and as between the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland. I do not myself take the view that if there were freedom of a very high degree in the ecomic activities of the Assembly it would produce an undesirable state of affairs, least of all in industrial development, if the Assembly were able to have under the present Bill the block grant, and under—as I hope—the powers for which the Assembly will be asking some powers of taxation.
      1506
      If the Assembly chooses to spend the money on a stupid, extravagant project, it will have to raise it in taxation or it will not be able to spend that money on other causes which might be very much more effective.
      I give an example of where, if moneys were now spent by regional development agencies, we would not have the present structure of financial incentives that would give the structure of capital incentives in the development areas in this country. The Scottish Development Agency, given the sums of money which at present go to capital-intensive industry in Scotland, would never spend that money on chemical and oil industries, nor even on steelworks in my own constituency. It would go into ways of creating the jobs needed at a very much lower cost in terms of capital per man, if one's purpose is to create jobs. That, as every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has made clear, will be a very major preoccupation of the Assembly.
      Therefore, I would prefer to see the range of public expenditure in industrial development that is committed to the care of the Assembly widened, not solely because I think it important that the Assembly should have powers to become politically viable but because it would produce a more efficient economic use of resources.
      I think that, with the explanations which no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will be giving in due course, the wording of the clause is perfectly satisfactory. I am absolutely confident that the amendment is not acceptable because it entirely misses the point about the rôle of guidelines in the relationships between the Government and bodies such as the SDA. If, however, there is some clarification of precisely the way in which guidelines are to be followed—followed, rather than given effect to—I shall be very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say.
      Mr. Monro: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) tabled this amendment and was lucky enough, under this infamous procedure, to have it called. It is very much at the heart of the Bill and something that Members of Parliament can be particularly interested in, because the impact of the SDA is something in which

      1507
      we shall be very much involved in relation to our constituencies in Scotland. Of course, through the Secretary of State and this parliamentary control, we, too, will be involved to an extent here in the operation of the SDA if the Bill is passed and subsequently approved in a referendum.
      I think that it is fair to say—this follows on from what the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) was saying—that the Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies have, in a comparatively short time, built up very valuable working relationships with the SDA. I hope that in certain contexts this will continue.
      I must right away say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that I would not particularly want to support his amendment, because if we are to have this clause in the Bill as it is, I think that we ought to have the control and guidelines from the Secretary of State. I accept that my hon. Friend has no doubt tabled the amendment as a probing amendment so that we can find out the intentions of the Minister.
      It was also important in an earlier debate to discuss the whole issue of the SDA and the Minister's guidelines in the context of the present high unemployment in Scotland, which we Members of Parliament think it important to bring down as soon as possible. If that is to be done in part through the SDA, the chosen instrument of the Government, it must have power to carry out its operations and we must continue the Secretary of State's present power to set the guidelines read out by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. These will affect the operations conducted from its headquarters in Glasgow.
      As other hon. Members have said, there will be the constraint of the Treasury guidelines coming to the SDA through the Secretary of State. That in itself will be a control. We shall be interested to hear over what time the Minister expects to have this control over the SDA. Is it to be over the period of a Parliament, or would he expect to have much closer control, almost month by month, or major incident by major incident, of what investment the SDA might make at any one time?
      1508
      We must discuss this matter in the context of the amendment and the clause. If I were starting from scratch I should much prefer to see the major industrial development in Scotland, crucial as it is, carried out by an extension of the Scottish Economic Planning Department, which has been most successful in continuing the able work of the Department of Trade and Industry. I believe that enlarged Scottish Office control would be more effective than the present system, but we must discuss what we have, and that is the SDA. I hope that the Minister will go into detail, because this is one of the crucial clauses for the long-term future of Scotland, which is bound to revolve around the country's industrial development.
      The SDA has made an impressive start, although there are one or two aspects with which I am not in sympathy, such as the purchase of companies and the insistence on an equity shareholding as a condition of providing loan capital.
      Dr. Bray: There is no insistence on an equity shareholding as a condition. If the hon. Gentleman asks the SDA, it will be able to quote him a number of instances in which it does not have equity.
      Mr. Monro: I did not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman or the Committee. There is not 100 per cent. insistence, but now and again the SDA is very keen to have an equity shareholding in return for a loan. That is not strictly how I should like to see what is essentially a Government Department becoming involved in an industry.
      If we are going as far as we are, it is right that the Government control and guidelines are maintained, and therefore I do not want to see the amendment made. But it has given us a valuable opportunity to discuss the issue and to highlight in the context of industrial development in Scotland, particularly with the SDA guidelines, how complicated the whole matter is becoming when we should be looking for simplicity.
      9.45 p.m.
      With the Highlands and Islands Board, the Scottish Development Agency, and the continuing operation of the SEPD and the local authority development committees, it often seems to take longer for

      1509
      industrialists to decide whether to go ahead with a development project. Here, again, I hope that within the guidelines the Secretary of State will insist that the SDA moves as rapidly as possible to a conclusion on whether financial assistance is to be made to any particular industry.
      If this were a Bill in which we were initiating constructive progress, I should like to see it being brought forward to enhance and develop the authority of the SEPD and to maintain further control in that direction, rather than between the Secretary of State and the SDA. But that is not the way the Bill is drafted, and we have to take it as it is. If it is put this way, on balance I think that we should not accept the amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: I think that the House of Commons would look collectively ridiculous if we were to leave Clause 40, on national pay policy, and all that that entails, for discussion in the House of Lords and did not get round to it here. I hope, therefore, that there will be time for Clause 40 tonight, and I shall make an effort in that direction.
      I am amazed by the attitude of the Conservative Front Bench. I can just possibly understand some of the Conservatives' reasons, but that they should vote against Clause 36 indicates to me that they must be out of their collective minds, or off their collective nuts. But perhaps it is not for me to criticise how people vote, and I shall therefore confine myself to asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State two questions.
      The first concerns subsection 2(d). He knows that I represent the new town of Livingston, and I am asking for a factual view of how new towns such as Livingston, East Kilbride, Glenrothes and so on will be responsible to a United Kingdom Treasury, and what relations they are to have, under the clause, with the Scottish Assembly.
      My second question relates to something that we discussed in some detail last night. Surely the amendment as to whether we have guidelines or directions turns in part on how the Civil Service is likely to interpret guidelines and directions, and here again I ask the Minister of State for a factual answer. How do civil servants interpret guidelines and how
      1510
      do they interpret directions? Is there not an argument for making it crystal clear that these are in fact directions? If the civil servants' priority loyalty is not to United Kingdom Ministers but to Ministers in the Scottish Assembly, and if these are to be guidelines, surely any sense of control of this kind, either from Great George Street or Whitehall, becomes a sheer illusion.
      I attach very great importance to whether these are guidelines or directions precisely because of this issue of the double loyalty of the Civil Service. If they are to be guidelines, frankly, I believe that civil servants working for Ministers in the Assembly will feel very free to take rather lightly anything coming from Great George Street, the Treasury, or Whitehall.
      I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is not here, but I must say that it is not very fait to say that people such as myself who put forward views of this kind are great centralisers. Let us be acquitted of this, because some of us believe in bringing government closer to the people through the regions. This can be done by various modifications of existing economic policy.
      Let us not say that there are centralisers and devolutionists. It is not as simple as that. When it comes to the devolving of power, people like myself claim that we are the best devolutionists of all, because we are devolving to units smaller than the Scottish Assembly.
      Do not let us have this argument at this time of night. I have to defend myself against glib slogans, but that is not the argument. There are different ways of going about the devolving of our decision making. I therefore ask what in terms of the amendment is the likely effect on the Civil Service.
      Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) have rightly concentrated on the precise meaning of the word "guidelines" and why that particular word should have been chosen as opposed to "directions". That is indeed at the heart of the matter. Although it might seem rather a fine shading, we all

      1511
      know that the truth resides in nuances. We have to get clear exactly why the nuance which distinguishes "guideline" from "direction" is being used here.
      One of the reasons why the Government have chosen to use the word "guidelines" with regard to what the Scottish Secretary is to take from the Secretary of State—not necessarily what the SDA has to take from the Secretary of State—is that the use of that word allows the Minister of State to pretend to those who want to see the maximisation of freedom of action of a Scottish Assembly that power is not being held tightly for very long. At the same time he can pretend to those who want Parliament to retain control that, because they are guidelines, control is being retained in Parliament.
      Therefore, the Minister is trying to tread a rather uneasy wire. On the one hand he is trying to throw sops to the SNP and his SNP-inclined supporters while at the same time trying to tell the majority of the Cabinet and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Beck Benches: "Do not worry. We shall have control of the guidelines after all." I am paying the hon. Gentleman a compliment by attributing to him the possession of a certain subtlety of mind.
      Mr. Budgen: We should prefer the truth.
      Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend puts a rather harsher interpretation on it. But this question has already been answered during the debate.
      The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said that guidelines did not need to be toughened up in the way that the amendment proposes. He said "Look at the firemen. They have guidelines. They had to stick to 10 per cent. They were only guidelines but they are being ground into the dust and at the end of the day they will have to accept the 10 per cent." The hon. Gentleman was therefore saying that we should not strengthen the guidelines.
      But the fallacy in that argument is that of comparing the powers of the Scottish Assembly with the powers of the firemen's union. The reason why the firemen will in the end accept their guidelines is that the power of public opinion
      1512
      will compel them to do so. But in Scotland the Assembly will be manipulating public opinion. Therefore, the Assembly will not have to give in to those guidelines if it does not want to do so. That was the fallacy in the argument of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that we need not worry about the fact that the word "guidelines" was very vague. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) will certainly notice that it is those most in favour of that which we most detest who are in favour of the word "guidelines".
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns said that the word "guidelines" was all right because, under the block grant system and through that system, there would be a tight financial rein put on a Scottish Assembly and that we did not have to go further for that reason. But, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw pointed out, the block grant will not be the only source of finance available to a Scottish Assembly. Even if it were, I should not agree with my hon. Friend. But there are powers, which, alas, we did not have time to debate because of this obscene guillotine, to vary taxes in Scotland and to require local authoritiesc to increase rates in Scotland, so the Scottish Assembly will indeed have power to vary taxes—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why we should be discussing this clause when the Committee has an amendment before it?
      Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns pointed out that the word "guidelines" was sufficiently strong because, under the block grant, the Government would be able to control the Scottish Assembly. I was pointing out that his argument was fallacious because the block grant was not the only means of raising money and that taxation was another.
      But, either way, if it wanted to the Scottish Assembly could get round the block grant—either by raising more money in Scotland are even by borrowing money outside Scotland, with the consent

      1513
      of the appropriate Minister of the Crown. But I have no doubt that, if it was for a Socialist reason and we had a Socialist Secretary of State, it would be permitted. After all, who would he be to forbid a Scottish Assembly going down that path? I believe that the guidelines are not strong enough, and that is why I support the amendment.
      However, the main question that I should like the Minister of State to answer concerns what would happen if the Scottish Assembly ignored the guidelines. I know that he will say that he believes it will be a responsible body. That is one of his arguments. I do not dispute that, but what if the unthinkable happened and an Assembly said that it did not accept the guidelines?
      We heard in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) that the SNP would brook no interference in the rights of a Scottish Assembly over the SDA.
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Sproat: I am glad to learn that I have not misrepresented the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, bearing in mind how he misrepresents so many other hon. Members.
      The SNP says that it will seek to get round these guidelines. I want the Minister of State to say what would happen if, with a Socialist Secretary of State here, a Socialist Administration in the Scottish Assembly, for reasons of wishing to extend nationalisation or for other reasons dear to the hearts of a Socialist majority in this House, wished to break the guidelines.
      Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of a Scottish Administration not complying with the guidelines. He will be aware of the power available to the Secretary of State under Clause 37. Unfortunately, he voted against it, so he voted against the very provision which would operate to achieve the action that he requires.
      Mr. Sproat: I was voting against the fact that the Government, by their imposition of the guillotine prevented any debate on this important matter. This is what we were voting about.
      1514
      In any case, quite apart from that, the fact of the matter is that if the Socialist Scottish Assembly set its heart on breaking the guidelines, either it would be allowed to do so and that would go against the spirit and the letter of this Bill, or it would not be allowed to do so and we should have the discord, dispute and the rest of the aggravation that we Conservatives have been predicting. The Minister of State called us Cassandras the other night—
      Mr. John Smith indicated assent.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. Sproat: The Minister says "Yes", showing that his knowledge of mythology is as bad as his knowledge of politics. The thing about Cassandra was that she was always right. Here again we go back to the rock-like immovable problems that are a recipe for disaster, discord, dispute and endless conflicts between Westminster and Edinburgh. This will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Small: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) referred to Cassandra. I shall not follow him along that line. I will take the line of the artist with a brush drawing this clause, and I think that the young Goya would be the best comparison.
      Goya looked towards private patrons, one of whom was the Duke of Wellington. That painting is beautiful and is internationally recognised as one of quality. As time went on private patrons removed themselves from this area and artists went to asylums for their models. We are dealing here with guidelines and the Secretary of State giving directions. A patron can give directions to an artist about what he wants.
      In the context of this Bill and its relationship to the Scottish Development Agency we are dealing with the Old Testament of the past and the New Testament of this clause. The matter of preparing guidelines is interesting and the SDA has been taken in totally. The chairman, Sir William Gray, was on the hustings with me for 14 years and he is a constituent of mine. What is the Agency's job? It is to provide economic stimulation in terms of regeneration in Scotland. The whole idea of the SDA in its short active life has been to make it a viable institution, and for that purpose it must

      1515
      have a degree of freedom over its own activities.
      I am very doubtful about the Secretary of State or the Treasury laying down guidelines for the SDA and saying that it should have directions. Direction is a most difficult thing. I have been directed all my life to read the Bible, but I could solve the National Debt if I could put a tax on knowledge of the Bible.
      This is a straightforward attitude of the SDA becoming viable. If the Treasury gets its hands on the SDA, it is likely to bring in such a restrictive climate as to take away the solid body of the institution. The SDA, which is operating for the benefit of the Scottish population, should have a degree of freedom rather than be directed. Its relationship with the sleeping warriors and whoever else will vote in the referendum is important. I cannot give any guarantee about votes for this Bill. We have all the brains, the lawyers and the clever men in this place.
      If I were a Freud or a Jung, or a McGlashan or a MacDougall, I could come along here and give a lecture on psycho-analysis—
      The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am grateful to the hon. Member, but perhaps he could return to the amendment.
      Mr. Small: I am dealing with the guidelines.
      Mr. Douglas Henderson: Since the hon. Gentleman has now turned to psychoanalysis, can he tell the Committee how the Conservative Party can put forward any view on the existence of the SDA when it is on record as wanting to abolish it?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave the subject of psychoanalysis.
      Mr. Small: I am very tempted, Mr. Godman Irvine, to deal with the shortcomings of the Tory Party. I do not really know what is the true SNP attitude to the Bill. I was seeking to deal with the directions or instructions to be given to those who will operate these matters on behalf of the SDA and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I only hope that they will have full freedom to promote developments that will give a great stimulus to the
      1516
      Scottish people. I wish to pay tribute to any institutions which will have that effect.
      Mrs. Margaret Bain: I could not hope to take up the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small). On the other side of the political spectrum, I find it most difficult to understand the Conservative point of view on this matter. We all know the Conservatives' record of opposition to the Scottish Development Agency and their wrecking attempts during the passage of that legislation. We all know how little the Conservatives are concerned over the economic welfare of Scotland. Conservative Members sought to vote out Clause 36. Having joined together to defeat Clause 1, one would have thought that they now realise what they are doing.
      Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: The hon. Lady might like to know that I am prepared to vote against every clause in the Bill.
      Mrs. Bain: That news comes as no revelation to anybody in the Committee.
      Let us try to examine what the policy of the Conservative Party is on this aspect. We are dealing with decentralisation versus centralisation. What is peculiar about the Conservative case is that Conservative Members are arguing for strong centralisation. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) had the courage to say that he felt there should be a variety of economic policies operating in a United Kingdom context. He joins with us in our opposition to the amendment, and we hope that we can look to other sensible Conservative Members to go through the correct Lobby. If the Conservative Party is seeking to deny freedom to a Scottish body to operate in a Scottish context, that is something that the SNP will not tolerate.
      Let me try to deal with the economic power of the SDA. That Agency was set up to eradicate many of the economic difficulties in Scotland. Many of us believe that the Agency does not have sufficient powers or adequate money allocated to it, but we believe that at least it is a step in the right direction. Much as we should like to see the powers of the Agency expanded—and they will

      1517
      be expanded—we do not want to see the Agency limited in development by the advent of Conservative daydreams.
      It is difficult for many of us to listen to arguments advanced by those who pretend to support economic power to be given to the Assembly but who try to justify the status quo. Fundamentally, their view is based on seeking to justify the situation as it is. However, there are 200,000 people in Scotland who do not work, and it is difficult to justify the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) when so many Scots people are on the dole.
      I should like to quote some statistics set out in yesterday's Official Report at col. 602 of Written Answers. We there see the figures of the percentage increase in unemployment between March 1974 and October 1977. In that period, the figure in Leven and Methil increased by 91·1 per cent. In Livingston there has been the highest increase, of 257·9 per cent. The same statistics show that by 10th November 1977 9,435 youngsters in Scotland had never had a job since leaving school. In Strathclyde Region, which contains my constituency, there were 73,407 unemployed in November 1975 while in 1977 the figure was 109,456—an increase of 44·1 per cent. In Central Region, which is an important area for my constituency because of the commuter aspect, there were 5,786 people unemployed in November 1975 and 7,696 in November 1977—an increase of 33 per cent. No doubt the Central Region statistics will increase following the announcement affecting training colleges in Scotland.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Lady answer the question that I put to her hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), who failed to answer? Does she know of any industrialist or trade union leader in Scotland who thinks that this utterly deplorable state of affairs would be improved if her party's policies and separation were implemented?
      Mrs. Bain: I cannot think of anyone in Scotland in that category who sees much hope in the Tories coming to power, in view of their attitude to public expenditure and the fact that the
      1518
      Conservatives have failed to publish their policies for people in Scotland—in contrast to the Scottish National Party. We are not afraid to put our policies before industrialists and trade unionists.
      Mr. Crawford: No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) refused to answer when I asked him to name the companies which, he alleges, will leave Scotland on independence. He refused to do so.
      Mrs. Bain: No doubt the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) likes to look at the example of Seagram in Quebec, which said that it would withdraw if Rene Levesque won a majority, but when that happened Seagram was the first to say that it would stay. This kind of scaremongering is irrelevant to the Scottish scene.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): This is an important point on unemployment figures. Since the hon. Lady has mentioned the Central Region and seems to be projecting the argument that in any independent, separate Scotland there would not be unemployment, no doubt she will not mind my asking, when the scarcest commodity in the industrialised world is a new job, how a country with 5½ million people would be able to compete for new jobs against highly industrialised and larger nations. If she believes that it could do so, will she tell me why unemployment in Sweden, which has a population of 7½ million, is now going up when, for fairly obvious reasons, there is a recession right through the industrialised world?
      Does the hon. Lady expect Scots—especially those in the Central Region, which has a United Kingdom-based industrial economy, not a Scottish-based industrial economy—to believe that in a separate Scotland they would be able to compete for new jobs against all these industrialised nations?
      Mrs. Bain: The length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention reveals his sensitivity on this issue. I have never said that independence would be an immediate panacea for the problems of Scotland, but we have confidence in our ability to progress alone and to use our resources in a skilled and professional way in the economy, with the kind of planning that

      1519
      is necessary. We look at the examples of other small nations, and in referring to Sweden the hon. Gentleman should have updated himself because unemployment there is now 3 per cent. If unemployment were 3 per cent. in Scotland, there would be a lot of happy people because it would be a lot lower than it is now.
      The onus is still on the centralist parties in the House of Commons to prove that their system works, because it is obvious to all the unemployed in Scotland and in the deprived areas that it does not. I want to quote one more statistic before I close. This is not just temporary unemployment in Scotland. In October 1974, 21,178 people had been out of work for more than a year. By 1977, the figure for that sort of long-term unemployment had reached 44,292. With that kind
      1520
      of record, what right has the House to try to tell us that its system is good for us? It is a scandal and a curse on humanity to see what is hapening to our country.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) spends all his time chasing unemployed people who need social security benefits. For him to try to deny to the people of Scotland the right to manage their economic affairs is ridiculous. He should be here listening to the debate and trying to justify himself. The hon. Gentleman was so confused in his speech that he ended up being able only to shout and bluster.
      The amendment is an attempt to emasculate a Bill that is hardly very virile in the first place.

  SCOTLAND BILL
  Division List No. 38 [See c. 1465]

  Division No. 38]

  AYES

  [6.54 p.m.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mudd, David

  Arnold, Tom

  Gorst, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Neubert, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Nott, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Banks, Robert

  Gray, Hamish

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Bell, Ronald

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Grist, Ian

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Benyon, W.

  Grylls, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Biffen, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Raison, Timothy

  Brittan, Leon

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Rhodes James, R.

  Brooke, Peter

  Hodgson, Robin

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Brotherton, Michael

  Holland, Philip

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Buck, Antony

  James, David

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Budgen, Nick

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Channon, Paul

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Shepherd, Colin

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Shersby, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Silvester, Fred

  Cockroft, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Knox, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cope, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Costain, A. P.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Luce, Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spence, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  MacGregor, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Dunlop, John

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Stainton, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  MacMillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Dykes, Hugh

  McNair-Wilson. P. (New Forest)

  Stokes, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mather, Carol

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Maude, Angus

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Farr, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Wakeham, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Wall, Patrick

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Walters, Dennis

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Forman, Nigel

  Mills, Peter

  Wells, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Moate, Roger

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Molyneaux, James

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Monro, Hector

  Younger, Hon George

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Morgan, Geraint

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Mr. Spencer le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell, Ian

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Canavan, Dennis

  Deakins, Eric

  Ashley, Jack

  Cant, R. B.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Ashton, Joe

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dempsey, James

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Cartwright, John

  Doig, Peter

  Atkinson, Norman

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dunn, James A.

  Bates, Alf

  Coleman, Donald

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Beith, A. J.

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Ewing, Harry (Stiring)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Boardman, H.

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Flannery, Martin

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Crawford, Douglas

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cronin, John

  Ford, Ben

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cryer, Bob

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dalyell, Tam

  George, Bruce

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Gilbert, Dr John

  1522

  1523

  Ginsburg, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Golding, John

  Madden, Max

  Small, William

  Gould, Bryan

  Magee, Bryan

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Snape, Peter

  Graham, Ted

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walte.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Hatton, Frank

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Strang, Gavin

  Henderson, Douglas

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mitchell, Austin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Huckfield, Les

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Noble, Mike

  Thompson, George

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ogden, Eric

  Tinn, James

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Torney, Tom

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Padley, Walter

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  John, Brynmor

  Pardoe, John

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Park, George

  Ward, Michael

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Parker, John

  Watt, Hamish

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Weetch, Ken

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Pendry, Tom

  Welsh, Andrew

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Penhaligon, David

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Judd, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  While, James (Pollok)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Kerr, Russell

  Reid, George

  Whitlock, William

  Kilfedder, James

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Lambie, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Luard, Evan

  Roper, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Woodall, Alec

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Woof, Robert

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  MacCormick, Iain

  Sandelson, Neville

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sever, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Sillars, James

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Division List No. 39 [See c. 1465]

  Division No. 39]

  AYES

  [7.6 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Cronin, John

  Henderson, Douglas

  Anderson, Donald

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cryer, Bob

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Huckfield, Les

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Deakins, Eric

  Hunter, Adam

  Bates, Alf

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Beith, A. J.

  Dempsey, James

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Doig, Peter

  John, Brynmor

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Boardman, H.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Ewing, Harry (Stiring)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Judd, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Buchan, Norman

  Flannery, Martin

  Kerr, Russell

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kilfedder, James

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Campbell, Ian

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Lambie, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lamond, James

  Cant, R. B.

  George, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Cartwright, John

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Ginsburg, David

  Luard, Evan

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Golding, John

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Gould, Bryan

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Coleman, Donald

  Gourlay, Harry

  McCartney, Hugh

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Crawford, Douglas

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hatton, Frank

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  1524

  1525

  Madden, Max

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Tinn, James

  Magee, Bryan

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Torney, Tom

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Roper, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Ward, Michael

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watt, Hamish

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Weetch, Ken

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Sever, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin

  Sillars, James

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Silverman, Julius

  White, James (Pollok)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Small, William

  Whitlock, William

  Noble, Mike

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Oakes, Gordon

  Snape, Peter

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ogden, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Padley, Walter

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pardoe, John

  Stott, Roger

  Woodall, Alec

  Park, George

  Strang, Gavin

  Woof, Robert

  Parker, John

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Penhaligon, David

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Mr. Jim Marshall and Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Thompson, George

  Reid, George

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  NOES

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mills, Peter

  Arnold, Tom

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Molyneaux, James

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Gorst, John

  Monro, Hector

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Banks, Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Bell, Ronald

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mudd, David

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Nelson, Anthony

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Neubert, Michael

  Biffen, John

  Grist, Ian

  Nott, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Brittan, Leon

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Brooke, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hodgson, Robin

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Holland, Philip

  Raison, Timothy

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Buchanan-Smilh, Alick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Buck, Antony

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Budgen, Nick

  James, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Channon, Paul

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cockroft, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Cope, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Costain, A. P.

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Colin

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shersby, Michael

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Silvester, Fred

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sims, Roger

  Dunlop, John

  Luce, Richard

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Durant, Tony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, John

  Speed, Keith

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Spence, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  MacMillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sproat, Iain

  Farr, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Marten, Neil

  Stokes, John

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mawby, Ray

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Wakeham, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Wall, Patrick

  1526

  1527

  Walters, Dennis

  Winterton, Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Peter Morrison and

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

  Wells, John

  Younger, Hon George

  Division List No. 40 [See c. 1466]

  Division No. 40]

  AYES

  [7.19 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Graham, Ted

  Palmer, Arthur

  Anderson, Donald

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Pardoe, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Park, George

  Ashton, Joe

  Grocott, Bruce

  Parker, John

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Harper, Joseph

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Atkinson, Norman

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pendry, Tom

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hatton, Frank

  Penhaligon, David

  Bates, Alf

  Heffer, Eric S

  Radice, Giles

  Beith, A. J.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Huckfield, Les

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hunter, Adam

  Roper, John

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Buchan, Norman

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sever, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Silverman, Julius

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cant, R. B.

  Judd, Frank

  Small, William

  Cartwright, John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Kerr, Russell

  Snape, Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lambie, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stott, Roger

  Craigen. Jim (Maryhill)

  Luard, Evan

  Strang, Gavin

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cronin, John

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Cryer, Bob

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tinn, James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Madden, Max

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Dempsey, James

  Magee, Bryan

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Doig, Peter

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Ward, Michael

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Weetch, Ken

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ewing, Harry (Stiring)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitlock, William

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Flannery, Martin

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Woof, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Noble, Mike

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Ginsburg, David

  Ogden, Eric

  Golding, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gould, Bryan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Jim Marshall and

  Gourlay, Harry

  Padley, Walter

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  NOES

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brittan, Leon

  Costain, A. P.

  Arnold, Tom

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Crawford, Douglas

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Brooke, Peter

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Dunlop, John

  Banks, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Durant, Tony

  Bell, Ronald

  Buck, Antony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Budgen, Nick

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Benyon,W.

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Biffen, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cockroft, John

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Farr, John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cope, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  1528

  1529

  Fletcher. Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Shepherd, Colin

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Shersby, Michael

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  MacMillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sillars, James

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Silvester, Fred

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sims, Roger

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Marten, Neil

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mather, Carol

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maude, Angus

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawby, Ray

  Speed, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spence, John

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stainton, Keith

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Grist, Ian

  Molyneaux, James

  Stokes, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morgan, Geraint

  Tebbit, Norman

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mudd, David

  Thompson, George

  Henderson. Douglas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Hodgson, Robin

  Neubert, Michael

  Wakeham, John

  Holland, Philip

  Nott, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Wall, Patrick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Walters, Dennis

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Warren, Kenneth

  James, David

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Watt, Hamish

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wells, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Kilfedder, James

  Raison, Timothy

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Kimball, Marcus

  Reid, George

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rhodes James, R.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Younger, Hon George

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Luce, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacCormick, Iain

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Jim Lester.

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Division List No. 41 [See c. 1466]

  Division No. 41]

  AYES

  [7.30 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ashton, Joe

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Judd, Frank

  Atkinson, Norman

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dunn, James A.

  Kerr, Russell

  Bates, Alf

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Beith, A. J.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lambie, David

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Flannery, Martin

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Boardman, H.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Luard, Evan

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  George, Bruce

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Buchan, Norman

  Gilbert, Dr John

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Golding, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Campbell, Ian

  Gould, Bryan

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gourlay, Harry

  Madden, Max

  Cant, R. B.

  Graham, Ted

  Magee, Bryan

  Cartwright, John

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Coleman, Donald

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Hatton, Frank

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Cronin, John

  Huckfield, Les

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hunter, Adam

  Noble, Mike

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Davies. Ifor (Gower)

  John, Brynmor

  Ogden, Eric

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Orbach, Maurice

  1530

  1531

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Padley, Walter

  Sever, John

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Ward, Michael

  Pardoe, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Weetch, Ken

  Park, George

  Small, William

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Parker, John

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Snape, Peter

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Whitlock, William

  Penhaligon, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Radice, Giles

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Stott, Roger

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Woof, Robert

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Roper, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Tinn, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rowlands, Ted

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Sandelson, Neville

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mr. A. W Stallard.

  NOES

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Arnold, Tom

  Grist, Ian

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Grylls, Michael

  Reid, George

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Banks, Robert

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Bell, Ronald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Benyon, W

  Henderson, Douglas

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hodgson, Robin

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Biffen, John

  Holland, Philip

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Shersby, Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Sillars, James

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Silvester, Fred

  Brittan, Leon

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W' df'd)

  Sims, Roger

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kilfedder, James

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Buck, Anthony

  Knox, David

  Spence, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sproat, Iain

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Stainton, Keith

  Cockroft, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  MacGregor, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Cope, John

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Stokes, John

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Marten, Neil

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dunlop, John

  Mather, Carol

  Thompson, George

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mawby, Ray

  Wakeham, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Walters, Dennis

  Eyre, Reginald

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Watt, Hamish

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Mills, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Moate, Roger

  Wells, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Molyneaux, James

  Welsh, Andrew

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Monro, Hector

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Younger, Hon George

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neubert, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mrs. Margaret Bain and Mr. Douglas Crawford.

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Division List No. 42 [See c.1466]

  Division No. 42]

  AYES

  [7.41 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Boardman, H.

  Cartwright, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Coleman, Donald

  Atkinson, Norman

  Buchan, Norman

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Bates, Alf

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell, Ian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Cronin, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  1532

  1533

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Judd, Frank

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kerr, Russell

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roper, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Doig, Peter

  Luard, Evan

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Sever, John

  Dunn, James A.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silverman, Julius

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Small, William

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Flannery, Martin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Madden, Max

  Stallard, A. W.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Magee, Bryan

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Stott, Roger

  George, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strang, Gavin

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Golding, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Graham, Ted

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Torney, Tom

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Ward, Michael

  Harper, Joseph

  Noble, Mike

  Weetch, Ken

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Oakes, Gordon

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Hatton, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  White, James (Pollok)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Huckfield, Les

  Pardoe, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Park, George

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Parker, John

  Woof, Robert

  Hunter, Adam

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Pendry, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  John, Brynmor

  Penhaligon, David

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Radice, Giles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Mr. Peter Snape and

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Mr. Jim Marshall.

  Jones. Alec (Rhondda)

  NOES

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Arnold, Tom

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Neubert, Michael

  Banks, Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Bell, Ronald

  Grist, Ian

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Benyon, W.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hannam, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Reid, George

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Henderson, Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hodgson, Robin

  Rhodes James, R.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Holland, Philip

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Buck, Anthony

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Budgen, Nick

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Sillars, James

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Knox, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Cockroft, John

  MacCormick, Iain

  Sims, Roger

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Sproat, Iain

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Dunlop, John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Marten, Neil

  Tebbit, Norman

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mawby, Ray

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Thompson, George

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wakeham, John

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moate, Roger

  Walters, Dennis

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Molyneaux, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Monro, Hector

  Watt, Hamish

  1534

  1535

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wells, John

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Mrs. Margaret Bain and Mr. Douglas Crawford.

  Welsh, Andrew

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Younger, Hon George

  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I have heard most of the debate and I understand that it is on a fairly narrow matter. We are discussing an amendment. I do not know why I should always have to remind the Committee of its rules.
  The Bill says that, in respect of the Scottish Development Agency, the Highland and Islands Development Board and certain other organisations, the Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, prepare guidelines for their operations. The amendment would delete the word "guidelines" and put in "directions".
  It is amazing that we have heard so many facets of the whole Scottish scene. There was an intellectual argument between my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). The best reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was in a pamphlet called "Don't Butcher Scotland's Future" written by a Mr. James Sillars.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about our being in a new, complex and difficult field. He said that we were making constitutions and that it would be easy to make mistakes. As far as guidelines are concerned, the SDA is working under guidelines now. Some people may think that they are too restrictive, but they should appreciate, on the basis of the arguments that they have put forward in the past, that we want to give the Assembly as much freedom as possible in relation to the SDA compatible with the integrity of the whole economy of the United Kingdom and justice to other parts of the United Kingdom which feel that Scotland is getting one step ahead.
  It was the Scots who pioneered the idea of a development agency. Wales came later. We did so because we felt that there were special problems that required this special instrument. I have been sitting here preening myself. I never thought that I would hear the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) saying how good the SDA was and urging that we should concentrate more power within the SEPD. I remember what the Opposition did when we discussed this matter. They opposed the powers of the SDA and
  1538
  they had some help in Committee from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), the SNP representative, who joined the Tories to retain the cuts in the powers of the SDA that were made by another place.
  Scottish National Party Members have very convenient memories. I have a very good memory, and I am determined to remind them of their faults and follies. especially when I hear them telling off the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in respect of a vote. Let them beware of what Burns said:
  "Gently scan your brother man".
  We know something about what guidelines mean. We are working successfully under the guidelines, and there has been praise for the SDA. There is no conflict and no confrontation at present. Certain Conservative Members are suggesting that we should go in for directions. We have some experience of direction, and we know that it is the demands that a Minister of the Crown should issue directions that really cause the trouble. It is an indication that things have gone wrong. If we are to proceed with constant crises and emergencies, we shall have constant confrontation.
  Mr. Raison: The fact is that the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 uses the phrase "give directions". That phrase is embodied in the whole of the Act.
  Mr. Ross: The SDA also has guidelines, which were put in at the express wish of the Conservative Party and the House of Commons generally from the United Kingdom point of view. Where there are guidelines, as long as people keep within them they have full freedom of action, but once we have constant direction people do not know where they are and freedom goes.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) should appreciate that by urging us to leave out guidelines and work only on the basis of directions he is asking for confrontation and trouble. I should have liked to go into some of the other matters that have been raised and the general arugment about the efficacy of the policies of the SNP and about how wonderful the SNP says everything would be. I remind Scottish National Party

  1539
  Members that it is very dangerous to deceive people into thinking that we can achieve miracles by some strange use of words. That was all we had from the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain).
  We have something practical in the SDA. I have no doubt that it will grow and expand. I am glad that hon. Members have said that it has been useful. The SDA, working together with the SEDP, is using the powers that we gave it under Section 7 of the Industry Act and is working very successfully. We have seen things happening in Ayrshire, for example in Kilmarnock, Stewarton and Cumnock, and all round Scotland. That has been for the benefit of the local people, through the use of powers well within the guidelines. Let us stick to the guidelines.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Scotland for more than eight years. I ask him a question to which I genuinely do not know the answer. From his previous experience, does he think that there would be a problem about the double loyalty of civil servants to Assembly Ministers and to the Secretary of State and United Kingdom Ministers? I ask this because he has great experience.
  Mr. Ross: My experience with civil servants—some of whom had been seconded to the Scottish Office from the Department of Industry when we took over the Section 7 powers—was that their loyalty was to the job they were doing and to working within guidelines that had been laid down. There was no conflict at all.
  Mr. Pym: Whatever comments the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) may have made about the conduct of the debate, I have heard every word and can say that it has undeniably ranged very widely, covering practically the whole clause. That is hardly surprising, because the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) goes to the heart of the matter, singling out the words "prepare guidelines" and proposing alternative words. I wish to follow many of the matters that have been raised.
  One very basic question is raised under the clause, namely, whether the new
  1540
  separate Scottish Administration that is to be created should have any regional powers. That is a very important question in the context of the Bill, because what is at risk is the unity of the United Kingdom economy and its possible fragmentation by different treatment being accorded to different parts of the United Kingdom. Such a possibility must cause grave anxiety, certainly in the Department of Employment and the Scottish Office and, I should think, everywhere in Scotland.
  Industry, both north and south of the border, but especially north of the border, is clear as to the dangers. It has said on many occasions that it believes that any division of responsibility on the economic front between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom will lead to falling investment and put jobs at risk.
  That is an extremely important matter because, as has been said many times, the unemployment problem in Scotland is more serious than it is in England or the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Henderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the important point which he is making suggests that the present system has not worked satisfactorily for Scotland and that it is high time we had a chance to do it ourselves and solve our own problems?
  Mr. Pym: If we are to make a change, let us be sure that we make a change for the better, not for the worse. I think the Minister will agree that industrial interests in Scotland have made the position very clear. Naturally, I hope that he will take just as much notice of those representations as of every other representation which is made.
  It is true that the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board are uniquely Scottish bodies performing functions different from those of any other body or agency in the rest of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, those functions are very much involved in the Scottish aspect of regional policy, and the importance of that cannot be exaggerated.
  Once again, the dilemma here arises on account of the type of devolution proposed in the Bill—a mini-Parliament and its own Cabinet. It has been represented tonight from both sides of the Committee that conflict will arise. Indeed, the hon.

  1541
  Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) spoke of a landmine of conflict developing on the economic front. I wish to add another aspect to that, because, if I have read the Bill aright, the appointment of members to the Scottish Development Agency will be done by the Assembly because the 1975 Act is a devolved matter under Schedule 11. Therefore, the Scottish Prime Minister will appoint the members and the United Kingdom Prime Minister, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, will lay down the guidelines. That seems to be something of a contradiction.
  Such a division of responsibility on the economic front will in itself tend to lead, or mislead, people in Scotland to think that the Assembly will exercise some powerful or even decisive influence over economic policy and industrial growth. But it cannot and will not exercise that degree of influence, because the clause is intended to give the new Scottish Executive some element, but only some element, of influence, and I do not believe that this will please anyone.
  The Government should transfer either a well-defined area of real responsibility on the economic front or none at all. I think that they might have had some encouragement from the Stormont experience to be more positive in their devolvement of economic responsibilities. However, the circumstances of Northern Ireland were and are different, so perhaps the comparison is not much help. In any case, the Scottish and English economies are much more integrated—that was the word used by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—and much more interdependent than are the economies of Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Scottish and English economies are treated as one and thought of as one, with the advantages of larger scale and greater diversity referred to just now by the Under-Secretary of State.
  If there began to grow up a discrepancy between the treatment of industry in Scotland or the assistance given to industry in Scotland and that given, say, to the North-East of England, decisions about the location of industry would be affected, and that certainly has implications for jobs and new factories in Scotland.
  Mr. Stokes: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that in the heart of the industrial Midlands and the workshop of England there is already, before the Bill is passed, great feeling that so much work has been taken from the Midlands and placed in Scotland in order to favour the Labour Party, the hope being that votes will be gathered thereby.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Pym: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Even with a partial handover such as is proposed in the Bill, a partial handover of responsibility on the economic front will not be to Scotland's advantage. As almost all the information most clearly indicates, the economic benefit to Scotland of the Union of the United Kingdom is greater than to Wales or England. It would be most serious if that were to be put at risk. We know, for instance, that the people of Scotland pay less tax. In so far as that is a reflection of their lesser degree of prosperity it is to be regretted, but we know that the percentage of public expenditure per head of population is higher in Scotland than in England.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) recently asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the percentages and was told that public expenditure per head in Scotland financed from Votes exceeded that in England in 1975–76 by about 25 or 30 per cent., which is a large difference. As recently as 1974–75, Scotland received £146 million out of the £473 million granted for regional aid, which was a substantial proportion. It means that the assistance to industry per head of employees in the assisted areas was £68 in Scotland compared with £37 in England, or nearly double.
  Mr. Henderson rose—
  Mr. Pym: No I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman. I am making an important point about the share of the grant received by Scotland which is made available to help regional policy.
  We also know that in the 1960s about 70,000 to 80,000 extra jobs were created due to the action of the Labour Government. A similar number of jobs flowed to Scotland as a result of action taken by the Conservative Administration

  1543
  1970. To some extent that accounts for what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was saying.
  In Scotland the political scene is much judged by the unemployment figures and the policies that are available. Due to the centralisation of policy over the regions and the United Kingdom economy, Scotland has benefited to a considerable extent. Therefore, we are dealing in the clause with the economic life of Scotland and the livelihood of every family in Scotland.
  Mr. Sillars: If we have benefited to such a great extent, why is it that unemployment, which used to be about 50,000 in 1951, is approaching 200,000 in 1977–78?
  Mr. Pym: The short answer is that there has been a Labour Government for three and a half years.
  In this context, it is dangerous to talk of preparing guidelines to divide responsibility for regional aid. It will be done as proposed in the Bill under the aegis of the Secretary of State, who will become an emaciated figure if the Bill becomes an Act. To begin with, he will have to get approval from the Treasury. The Secretary of State's power base in the Cabinet will vanish if the Bill is enacted. He will have no authority worth calling the name. He might as well hand over responsibility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first place. If he survives if the Bill becomes an Act, he will be something of a eunuch, which is not the sort of character much respected in Scotland.
  It is clear that the Executive and the Assembly could not extend or alter the functions of the SDA. It will merely be another set of politicians and civil servants interfering in commerce and industry. There is too much interference already. This is a good example of the extra tier of government argument. It will impose more forms of more meddling, which is inimical to prosperity.
  I want to raise some of the problems of the guidelines and the proposals for having them. The existing guidelines run to 12 pages. What do the Government have in mind by way of division? I do not think that it will be easy. The existing guidelines cover such matters as the
  1544
  importance of job creation, the needs of the rural economy, regard for profitability, opportunities to take over companies without their agreement and a whole range of other matters. How are the guidelines to be constructed so that the Assembly will know how to act? If they are too detailed, it will hardly be devolution because it will be giving responsibility with one hand and taking it away with the other. If the guidelines are not detailed, why bother to have them at all?
  Mr. Crawford rose—
  Mr. Pym: No, I cannot give way. We have had three and a half hours already. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed.
  Mr. Crawford: Scared.
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech.
  What is the status of the guidelines? What does subsection (4) mean when it states:
  "A Scottish Secretary shall exercise the powers with respect to which guidelines are prepared under this section so as to give effect to the guidelines."?
  What happens if the Scottish Secretary does not act in that manner? This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Who decides whether the Scottish Secretary has acted in that way? The Scottish Development Agency will have two masters. Will it not play one off against the other? It could perfectly well challenge the Scottish Secretary and maintain that he was not acting in accordance with the guidelines, or that he was going beyond them. What does the SDA do—appeal to the eunuch or to the Scottish Prime Minister? How is this to work?
  Is it sensible to transfer some responsibility and then try to control the exercise of that responsibility? What happens if a Labour Secretary of State tries to direct a Tory Scottish Secretary to take an equity holding in a firm or to take over a firm such as Fairey? That is an unimaginable nightmare of a situation, but it could happen. I only hope that I can be there to hear the reply by the Tory Scottish Secretary.
  We feel that the clause is a nonsensical compromise. There is no justification for the middle course of transferring to Treasury control some part of regional

  1545
  policy. It is a half-way house that will not work. It will cause conflict, difficulty and differences. If the Government wanted a devolved SDA or Highlands and Islands Development Board, why did they not do that? Or did the Government not dare to do it? Do they want to retain control in Whitehall? Do they think that by retaining control themselves while appearing to give it away to the Assembly they will have more influence and control over the Labour Party's fortunes in Scotland?
  We should not forget what is really at the bottom of the Bill. It is not designed to help the people of Scotland or to improve the Government there. It is au fond designed to help the Labour Party in Scotland. In this clause the Government are entering a dangerous area of direct concern to the families of Scotland who at the moment enjoy an undue proportion of assistance from the United Kingdom economy. We want to be satisfied that the Government have thought all these matters through. We fear that they have not done so, because the possible division of the control of the United Kingdom economy would be a grievous blow to Scotland and would in no sense be in the interests of anybody in Scotland.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I hope that under the clause we shall have the guidelines set out. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to me.
  Mr. Sproat: We want to hear the Minister. The hon. Member has not even been here.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Observations from a sedentary position are deprecated.
  Dr. Miller: I would not be happy if the SDA were constricted and restricted by any Government directives. I have cause to be grateful and thankful to the SDA in my constituency. In the Blantyre part of the constituency, the SDA is going ahead with developments which will be of great benefit to an area of high unemployment. It may interest the SNP to know that the area in my constituency with the highest unemployment is the area which gave that party a trouncing in the May elections. Therefore, SNP
  1546
  Members should note that the slogans and words which the SNP uses to try to con and gull the people, to show that everything in the garden will be rosy if only the SNP is returned to power, fall on deaf ears among the working people of Scotland.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We shall see.
  Dr. Miller: Yes, we shall see. I am not complacent about unemployment in Scotland. It is a disaster. Unemployment is high and is growing in every industrialised country in the world. Scotland and England are not exceptions.
  What would happen to employment if the SNP achieved power in Scotland? In the new town of East Kilbride, 75 per cent. of the jobs are supplied by United Kingdom or multinational firms. A large proportion of them would disappear if that party came to power.
  Mr. Henderson: Name them.
  Dr. Miller: Members of the SNP know what I am talking about.
  Mr. Henderson: Name them.
  Dr. Miller: I know what I am talking about.
  Mr. Henderson: Name them.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Member, as I reminded another hon. Member a few minutes ago, that observations from a sedentary position are deprecated.
  Mr. Henderson: I spoke only because the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) refused to give way and answer a reasonable question.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Giving way is entirely a matter for the hon. Member who is speaking.
  Dr. Miller: I want the Bill to go through. I firmly believe in the good that the Bill will do. I want this clause, with its stress on the Scottish Development Agency continuing its work to benefit areas in need and to bring down unemployment. I believe that that is what the SDA will do.
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) who moved the amendment, dealt with the fairly narrow issue of "directions" as opposed to

  1547
  "guidelines". Since then the debate has ranged widely over the whole clause. I shall seek to answer questions about both the narrow and the wide issues.
  I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) raised the question of what happens if the Scottish Assembly does not follow the directions of the Secretary of State. As I told the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), the remedy for the United Kingdom Government is the use of Clause 37 of the Bill. But the Conservative Party voted against that clause. They also voted against Clauses 36 and 38. A synthetic fuss was made about the Division on a point of order.
  The Conservative Party cannot escape its responsibility. Its Members voted against very important clauses which preserve the legitimate rights of the United Kingdom Government.
  Mr. Pym: We did not have time to debate those clauses.
  Mr. Smith: We did not reach the clauses because of the time that was taken discussing other clauses. It does not escape my notice that it might suit some hon. Members not to discuss clauses so that they can draw attention to that elsewhere. The Conservatives voted with the SNP against the interests of the United Kingdom. Now, on the very amendment on which they are asking the questions about how we secure the interests of the United Kingdom, I have to refer them back to the clauses they voted against. I do not know whether their behaviour is good politics, but it does not make sense to me.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Crawford: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that the Tories had reasons why they voted against Clauses 36, 37 and 38, but when I asked him why, he could not answer.
  Mr. Smith: They will have an opportunity to explain throughout this Committee stage. I shall ask them often to explain.
  But now I must return to the specific question as to why statutory guidelines are more appropriate than directions given by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) has already put
  1548
  the reasons extremely well in his lucid speech. What we require is to formulate a code of practice designed to protect the interests of the other parts of the United Kingdom, not a power to decree a series of tightly-drafted specific requirements related to individual decisions, which would be the result of a series of directions.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) reminded us, there are guidelines in practice at the moment. We believe that for the Secretary of State to issue directions to a Scottish Secretary would involve a detailed control over the latter's performance of his functions, and that would not be in tune with the general policy of the Bill. We have guidelines already. We have guidelines in operation in relation to the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asked me, quite reasonably, what would be the content of the guidelines. Those that the Secretary of State will issue will follow closely the guidelines under which the SDA operates now. It is not a specially complicated or difficult matter.
  I accept that there is a common United Kingdom Government involvement at the moment, and that there is to be a transfer of considerable responsibility for the Agency to the Scottish Executive, but these guidelines work satisfactorily and are much preferable to specific directions by the Secretary of State on a whole series of individual matters.
  I was intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who praised the operations of the SDA and seemed to me perhaps to be stumbling along the road to Socialism a little more than he intended by advocating increased powers for the Scottish Economic Planning Department. We have decentralised a number of responsibilities to that Department, but it will not be devolved. We are not in the business of devolving regional and industrial policy. We believe that that policy is best handled on a United Kingdom basis by the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament.
  I was asked why we had decided to devolve the SDA wholly. We did so after a very great deal of consideration. Indeed,

  1549
  the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire gave the answer himself by saying that it is a uniquely Scottish body. It operates wholly within Scotland. In the November 1975 White Paper, we proposed to devolve the environmental responsibilities of the SDA but not its industrial responsibilities, but it seemed to us on reflection to make more sense to give the Assembly and the Executive control over the Agency as a whole. But they do not have legislative responsibility for it.
  Why do we have the concept of guidelines at all? It is important to observe fairness and equity among the regional industrial policies of the United Kingdom. It would not be fair to allow the SDA to give soft loans or extra incentives to firms in Scotland which were not available in the North-East of England, for example. This is consistent with our view that devolution will strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom. I believe that profoundly—and I emphasise it to Opposition Members who keep fighting the Bill at every stage because they believe that it will harm the unity of the United Kingdom. However, I think that this indication—[Interruption] If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will stop voting against clauses which preserve the interests of the United Kingdom, I shall then take lectures from him on this subject.
  However, it is necessary in our view to have regional and industrial policy dealt with on a United Kingdom basis.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Given that I do not entirely disagree with what the Minister says, may I ask him to explain why the Highlands and Islands Development Board, operating within the budget allowed to it, should not be permitted to vary the kind of incentives that it uses in that area? I should have thought that it could hardly be argued that this would topple the whole United Kingdom economy.
  Mr. Smith: It might not topple the whole United Kingdom economy. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the Highlands and Islands Development Board operates in one defined area of Scotland, not the whole of Scotland. It covers the area specified by the former crofting counties, although the area has been
  1550
  changed from time to time. There is a point that even within Scotland, though, if one allows one particular agency to offer a better set of incentives than those offered by another, some difficulties would arise. That would be a problem, perhaps, between the central belt and the Highlands, rather than, say, between a Scottish company and an English company, concerning the SDA's operations.
  We thought very carefully about these matters but we came to the conclusion that it was wiser to have a common set of rules for both the HIDB and the SDA. The hon. Gentleman has made the point forcefully to me on a number of occasions that he thought that the case concerning the HIDB was much less convincing than it was for the SDA.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked about new towns and their relationship with the Treasury, as he saw it. There will be no direct relationship with the Treasury or the Government as far as this is concerned. It will be solely with the Scottish Administration. There are guidelines on the disposal of industrial land, as my hon. Friend will see from the terms of the clause, to ensure that, when they dispose of land or industrial buildings, this will be on the same terms as in comparable areas elsewhere. That is really what that part of the clause is about.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries asked me about control of finance on the operations of the SDA. At least, that was what I understood him to be asking me about. He asked whether it would be done over the life of a Parliament or from month to month or year to year. There will be no separate United Kingdom control over the finance of the SDA, either for a Parliament as a whole or for shorter periods. All the funds made available for devolved purposes will be part of the annual block fund, and it will be for the devolved Administration to decide how much of their resources goes to the SDA. They will have an opportunity to decide how much of their resources will be allocated to the SDA.
  The importance of the guidelines is that they will operate so that the SDA will not be able to offer a more attractive set of incentives, as it were, to industry in. Scotland than the incentives offered in England in the North-East or the North-West.

  1551
  I think that that is a very sensible thing to decide.
  I think that we are absolutely right in not devolving regional or industrial development policy, but when we have a body such as the SDA, which has an important role, the Assembly will have a role so far as its environmental functions are concerned, in a legislative sense. Where it is operating entirely within Scotland, staffed by Scottish people and with a very good board drawn from very representative sections of Scottish life, it seems to us to make sense that the day-to-day administration and control of that body should be given to the Assembly and the Scottish Administration.
  I found it curious that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was saying that he thought there was a case for greater industrial devolution.
  Mr. Pym: What I said was that I thought that the half-way house position chosen by the Government in the clause was not satisfactory and that there was a case for saying that we should go further and devolve some real powers, if that was what the Government wanted to do, or not devolve any at all.
  Mr. Smith: It is difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman. On the one hand he says that he thinks that there is a case for greater industrial devolution, and on the other hand he says that there is a case for no industrial devolution. Of which one of those attractive possibilities is he in favour?
  Mr. Pym: At this hour the Minister must be very tired. He, too, has been listening to the whole debate. I made it perfectly clear that I thought that these matters ought not to be devolved.
  Mr. Smith: In that case, it seems odd that the right hon. Gentleman should be saying anything about the case for more industrial devolution. In his famous speech at St. Andrews he proposed devolution of neither a legislative nor an executive kind. One wonders what other form of devolution there is. But that is the devolution to which the Conservative Party is committed in principle. There was no mention of any economic devolution there. The Conservative proposals are so half-hearted and feeble that they do not involve devolution at all.
  1552
  For once I commend the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. A great deal of it is directed to me, but some of it is directed at the Opposition Front Bench, and one day he may receive an answer. He is entitled to keep pressing, because he has received nothing remotely like an answer yet.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) made an interesting speech, but he is operating on a different political principle from that of the Government. As far as I can see, he has accepted the argument for a separate State. In that sense he is, in effect, a nationalist. I know that he has differences of opinion with the SNP, but he does not seem to have many on that point. Perhaps I have got him wrong.
  Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend is aware, because we have talked about this matter elsewhere, that I am speaking within the context of the EEC, because I do not believe that any part of the United Kingdom is coming out of the Community. This is not a semantic difference between me and the SNP.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend would want to keep for Scotland the same status as the Republic of Ireland, which is an independent State. If we changed Scotland's constitution to one like that of the Republic of Ireland, we should be creating an independent State. People who argue for an independent State will not wish there to be controls. I understand that the SNP, because it is nationalist, will oppose some of these provisions. I am not a nationalist, and the Government are not putting forward nationalist proposals.
  We are seeking to give more autonomy, more control over Scottish affairs, to a Scottish Assembly directly elected by the Scottish people but within the firm framework of the continuing unity of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend does not favour that commitment to continuing political and economic unity, which is very much at the heart of our proposals. Therefore, we part company on that matter. I suppose that Opposition Members are sincere in wanting to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom, but with their total lack of sensitivity to the feelings of people in Scotland who want more control over aspects

  1553
  of their own affairs which can legitimately be dealt with in Scotland they are failing to serve the cause of unity.
  When we deal with such matters as the SDA we must put into the Bill provisions that are carefully thought out. Hon. Members have noticed the complicated provisions. They hang together. We have here an important measure of devolution, but at the same time we have had close regard to the interests of other parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the North of England and other parts would legitimately ask searching questions if we did not have these protections in the Bill for the interests of all other parts of the United Kingdom.
  I do not know what the Conservatives propose to do if there is a vote on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", because it contains important protections for the unity of the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall not see a repeat of their irresponsibility on Clauses 36, 37 and 38. If they decide to vote against Clause 39. their claim to represent the interests of the United Kingdom will be in total tatters.
  I shall watch with very great interest what happens on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". The amendment is probably more of a probing nature than of any other kind, and I shall understand if there is not a vote on

  Division No. 43]

  AYES

  [11.00 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cryer, Bob

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hatton, Frank

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Bates, Alf

  Deakins, Eric

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Beith, A. J.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Huckfield, Les

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Boardman, H.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hunter, Adam

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dunn, James A.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  John, Brynmor

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Buchan, Norman

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Campbell, Ian

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Judd, Frank

  Cant, R. B.

  Ford, Ben

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Cartwright, John

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Kerr, Russell

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Lambie, David

  Cohen, Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Lemond, James

  Coleman, Donald

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Ginsburg, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Golding, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Gould, Bryan

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gourlay, Harry

  Luard, Evan

  Cronin, John

  Graham, Ted

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  that. If, however, there is a vote on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill" we shall see whether the Conservative Party is more interested in trying to get cheap victories over the Government in the House of Commons than in protecting the interests of the United Kingdom.
  Today must have been one of the most foolish in the history of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons—and that is saying something—because it decided, I do not know whether in pique or otherwise, to vote against some important clauses. Conservative Members have an opportunity on Clause 39 to save a little of their self-respect by not voting against it. I fear myself that they might succumb to the temptation simply to vote against anything—
  It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 163.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Penhaligon, Davis

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tinn, James

  Madden, Max

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Torney, Tom

  Magee, Bryan

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roper, John

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Ward, Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Watkins, David

  Mendelson, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Weetch, Ken

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sandelson, Neville

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Sedgemore, Brian

  White, James (Pollok)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Sever, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mitchell, Austin

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Small, William

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Noble, Mike

  Snape, Peter

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Oakes, Gordon

  Spearing, Nigel

  Woof, Robert

  Ogden, Eric

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stallard, A. W.

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Pardoe, John

  Stott, Roger

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Park, George

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Pendry, Tom

  NOES

  Arnold, Tom

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mudd, David

  Banks, Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Ba)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Neubert, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Nott, John

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Biffen, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Percival, Ian

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hannam, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Brittan, Leon

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Raison, Timothy

  Brooke, Peter

  Henderson, Douglas

  Reid, George

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hodgson, Robin

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Holland, Philip

  Rhodes James, R.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Buck, Anthony

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Budgen, Nick

  James, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Shersby, Michael

  Churchill, W. S.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Sillars, James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Silvester, Fred

  Cockroft, John

  Kilson, Sir Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Knox, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cope, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Costain, A. P.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Luce, Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spence, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  MacGregor, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Dunlop, John

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Stainton, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Dykes, Hugh

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stokes, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Mather, Carol

  Tebbit, Norman

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mawby, Ray

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thompson, George

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Wakeham, John

  Farr, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mills, Peter

  Wall, Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Moate, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Molyneaux, James

  Watt, Hamish

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Monro, Hector

  Weatherill, Bernard

  1556

  1557

  Wells, John

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Welsh, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sir. George Young and Mr. Jim Lester

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Younger, Hon George

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 7 agreed to.

  Division No. 44]

  AYES

  [11.15 p.m.

  Anderson, Donald

  Gould, Bryan

  Palmer, Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gourlay, Harry

  Park, George

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Graham, Ted

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Bates, Alf

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Penhaligon, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Radice, Giles

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hatton, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Boardman, H.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Huckfield, Les

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roper, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hunter. Adam

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Buchan, Norman

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Campbell, Ian

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cant, R. B.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sever, John

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Silverman, Julius

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Small, William

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Judd, Frank

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Snape, Peter

  Coleman, Donald

  Kerr, Russell

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lambie, David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lamond, James

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stott, Roger

  Cronin, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Strang, Gavin

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cryer, Bob

  Luard, Evan

  Taylor. Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Davidson, Arthur

  McCartney, Hugh

  Tinn, James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Torney, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Dolg, Peter

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Madden, Max

  Ward, Michael

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Magee, Bryan

  Watkins, David

  Dunn, James A.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Weetch, Ken

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Marks, Kenneth

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mendelson, John

  Whitlock, William

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Flannery, Martin

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Ford, Ben

  Mitchell, Austin

  Woof, Robert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  George, Bruce

  Noble, Mike

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Ginsburg, David

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Golding, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  NOES

  Arnold, Tom

  Banks, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Benyon, W.

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Awdry, Daniel

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Brittan, Leon

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Biffen, John

  Brooke, Peter

  SCOTLAND BILL
    Clause 40

      NATIONAL PAY POLICY
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 160. Noes 161.

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hawkins, Paul

      Raison, Timothy

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Reid, George

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hodgson, Robin

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Holland, Philip

      Rhodes James, R.

      Buck, Anthony

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Budgen, Nick

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      James, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jenkin Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cockroft, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Shersby, Michael

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      King. Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Silvester, Fred

      Cope, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Sims, Roger

      Costain, A. P.

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Crawford, Douglas

      Knox, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Speed, Keith

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Luce, Richard

      Spence, John

      Dunlop, John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Durant, Tony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Sproat, Iain

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacGregor, John

      Stainton, Keith

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stokes, John

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Mather, Carol

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mawby, Ray

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Farr, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thompson, George

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Wakeham, John

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Forman, Nigel

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mills, Peter

      Wall, Patrick

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walters, Dennis

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Moate, Roger

      Warren. Kenneth

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Molyneaux, James

      Watt, Hamish

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Monro, Hector

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Goodhart, Philip

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Wells, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan, Geraint

      Welsh, Andrew

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Neubert, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Nott, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Grist, Ian

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Grylls, Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Younger, Hon George

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Percival, Ian

      Hannam, John

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Sir George Young and Mr. Jim Lester.

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 41

      MINISTER'S CONSENT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CERTAIN PERSONS
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

      Division No. 45]

      AYES

      [11.29 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Buchan, Norman

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Anderson, Donald

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Cryer, Bob

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Campbell, Ian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cant, R. B.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cartwright, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Bates, Alf

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Deakins, Eric

      Beith, A. J.

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Doig, Peter

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Coleman, Donald

      Dormand, J. D.

      Boardman, H.

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Dunn, James A.

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cronin, John

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 16.

      Ferny hough, Rt Hon E.

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Sandelson, Neville

      Flannery, Martin

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Sever, John

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Silverman, Julius

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Small, William

      George, Bruce

      Madden, Max

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Magee, Bryan

      Snape, Peter

      Golding, John

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gould, Bryan

      Marks, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Graham, Ted

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mendelson, John

      Stott, Roger

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Strang, Gavin

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Hatton, Frank

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Taylor. Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mitchell, Austin

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tinn, James

      Huckfield, Les

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Torney, Tom

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Noble, Mike

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Hunter, Adam

      Ogden, Eric

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Ward, Michael

      John, Brynmor

      Palmer, Arthur

      Watkins, David

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Park, George

      Weetch, Ken

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Pendry, Tom

      White, James (Pollok)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Penhaligon, David

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Judd, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Whitlock, William

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Kerr, Russell

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Lambie, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Woof, Robert

      Lamond, James

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roper, John

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Luard, Evan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      NOES

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Canavan, Dennis

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Dunlop, John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Thompson, George

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Henderson, Douglas

      Watt, Hamish

      Mr. George Reid and Mr. Douglas Crawford.

      Molyneaux, James

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 8 agreed to.
      Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].
      Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I should indicate that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and other Members.
  11.42 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1955/77, R/1959/77, R/2347/77, R/2348/77 and R/2594/77 on Energy Policy and R/1901/77, R/1956/77 and R/1958/77 on Nuclear Energy.
  First, I express a view that will be widely shared in the House—namely, my regret that an important debate should be taking place as late at night as this and that we should be under the pressure of an EEC Energy Council meeting next Tuesday at which some of these issues will be raised, which means that I shall need to know as best as possible the views of the House. I am moved to welcome what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said about looking again at our scrutiny procedures in order to improve them. Meanwhile the "take note" motion is the only practicable course that we can adopt to permit these matters to be discussed.
  By way of introduction, I shall draw some contrast between the way in which we are discussing and deciding United Kingdom energy policy with the way it is being determined within the EEC. We have had with general good will—I am not trying to commit anybody—a development of energy policy with the help of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, whose chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), is always present to remind the House of the work done by the Committee, a national energy conference, many public hearings, public documents, an Energy Commission which met for the first time last week, tripartite meetings, legislation and debates.
  It has been my intention throughout that all these issues should be discussed openly and by a consultative process. I
  1564
  recognise that it is a bit slower to do it that way, but the intention has been to share decisions much more widely. I do so as the Minister accountable to the House of Commons. I would not be sorry if the powers-that-be who decide these things were to supplement this development by having a Select Committee solely concerned with energy. That would not be at all a bad idea. I am not sure how that would be done, but if it were the view of the House there would be no hostility to it from the Minister responsible.
  By contrast, the development of energy policy within the Community is on a completely different basis—
  Mr. Peter Rost: They take decisions.
  Mr. Benn: I shall come to that in just a moment. First, the Commission, of the work of which the Minister and Parliament know practically nothing, operates in secret. There is no report by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Secondly, there is a Coreper, a committee of representatives which is made up of senior Foreign Office officials of the Community countries—Sir Donald Maitland is our representative—and which is not specifically concerned with energy. It meets in private. Thirdly, there are ministerial meetings, held in secret as well. Yet, as tonight's debate proves, the documents we are discussing today are of fundamental importance and could affect a very large number of people in this country.
  I draw this comparison because I think that the debate on EEC energy policy, in which I have played some part, has tended to be on the question of "in or out" instead of, or much to the exclusion of, the question of the methods of the EEC and their acceptability in the United Kingdom as a means of making energy policy. The reason why I have alluded to the way in which I have sought to deal with this in the United Kingdom is that I should be wholly opposed to secret methods of making energy policy in the United Kingdom, particularly if that led to decisions which had not been the subject of very wide discussion.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to why a number of these documents refer to a communication to the Council of 17th May entitled "The Community in

  1565
  the International Nuclear Environment"? We understand from the explanatory memorandum put out by the Government that it was never published. Why did the Commission never publish that document?
  Mr. Leo Abse: Why, when I have requested that document to be made available, has that never been done? An inquiry was made today in the Library, and it was confirmed that the document is an unpublished working paper which is therefore not available for distribution. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this seminal document which should have been before us has not been available for us to debate?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Benn: I shall make inquiries about this. I must tell the House, however, because this is central to the general argument that I have been conducting internally for two and a half years, that any documents, whether working or not, in Europe or the United Kingdom should not be withheld from publication. That is my position and I have stated it in the Commission. Naturally, I have discussed this with my colleagues in the Government. At the last three Energy Councils—I began it on my first time as President—I have made it clear that I believe that the Energy Council should be held in public. There is nothing secret in what we discuss, and we should meet in public, because for this purpose at any rate it is a sort of legislative body.
  If what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said reflects the view of the House, as it seemed to do from the sounds of assent given to it, I shall be strengthened in my arguments in pressing this at the Council meeting next Tuesday.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend's plea for the open publication of documents apply to documents supplied to his Energy Commission?
  Mr. Benn: Of course. Every document that goes to the Energy Commission is published. In addition, the transcripts of the Commission, which are now being typed, will be published. I could challenge hon. Members to find any document on any aspect, other than
  1566
  commercial contracts, which has not been made available to the House. I know that this is a source of some tittering to those who believe that the Commission is a "chat-in", but it would be wrong to take these decisions until the wide range of institutions have had their opportunity to express their views. Hon. Members would be surprised how many different bodies are concerned with this topic. It is helpful to me as a Minister to know what people think before I take a decision.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Does that mean that in the right hon. Gentleman's view the report of the inspector of the Windscale inquiry should be debated and discussed before a decision is taken?
  Mr. Benn: There is an amendment about that which Mr. Deputy Speaker said must not be debated, but I should like to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. This is a matter for ray right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The question was raised recently in the House by one of my hon. Friends and I undertook to convey his opinion to the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have done that and I have, therefore, discharged my obligation. It is not a matter for me, and I hope that the House will excuse me from dealing with it. With my good will, responsibility for dealing with these matters has been transferred to another Minister. I believe that the Department of Energy should not have responsibility for these matters. If it did, people would say that it had a vested interest.
  Mr. Tom King: Can the Secretary of State confirm a report that his own adviser, Professor Odell, has been refused access by the Department of Energy to certain information about the oil industry?
  Mr. Benn: I shall look at that and find out. The question is fresh to me. I invited Professor Odell to advise me on the relationship between the oil companies and foreign companies. I thought that he was well able to do that. Advisers are not privy to confidential, commercial matters, but at the same time they must have access to relevant information. I shall look into that question.
  I want to express to the House the view that I have already expressed to the

  1567
  Energy Council. I believe that the handling of energy policy in the Community requires some important changes if it is to be acceptable to us. I want to tell the House what I believe these changes should be.
  First, Ministers should meet in open session. That is a reasonable propositon. Secondly, the Commission should report to Ministers on its activities in addition to putting documents before them. Thirdly, Parliament should examine proposals in detail. I have put that to the Council, and it concerns the scrutiny to which I have referred.
  If we have an Energy Commission at home, proposals from the Community should be discussed at home. It is no good my putting proposals to the British Energy Commission if Community proposals are not made available for comment by the Energy Commission at home. This may sound complicated, but anyone who follows energy matters knows what a wide range of interests is involved.
  On this basis, one can begin to develop what should be our attitude to Community energy policy. First, let us be clear that we want a successful Community policy for energy. There is no dispute about that. Secondly, as I have made clear in Brussels, Luxembourg and here, in our view it should be based upon the harmonisation of the national plans of the member States. We believe that if we do it that way we shall make more progress than if we did it the other way, which is to make energy policy the spearhead for a federal control of energy in the Community by the Commission, thus becoming the instrument by which the Commission gains control over the resources, the policy or the democratic safeguards of any member State.
  That is my general approach. I do not believe that it would be specially controversial in the normal arguments about Community membership. It seems to me a sensible way to make progress. I have made this approach clear, and I hope that I carry the House generally with me in asserting it.
  The reason why I have gone into this detail—if we stay as late as this it is worth doing it properly—is that I think that the criteria I have outlined are helpful in assessing how we approach these
  1568
  documents. If the documents, be they recommendations or regulations, lead to sensible co-operation and harmonisation, the House should welcome them. I certainly do. If, however, they were to represent a takeover of policy, resources or basic national interests, we should look at them very critically.
  I turn now to the clutch of documents before us, and first I deal with the nuclear energy documents. These proposals—they probably will not come up for decision next Tuesday—are all fundamentally important to the handling of nuclear policy in the United Kingdom itself. It can hardly be denied after our debate last Friday that in nuclear matters one is never dealing solely with national concerns, because all nuclear matters are by definition international.
  In the debate, I went through the list of organisations concerned, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation Programme, the International Atomic Energy Authority and Euratom. They are concerned with proliferation, safety standards and technical co-operation.
  Nothing that I am about to say should be read as suggesting that in nuclear policy any one country could cut itself off and say "We are an island unto our-serves". But I must emphasise, as I shall on Tuesday, that decisions on reactor types, on whether we are to adopt the AGR or the PWR type, on the fast breeder, on reprocessing or on waste disposal must be retained within a régime of decision-making that leaves them accountable to the House of Commons and the electorate in this country.
  In saying that, I am defending not only my own ministerial interests but the Department of the Environment as well. I know that there is some comment abroad about why we have been able to have these nuclear debates without riot police being called out. It is not just a matter of open discussion; it is because people know that in the end any decision will be taken by Ministers accountable to Parliament and by Members of Parliament accountable to their constituents. It is also because the people in this country trust the Department of the Environment to appoint an inspector to look at reprocessing and to do it in a fair and balanced

  1569
  way, and they know that when the Minister reaches a decision it will be one for which he and the Cabinet as a whole are responsible. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) knows all this. He has been in charge both of energy matters and of the environment; he has worn two hats.
  Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Gentleman is getting carried away. Who actually takes the decisions in Germany and France? Perhaps this is a rather dialectic point, but in the end Ministers take these decisions in those countries.
  Mr. Benn: I am not commenting on how other countries do it. I am saying that it would be an entirely different situation if the decision as to whether we went ahead with Windscale were taken by the Commission. That is the point I am making. I think that our method of public discussion is probably a better way of doing it. I am saying that what we are really safeguarding is not so much, or alone, the discussion but the fact that in the end someone stands up and says "I had the inquiry. I considered it. I decided it. I am responsible for it. Get rid of me if you wish." If we were to say to the House—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with me—"Whatever the inspector said, the Commission has decided whether Windscale is to go ahead and that we are to have a fast breeder reactor", or whatever might be decided, we would reopen public anxiety not because it is the Commission but because there is not a fabric or a line of responsibility from the Commission to the electorate for the purpose of deciding.
  I attach very great importance to this matter. Anyone who reads the documents on nuclear policy that are before us will find on one interpretation what they might be suggesting, for example, on waste disposal. In waste disposal techniques, let us have a full exchange of information. Let us upgrade to the best. But one could not have a situation in which it was decided outside this country where the waste of this country and other countries was to be put in this country, unless it was decided by British Ministers.
  I hope that these constitutional digressions are not thought to be irrelevant, because, frankly, I could not accept a
  1570
  transfer of responsibility for a decision of this magnitude from the House of Commons to anyone else whatsoever. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool and I have differed on the European question, but I do not believe that the question I am now raising reopens old wounds of that kind. It is not intended to do so. It is intended to try to unite a body of people in the House behind a British Minister who has to argue these arguments in a forum which is not as familiar as we are with the way in which these matters are settled.
  Therefore, when I go to the meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, I intend to say there much of what I have said tonight, and I hope that the House will not think me wrong to do so. I reassure the House that decisions will not be taken on these matters on Tuesday. The European Assembly has to be consulted, and these matters will come up later. However, I want there to be no misunderstanding about them. Indeed, when the Commission had hearings recently on nuclear power, organised by Commissioner Brunner, I invited him to come and see me to discuss it. I very much welcomed the seminars that were being held, but I underline the view that a seminar organised by the Commission could not be a substitute for ministerial control by any member State on matters of this magnitude.
  By contrast, lest anyone thinks that I am being negative, one can have successful co-operation on nuclear matters. I cite, for example, the JET project, which took a very long time to be agreed. Here we have an important international technical project which is too expensive for any member State to undertake. We very strongly supported JET from the beginning. We joined in the discussions about where it should be sited. In my opinion, expensive forward-looking research and development of that kind is absolutely proper for the Community, and it does not raise any of the questions that I have raised in the context of nuclear decisions.
  I see the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in his place. I recall that when, on an earlier occasion, he spoke from the Opposition Front Bench he raised some of the questions with which I have dealt tonight. He might not have

  1571
  thought that I was listening, but I was. I have tried to reflect some of the things that he said about the passage of decision-making on nuclear policy from this Chamber to the Council or the Commission.
  Mr. Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he is not trying to confuse the House on two separate issues: the decision-taking—most of us would agree that individual nations should retain this power—and collaborative research and development projects? Surely, most of the documents deal with recommendations that we should get together on research and development on nuclear waste problems and the fast breeder reactor as well as on JET.
  Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would acquit me of ever being reluctant to talk to anybody about energy problems. I must have spoken to more people about them than anyone else has done, because I believe that discussion of them is very valuable. I suggested that the Council of Ministers' discussion about nuclear policy should be open, but as the Ministers would not have it we had the seminar hearings outside.
  I find the discussions in the Council of Ministers very interesting. I am not trying to suggest that certain subjects should be abstracted from them. I am strongly in favour of international discussions and collaboration about a whole range of matters, including JET, fluidised-bed burning, which is an International Energy Agency operation, and some of the subjects we shall discuss tonight. But I wanted to make clear beyond peradventure, as they say, that I could not accept that one should slip from a discussion of these matters to decision-making about the fast breeder.
  The House knows our view on the fast breeder. We have not yet made up our minds. We have not closed the option of building it. We have said that if we decide to build it we shall have another inquiry like the one that took place at Windscale. Subject to the inquiry's conclusion, international collaboration on the fast breeder would be right. There are strong arguments for it, but the desirability of international collaboration cannot of itself be a reason for bypassing the decision that must be taken here. I do not think that anyone will disagree.
  1572
  I come to the other clutch of issues that are included on the Order Paper. I want to go through them one by one. Document R/1955/77 concerns the grant of a measure of support for Community projects in the hydrocarbons sector—not exploring but supporting technology in that sector. It is a very good scheme. The only trouble is that I had to go ahead with it before this debate because the time ran out. This exposes a difficulty of our scrutiny procedure. If I had not agreed before the debate, we should have missed the next year's work, and we have been doing very well out of it. We have about 31 per cent. of the projects. Nobody would deny that I was right to do what I did, but I felt uneasy and I wrote to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee explaining my dilemma.
  The next document is No. R/1959/77, on the achievement of Community energy policy objectives for 1985. Here we run into serious difficulties. First, the Commission has suggested that the Community should commit itself to a rapid and expanding nuclear commitment. I must qualify that by repeating that if we go ahead with the document, in whatever form, it cannot of itself be held to commit us to specific nuclear decisions which we must take ourselves. I shall say that next week.
  Secondly, there is a note about the amount of oil that the Community should produce by 1985. As most of the oil is United Kingdom oil, if I were to agree to that without qualification it could be argued that the Commission had taken over control of the rate of depletion of our oil. I could not possibly accept that. because had I agreed that it would be a good thing to have EEC oil available in large quantities the Commission could later say to me "By the way, Mr. Benn, that means that your depletion of the North Sea must be sufficient to meet our objectives", because that would involve a takeover of our depletion policy. In the most constructive and helpful way, I shall point that out to my ministerial colleagues.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treaty of Rome explicity excludes any say in the natural resources of a country from consideration by Brussels?
  Mr. Benn: This is the uncertain area in which we operate. I know that and I accept it, but if as a Minister I assent to a level of Community production of oil and in fact it is "our oil"—to adopt a phrase from another debate which has Just concluded—and then they say "Mr. Benn, we have not met the domestic or Community requirement for production. Therefore, you will have to produce more from the North Sea.", the particular provision to which my hon. Friend referred might be eroded. I do not think it would be right for me to say that depletion policy had slipped out of our control by what is called a side wind.
  We do not really agree with what the Commission suggests about the level of coal imports. We believe in moving to coal burning for all sorts of reasons—everyone accepts it worldwide—but the suggestion is that coal imports will play a very large part, and our interest is that, as 33 per cent. of all coal investment in the Community is ours, we really ought to meet demand by indigenous coal. The policy objectives which we have worked on at United Kingdom level ire guidelines. They are non-binding but they are very valuable.
  The next document refers to the energy position in the Community and in the world. It is very helpful and is a survey of great value. I suggested that we should do it. I think that the House will find no difficulty in hoping that the Community will look at this at its Council meetings, and similarly in regard to energy supplies.
  The last of the documents is on hydrocarbon exploration, and this is very important. The Commission is suggesting that the European Economic Community should drill for oil. I do not really have to say more than that to indicate that it is a quite an important issue. It was put up some years ago, before I was the Minister, and I do not think it had a very warm welcome, but at any rate work went on on that subject. What is now proposed—it probably will not be decided next Tuesday—is that in certain circumstances this work should be undertaken.
  The United Kingdom view can be summarised very simply. It is, first, that we do not think it is very sensible to spend money on exploring where the oil is less likely to be. We feel that it is better to use the existing investment to
  1574
  search for oil where it is more likely to be, but that in any case, if this proposal were to be undertaken, it would have to be with the consent of the country whose territorial waters covered where the drilling took place. Put simply, it would not be sensible to wake up one day and find that there was Community drilling going on in the North Sea, as it were, without our understanding. I do not believe that that will be a difficult argument to put across, and I would intend to put it across.
  I have now made a comment on each of the documents before the House, and I shall seek, if there is time, to deal with points that may be raised in the debate. I hope, however, that no Member who is unable to get called, or who wants to go on longer than he is able to do, will fail to put points to me, to which I would hope to give a proper reply. As I said at the beginning, I regard this as a very important debate indeed.
  12.13 a.m.
  Mr. Tom King: I do not know what the House will make of the performance it has just heard, but I think we all enjoyed it, if nothing else. I start in the most conciliatory way by accepting what the Secretary of State said about the totally unsatisfactory nature of the debate. We are dealing now with some eight EEC documents covering three entirely different subjects. We started at 11.42 p.m.—a time which may take on some significance later, as we are limited to two hours.
  Certainly I join the Secretary of State in criticising this method of dealing with the documents. I do not, however, join him in any sympathy, because I should have thought he had a rôle to play in trying to change the method. As a member of the Cabinet, presumably he has some influence on the Leader of the House. But to stand before hon. Members in a white sheet and simply say "Aren't we all in a mess?" is not entirely satisfactory. He is a member of the Government, and I should have thought that he could have made some representation on the question.
  If I may say so, I do not think that this is the best time at which to deal with these matters, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I think it affects us all

  1575
  adversely to be dealing with such matters at this time of night.
  Frankly, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman talked absolute nonsense at one stage in his speech when he said that the real reason why we have not had the sort of demonstration which has taken place at Brockdorf and Creys Malville was that in Britain the decisions were taken by Ministers. With respect, I do not think that was a logical conclusion, because decisions are taken by Ministers in France and Germany. The Secretary of State appeared to indicate that these were somehow Community nuclear decisions, which, of course, they were not.
  Mr. Benn indicated dissent.
  Mr. King: If that was not what the right hon. Gentleman meant, I entirely accept that. It was obviously a slip of the tongue.
  We are not the first department, if I may put it that way, which has been faced with the discussion of documents at this hour. I do not know what will be done to tackle that problem. I do not know whether the reason is traditional inertia on the part of the House for improving its methods of dealing with these arangements or whether it is inertia coupled with antagonism in certain quarters to ensure that arrangements for handling European business are not improved, but it is clear that the present proceeding upon which we are engaged is a farce in terms of these very important documents on energy policy.
  The documents cover three quite unrelated energy issues. That is certainly an unsatisfactory way to proceed. The first document seems to be a complete waste of time. It is an estimate of what energy consumption in the Community will be in the first half of 1976. It is an estimate of what energy consumption in the Community will be in the second half of 1976. It is a forecast of what energy consumption will be in the Community in the first half of 1977. It will not get us very much further by coming forward and discussing the matter now, in December 1977.
  The next two papers are also concerned with energy forecasts. Here I entirely accept what the Secretary of State said about the implications in these documents.
  1576
  It is quite clear that the second document, which deals with oil production by 1985—if we regard ourselves as at present overwhelmingly the most likely producer of that oil—is very much setting a target for British production of North Sea oil.
  I quite understand that that has considerable implications for United Kingdom depletion policy, and I understand why that matter will have to be looked at very carefully indeed. At the same time, it is necessary to recognise that, as in so many European situations, there are possibilities of compromise and agreement.
  There are within these documents some very significant comments about coal. There is the very significant comment about the increasing difficulty of marketing Community production of coal within the Community and the fact that within the period referred to imports increased by about 17 per cent. When one looks at the development of energy supplies in the Community there can be no doubt that the development of the coal market and its implications are of considerable significance to this country.
  Obviously, there will be difficulty for the Secretary of State in the dicussions on these matters. We know about the problem of low-cost COMECON coal, for example, and the difficulties of getting satisfactory markets for United Kingdom production. Some measure of give and take may be necessary in that area. The Secretary of State is constantly reminding us that the United Kingdom is an energy producer within the Community and of the fact that the Community could provide a valuable market for us, particularly with regard to coal, which is, perhaps, our hardest commodity to move in that respect.
  I turn briefly to the two further measures on hydrocarbon support. If one were cynical, one would say that the Government are in favour of the first measure because we get 31 per cent. of the money and they are not in favour of the second because we get nothing out of it. That may be unkind, and I do not want to make that suggestion even at this late hour.
  However, I felt that the Secretary of State was somewhat unduly sinister in his observation that this was the first suggestion that the Community might drill

  1577
  for oil. I do not know whether the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary is to reply to the debate, but whoever replies may like to clarify this point.
  I understand that this is merely assistance similar to the first scheme but in respect of a rather different type of project. It is a similar form of commercial assistance for projects which are considered promising but which are in a high-risk area where it is thought that some financial stimulus from the Community could provide an added incentive to their promotion. I understand that the development or exploration will be done as it is done in the Community by oil companies at the moment, and that the loans received will have to be repaid to the Community. I do not see this as a sinister Community takeover and a sudden new nationalised or communautaire oil development of the kind implied by the Secretary of State.
  There are some interesting aspects about the schemes, and I must confess that I have my doubts about both of them. Looking at the document numbered 1955, which includes this vast range of projects, there are some extremely interesting developments in such matters as seabed completions. Some very interesting development work is being done. It occurs to me to wonder whether these are schemes which need funding in the first place or whether they would not stand on their own feet. They raise the same question that the Government's accelerated project schemes raise in this country. The question is always whether they would go ahead anyway and whether they really need additional funding of this kind. One is bound to ask whether this is funding for the sake of funding or whether it really contributes to Europeon developments of this kind which would not otherwise go ahead.
  Having said that, we draw encouragement from and pay tribute to the number of British developments that there are in this scheme of very high technology. It is most encouraging to see them. The new ideas which are clearly spurred on by developments in the North Sea are creating new techniques in the oil industry which could have application worldwide, we hope, and they are most encouraging.
  1578
  I understand that the principle of this has been approved and that what the House is being asked to do is to enable the Minister to draw on the views of the House about whether each of these projects which have been approved are the detailed list which should go ahead. I am not sure whether I have understood this procedure correctly, but I understand that the principle of the assistance was agreed some months ago by Ministers, that the Commission has now produced its proposals as regards the detailed schemes which should be recommended for assistance, and that the House is being asked to decide which of the schemes should be approved.
  There are also some interesting claims. I was interested to see that the Commission felt that the deep drilling of the Western Mediterranean could be as promising an area as the Arabian plateau. If that is true, it is surprising that the oil companies need any financial inducement to get in there fast and start drilling. But that is one of the claims in the document.
  Mr. Benn: I do not want to be difficult, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a basic question. At home, in relations between the Government and industry, his party is now increasingly taking the view that the Government should absent themselves from industrial interference, investment and funding. I take a different view. When I go to Brussels. however, I find that the interventionism is coming from the Commission.
  I should genuinely like to know whether the same criterion of non-interference with industry, which the hon. Gentleman upholds at home, should also be maintained in Brussels. It is a legitimate question to ask. Does the hon. Gentleman say that I should not do it at home but that if I do not agree to it in Brussels I am being non-European? That is a genuine question, and the hon. Gentleman has never given any clear answer.
  Mr. King: I like the idea that I have never given a clear answer. The Secretary of State has only just asked the question. I shall give him a clear answer. I see no case for wasting money in Brussels any more than in Britain. The Secretary of State has sought to make a neat debating point, but he should think about the logic of the matter.

  1579
  This scheme is very similar to our accelerated investment scheme, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself have asked on each occasion whether the expenditure really meets the criteria. We have accepted that in certain specific cases there may be grounds for intervention. But in some cases the Government give the impression that they are spraying money around like water in the belief that this will solve the problem. We feel—and I am sure that the taxpayers feel—that this is no more justified in Brussels than it is in London.
  There are a number of projects here, and I hope that the Secretary of State will approach Brussels in the manner of a governor of one of the States of the United States of America who was said to remain in office for so long because he spent public money as if it were his own—in other words, he did not spend much at all. We would on occasion welcome that philosophy from this Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will carry that thought to Brussels.
  I turn to the nuclear situation. The proposals here obviously touch on a very important issue of great concern in this country. I comment briefly on the lapse of logic by the Secretary of State. We have a precious position at present which, for various reasons that none of us can understand perfectly, means that we are blissfully free of the sort of public demonstrations and riots that were seen in Brockdorf and Creys Malville. Even the normally temperate Swiss have suffered.
  I think that the papers divide themselves on the reprocessing side, where BNFL is already involved and has a joint European company. It is vital that we should stay involved and closely in touch. This is an acceptable situation.
  Mr. Abse: Is the hon. Member really suggesting that we should go into a committee which has the terms of reference within that document relating to reprocessing? Does he accept that a committee with these terms of reference is the sort of committee that should be set up? This sounds remarkably like giving a blank cheque.
  Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Member and I are talking about the same document. I think that his concern lies mainly with the third document. I share
  1580
  the Government's view, expressed by the Secretary of State, that it would be sensible for the committee to be set up. I do not see the terms of reference as being as sinister as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) sees them. However, I shall look at them again, and if I have missed something perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) will cover my position before the end of the debate.
  On radioactive waste, I think that the idea of identification of sites when we have not yet agreed on the method of disposal, or even if there is a satisfactory method of on-land disposal, is premature. One of the prime recommendations of the Flowers Report is the need for getting on with further research into the question of long-term waste disposal. What are the Government doing about this matter? It is the essential prerequisite of any further development in this field. Furthermore, it is inevitable that countries will have to be responsible for their own wastes, and this will mean some limitation on the Community in this respect.
  I wish to deal with the third aspect of the papers that are before us on the subject of the fast breeder. I accept that there is a difficulty in proposing Community views on the fast breeder. It is tragic that in the past we have failed to achieve a greater measure of co-operation in fast breeder development. We now face a "Yes or No" situation in an extremely expensive development. On Friday, the Secretary of State for Energy floated a figure of £2,000 million. I do not accept that figure, but if we finally decide to embark on the procedure discussed on Friday it will make a good deal more sense if it can be funded jointly.
  I feel that the fast breeder falls into the same category as JET. The right hon. Gentleman said he accepted that the high technology projects and the related costs were a matter for Community co-operation. From that point of view, the fast breeder must fit into that category. Unfortunately, we seem to have missed out so far in this respect. On Friday we discussed the situation that would occur following Mr. Justice Parker's decision and the eventual governmental decision following a public inquiry. It was made clear that there is a case for a fast breeder demonstration

  1581
  to maintain the option, and it was felt that this should be recognised as an insurance premium against the chance that certain other options let one down, and did not carry with it any commitment to an ongoing programme. That is very much in line with the Flowers recommendations.
  Against that fairly tightly considered position, one must consider the difficulty in imposing a Community view at this stage. Although I hope that the Secretary of State will co-operate with the Community and discuss these problems—and all Community countries face the same problems—we must recognise the personal and national problems that flow from fast breeder development.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has argued the points about the fast breeder with great lucidity and reasonableness, but does he believe that if we were to spend £2,000 million on developing one demonstration of the fast breeder reactor it would not generate intolerable pressures for the nuclear industry to go ahead with a further programme to justify the investment in the single demonstration plant?
  Mr. King: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman left the debate on Friday and was unable to hear my comments. I know all the arguments made on that point, but I do not accept the figure of £2,000 million which has been bandied around. I do not think that the Secretary of State would stake his life on that figure. For this reason among others, I believe that we need a public inquiry to clarify some of the issues.
  The cost to be considered is not total cost. It involves the cost as against that of a conventional station producing that amount of electricity. I would not regard that part as development cost. It is possible that the eventual figure could amount to one-quarter of the figure quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. I accept the existence of a commercial and political lobby, in the Eisenhower phrase, but I believe that to abandon that option on the grounds that one could not resist the pressure thereafter, would be a policy of despair. I do not accept it.
  1582
  I have tried to review the documents and I apologise for the bitty nature of my speech, but this inevitably flowed from the bitty nature of the documents. I do not know how the Secretary of State will succeed in the campaign, to which he has publicly committed himself, to improve the method of scrutinising EEC documents and ensuring that they can be considered by the House at a better time.
  I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) about the document which was not published, because it is quoted on virtually every one of the explanatory memoranda and immediately beneath in each case is the signature "Tony Benn". It is surprising that with the right hon. Friend's interest in open government he has not questioned why the document referred to above his signature has never been published for the House to read. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify this.
  Mr. Benn: It is not my document.
  Mr. King: But it is the right hon. Gentleman's signature that is appended on every document, while the preceding paragraphs refer to the document which has not been laid. Since this was not a matter for the Secretary of State's Department, it would have been better if, before signing, the right hon. Gentleman had asked why the document had not been laid before the House.
  Mr. Abse: Would it not be fair to point out that it was precisely because the Secretary of State drew our attention to the document and the fact that it was unpublished that we became aware of the difficulties? I do not know why the Opposition are making such a silly point in a serious debate.
  Mr. King: I just felt that I should mention it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to support the Secretary of State, but I have here the documents that we have with the right hon. Gentleman's signature, referring to the unpublished document. My right hon. and hon. Friends were surprised at that and also that when questions were asked the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no idea why the document had not been published. Of course, it is only a small

  1583
  point. Why does not the Secretary of State suggest to the Under-Secretary some splendidly withering repartee for his reply?
  Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that we are allowed two hours for this debate and that the two Front Bench speakers have occupied half of the time available. I do not complain at that, because the issues before the House are extremely complex, but the fact that half the time has already gone illustrates the ridiculous situation in which the House is now placed.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions for the Chair on how we can help to reduce the length of speeches, I shall be greatly obliged.
  12.39 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: In view of what has been said, I shall try to be mercifully short. I spoke at reasonable length on Friday when my hon. Friend introduced this subject in his motion with such dramatic effect, if not always with complete accuracy on other points. In a sense, tonight's discussion is the second act of Friday's debate. I am sorry and glad that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was not called. I am glad because it was underlining the obvious. As I remember it, it called for an inquiry into the commercial fast breeder reactor, but we are going to have that. The inquiry has been promised, and it does not seem necessary to underline the point.
  I hope that we can find a method of dealing with these documents before long. I do not know what the Secretary of State will achieve at the meeting on Tuesday, but I hope that there will be some guidance for him in these important matters.
  I accept the need for a defined inquiry into the commercial fast breeder reactor, but I do not believe that it will be at all the same thing as the Windscale inquiry. It should not be forgotten that the extra reprocessing at Windscale was agreed in the first place by the Secretary of State for Energy. The inquiry was later set up as a result of the intervention of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Windscale inquiry decision
  1584
  proceeded, if not by leaps and bounds, at least in a very uneven way.
  The inquiry into the fast breeder reactor is a horse—perhaps I should say reactor—of a different colour altogether. Rightly or wrongly, it has been the cornerstone of British nuclear development from the start. It seems to me that the Government are taking a risk in apparently putting the whole ultimate future of the British nuclear programme on the chance of one inquiry without clarified terms of reference. That is why I emphasise again the need for the terms of reference to be carefully thought out in advance. A great deal of thought is needed on this point in fairness to our reactor industry.
  I am sorry that the amendment was not called because it would have enabled us to probe a little more the apprehension that still seems to exist over nuclear energy and the advanced technology that goes with it. There is a fear—which has been referred to again in this debate—that there is some sort of nuclear Establishment which is determined to have its own way in spite of ministerial checks and the alleged consequential risks to our people. From my experience of the industry and my knowledge of its leaders, I regard this as an extremely irrational view.
  Since the early days of nuclear energy, those closely associated with it have been aware of its special nature and hazards and have developed means of controlling them to a degree that is unprecedented in any other industrial process. To my knowledge, those in the so-called nuclear Establishment, whether in the Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. or the Central Electricity Generating Board, are men of great public responsibility who have devoted their lives to the task of using the power of the atom for good and beneficial purposes.
  As I said on Friday, most of those people would share my view of the energy future of this country and Western Europe. In the end, we shall need energy from every available source. We should certainly conserve what we have and develop all alternative energy sources, but in the end, when the fossil fuels run out, nuclear power is the only source that can give us the energy on the scale that we need to enable us to maintain a reasonable standard of life. This is a factor

  1585
  of very great importance to Western Europe, where the dangers of an ultimate shortage of cheap energy are greater than any possible risk from the fast breeder reactor.
  The proposals regarding disposal of radioactive waste and the suggestion in tonight's Community papers that we should look around—on a limited Community basis—for a network of sites are impractical. They would arouse enormous opposition in this country.
  Mr. Hooley: And elsewhere.
  Mr. Palmer: And elsewhere, as my hon. Friend says. From what my right hon. Friend said I take it that we need no assurance that proposals of this kind will be open to discussion and attempted modification by British Ministers.
  One gathers from one of the other documents that the fast breeder reactor is visualised by the EEC as giving some kind of fall-back, reserve position. If advanced through the prototype commercial fast breeder reactor stage, the only justification for so doing would be that the commercial fast breeder reactor stations were the new standard nuclear stations because of the way in which they economise so greatly in the use of uranium. Unless one is prepared to accept that, it does not seem to me that one takes a single genuine step further. I therefore consider that the Community's reservations, seeing the fast breeder reactor as a kind of fall-back possibility, are ill founded and erroneous and should be opposed.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, and I shall not attempt to take up the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), although I am a member of his excellent Select Committee, on which I have enjoyed serving. Nor shall I spend time discussing the two documents on hydrocarbons, since everything that I should wish to say has already been said. I shall focus my attention on the two documents dealing with nuclear power.
  I take first Document No. R/1901 dealing with reprocessing. In my view,
  1586
  the Government are right to stress that decisions in this field are for them and them alone to take in the light of the advice which they will receive from Mr. Justice Parker following the Windscale inquiry. It would be a mistake for us in Britain to think that, because the other member States of the Community will have a tighter energy situation—there is no doubt about that—over the next five or 10 years, we should in some way be stampeded by their requirements into taking decisions which it would not be wise for us in this country to take.
  I draw attention, for example, to what is said at the top of page 4 of the document on reprocessing. I am worried at the idea of nuclear fuel cycle services being used as sweeteners—that is the way I should describe it—for the export of nuclear power stations. We have seen this already in the Brazilian contracts with the West Germans. We have seen the danger of it in the French contracts with the Pakistanis. We know that there are serious dangers of proliferation even if it be a matter of providing services within the European Community for irradiated fuel sent back to us to be dealt with. I am not, therefore, happy about that.
  I am concerned also about the excessively sanguine attitude taken in the document towards the technology for dealing with the problem of long-lived radioactive waste. I remind the House that no proven system for dealing with this problem has yet been demonstrated. It is not good enough for the Commission to talk blithely about
  "permanent storage in geological formations."
  That is only one of the options which the experts will have to consider.
  Furthermore, there is evidence, as the Windscale inquiry revealed, that the commercial viability of the reprocessing remains to be established. That point is made in the document before us. This commercial viability will be very dependent on the scale of throughput, which may or may not be available to the operations concerned because of a reduced nuclear electricity programme in all the countries involved.
  I remind the House of the danger and folly of trying to justify a large nuclear programme on the ground that we shall have a reprocessing capacity of such a scale that we must have the programme

  1587
  in order to justify our original expenditure. That really would be putting the cart before the horse, and it would be an expensive mistake.
  It is not as if there are no alternatives to reprocessing. As the document points out in page 9, the storage requirements for the period up to 1990 could be met by a doubling of the storage capacity currently allotted to each nuclear power station. That would not be the adoption of what is sometimes disparagingly called the throw-away nuclear fuel cycle. It would be a viable alternative that would preserve the option of reprocessing if we decided that we had no alternative to an FBR programme.
  That brings me directly to the fast breeder issue, which is covered in Document No. R/1958/77. The Commission has revealed much of what I regard as muddled thinking. First, it argues that the Community must preserve the option of making the FBR commercially available in the early 1990s, when it expects that the Nine will be confronted with the notorious energy gap. However, the likelihood is that there will be no gap in the sense of an absolute shortage then or at any other time in the foreseeable future but rather that there may turn out to be a shortage of cheap liquid hydrocarbons, which is something quite different, by the turn of the century. If that materialises, it should not be filled by expensive nuclear electricity at some 30 per cent. thermal efficiency.
  The document goes on to postulate a wholly unrealistic degree of dependence upon nuclear electricity within the total energy market from some 2 per cent. of total primary energy consumption in 1976 to about 10 per cent. in 1985, and perhaps 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the year 2000. Can anyone seriously imagine that the nuclear construction industry, to consider only that aspect, will be able to quintuple its contribution to energy supplies in seven short years and increase it by a factor of 10 in little more than 20 years? That has only to be suggested to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the position.
  If the Community wants to preserve a balanced pattern of energy supply, it would be madness to go ahead with such a heavy reliance upon nuclear energy, which would preclude a significant com
  1588
  mitment to alternative sources over the same period and even some valuable investment in coal. It would be an Alice-in-Wonderland way of going about things.
  Even if an approximation of such a policy were to be implemented, it would guarantee the self-fulfilling prophecy that is constantly reiterated by the experts that all other new energy sources will contribute only about 5 per cent. of the total by the year 2000. The argument that will be used is that the constraints on the uranium supply—those who put this case must be scrupulous about stating their assumptions—will be based on uranium being about $30 a pound when the normal workings of the price mechanism would serve to bring on stream many more economic deposits of uranium at a higher price.
  In any case, there is a gap in the Commission's own argument when it postulates at one stage the need to rush ahead with the commercial availability of the FBR in the early 1990s but admits in page 6 that at least 20 years will be needed from then to install fast reactors in sufficient numbers to improve the overall uranium utilisation.
  It is not as if the liquid metal FBR is the only route forward down the nuclear path towards more efficient uranium utilisation. Here and elsewhere, the nuclear Establishment is almost obsessively committed to one form of high technology which alone is gobbling up 30 per cent. of the total research and development expenditure in the energy sector when there are alternative possibilities such as the thorium-uranium cycle, which accelerator physicists say could breed 92 per cent. of the fuel it uses and derive the 8 per cent. from the neutrons produced by high energy particle accelerators.
  That is not merely my say-so but is based on a quite learned article which appeared in Nature of 1st December 1977. The article states:
  "the thorium-uranium cycle … which, at least according to its growing band of advocates, avoids the tremendous power density of the fast breeder core … which reduces the problem of the long-lived wastes like americum and curium, which protects against illegal diversion of fuel … and which with proton accelerators to 'top-up' the fissile content of the fuel rods might even avoid reprocessing altogether, has been looked at hardly at all outside some work in Canada and the U.S."

  1589
  In short, there are many roads that lead to Rome in energy as in other matters. It would be a foolish group of Community Governments who committed themselves massively and irrevocably to a system fraught with dangers, as would be a massive reliance on the LMFBR with its attendant fuel cycle.
  I hope that the Government will pause to encourage their Community partners to look at all the alternatives, including some of the other nuclear alternatives, and not allow the Community to frame an energy policy which will be little more than unrealistic extrapolations of energy and electricity demand over an atypical period in the recent past combined with a panic reaction on the part of EEC Governments to the Arab oil embargo of 1973–74. Even the most intelligent people, it seems, are in danger of joining a Gadarene rush into unthinking decisions which, if they are not right, we could live to regret.
  12.56 a.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: I am sure that we are all encouraged by the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He and I took different views on the question of entry into the EEC. I wanted to enter Europe in order to achieve collaboration and certainly not so that we should be dragged down the road to Armageddon.
  From studying two of the documents that we have in front of us tonight, we are bound to have the gravest reservations. The two documents relating to the reprocessing of irradiated fuel and to the fast breeder reactor reveal that Britain is in danger of being drawn into nuclear commitments and goals that, above everything else, would spurn the efforts of President Carter to arrest nuclear proliferation which could threaten the future of mankind.
  It should surely be no part of British policy to treat with cynicism the actions of President Carter in halting the American commercial fast breeder programme and deferring indefinitely the commercial reprocessing of plutonium produced in the United States. Both documents before us implicitly scoff at the unilateral and approved action taken by President Carter. The document on reprocessing has the specific aim of bringing about a
  1590
  "convergence of the interests of promoters and users"
  but of
  "linking their action with that of the Community itself."
  I regard that as a complete affront to American policy.
  The fact is that the document is asking us first to participate in setting up a European committee which will have a strategy on reprocessing achieved by procuring a revolting miscegenation of the nuclear and electricity industries. This is just the sort of marriage which at all costs should be avoided. We do not want to have the nuclear and electricity industries as bedfellows. Given the dangers, the hazards and the alternatives, it should be seen that it is no part of Britain's duty to encourage the European nuclear industry to seduce and subjugate the electrical industry and to allow the Community strategy to be determined by the misshapen partnership so produced.
  The only explanation as to why these documents so brutally ignore President Carter's plea is that there appears to be a belief that America, with its fuel resources and uranium supplies, is proffering a policy which is not noble but selfish, one which poses not the selfless view but a view that is inappropriate to the European situation, with Europe being faced with the possibility of an energy gap and an uncertain uranium supply.
  Therefore, why, before running helter-skelter down this road to reprocessing, does not the Community test and explore the clear offer by President Carter that the United States is ready to increase its production capacity for enriched uranium to provide an adequate and timely supply of nuclear fuel for foreign needs?
  The appointment of the proposed committee, with its suggested terms of reference, would mean that if Britain participated it would be turning its back upon the United States offer. If the committee's terms of reference showed any awareness of the Carter alternative, one would be ready to take a different attitude to our involvement in such a committee. Certainly, nothing in the document persuades me that in this or in any other respect the terms of reference have been thought through.

  1591
  It is difficult not to believe that the reason for the refusal by the Commission to face up to the real hazards of proliferation, which President Carter has pinpointed and which are linked with reprocessing, can be found in the Secretary's of State's explanatory memorandum, which states:
  "The communication also refers to nonproliferation, which is a subject a number of member States believe to be outside the Commission's competence."
  That is a cryptic sentence. Does the Secretary of State mean that France, which is going ahead to sell a reprocessing plant to Pakistan, is determined to allow no intervention or inquiry, even elliptically, into its military nuclear programme and that it prefers to insist that nonproliferation is outside the Commission's competence and cannot, therefore, be raised? This country should not be subservient to such French Government arrogance.
  It is nonsense to enter a committee which will deal with reprocessing but ignore proliferation and the American efforts to arrest it. It would be wiser to take action that would respond to the action of the French workers and their unions at Cap La Hague who, being aware of the dangers, are protesting that they do not wish to be involved in the reprocessing of overseas fuel.
  I turn to the second document on fast breeders. How can we subscribe to an invitation to endorse the proposal that the Commision should ask the Council to agree that the demonstration of fast breeder technology by industry should continue without interruption? Such a suggestion flies in the face of the opinion which was expressed by both sides of the House on Friday. From what the Secretary of State has said, I am sure that it is a view with which he cannot agree. I am sure that he will stress the need for our own preliminary inquiries.
  The House is indebted to the Secretary of State for having made it unequivocally clear that there can be no question of allowing our fate to be determined by what appears to be an attempt to preempt the delicate and dangerous decisions which we shall have to make. The manner in which the Secretary of State expressed his view and reservations means that when he goes to the meeting next week the House will expect him to resist
  1592
  any attempt to hustle this country into a plutonium economy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I should like to call four other hon. Members to take part in the debate. If they take five minutes each, I shall be able to accommodate them.
  1.4 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomson: I spoke during the debate on Friday, but a study of the document on the Community plan of action for dealing with radio active wastes has made me even more concerned than I was then. I wonder whether the ordinary people of the United Kingdom will ever hear of this debate. It is late at night and I doubt whether the subject will be properly reported in the daily newspapers, either tomorrow or on Friday. The debate should be reported, because this is a vital matter.
  The explanatory memorandum states:
  "managing and storing radioactive waste to ensure the safety of the public and protection of the environment is one of the major problems in developing nuclear energy."
  I agree with that. We would all agree with it. On the same page, it is stated:
  "Legislation might be required to set up disposal sites."
  I hope that it will be required so that this House will be able to debate the matter.
  I agree with the explanatory memorandum's statement on page 2 that
  "the political, social and environmental implications of the Commission's proposal that one country should be the repository for another Member State's radioactive waste are of such importance that the most careful studies are required before this proposal can be given further consideration."
  As hon. Members who were here will recall, on Friday I was particularly concerned about test borings in South-West Scotland. I was afraid, and remain afraid, that those borings, if they prove satisfactory, will eventually be used as an excuse for setting up a nuclear waste repository in our country. I put the point again that the Scottish people do not control their own land. It is this House and the Government in Whitehall who do so at the moment.
  I do not want to see the periphery of Europe used for the network of storage sites that is spoken of in the document. If we have no control in face of the

  1593
  United Kingdom Government, what control can we hope to have in face of the faceless bureaucrats of the EEC? Only Scottish independence can save us from this fate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members may shout "Rubbish" and screw up their faces as much as they like, but this is the truth of the matter and it is a truth that will come home to the people of Scotland.
  We are told on page 13 of the document that efficacious information is essential. Who is to provide the information and who is to guarantee its truth? We have already seen the smooth men who come down with their smooth faces to tell us in South-West Scotland what we are to think on this matter, and we have judged on them.
  I agree that the work in South-West Scotland is at the moment research and that would be acceptable if we could be sure that it would stop at that. But how can we be sure that that is the case? Assurances even from the right hon. Gentleman now cannot guarantee us in the future, because Governments change and we might have an iron Government coming in. I therefore say to the House and the Community that we in the south-west of Scotland will simply not have it, now or ever.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) intends, I am sure, to give a practical demonstration of what he considers to be a reasonable length of speech.
  1.8 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: We heard with interest what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) said about South-West Scotland. What worries me is that if members of the Scottish National Party make speeches in Caithness they are likely to take an entirely different view of the whole nuclear debate. I am aware of the debate in that part of Scotland. It is time that the SNP began to speak with one voice on this very important issue.
  Mr. Thompson: I speak with one voice.
  Mr. Hardy: I shall not indulge in an argument with the hon. Gentleman.
  1594
  So far, the debate has concentrated, seriously and properly, on the nuclear aspects. There are many documents before us, but I want specifically to refer to Document No. 2348/77 dealing with consumption levels. According to the document, the Western European countries consumed more energy in 1976 than they did in 1975—and that despite the throes of the recession by which OECD countries were affected. This suggests to me that, if the efforts of all parties in Western Europe are successful in taking us out of the recession, we shall find the Western world requiring more energy in a few years' time than it does today.
  My right hon. Friend is right to exercise caution and ensure that there is a public debate on nuclear policy. That is essential. Debate is better than uproar. But the fact remains that the ordinary people of the Western world and this country in particular want to enjoy a higher standard of life and expect their elected politicians to provide them with it. The people in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) want to enjoy tomorrow the same sort of improved standard of living that he enjoys today. Therefore, it behoves politicians today to ensure that the nuclear option remains open.
  Caution—yes; but certainty of improved living standards is essential. That is why I believe that Document No. R/2348/77 needs to be considered along with the information provided in the other documents.
  This is an excessively short debate. That ought to be the subject of consideration among those responsible for organising the business of the House. They might like to try to provide information about one or two other items in the documents. For example, in Document No. R/1955/77 I see three particular projects listed for support. Application 49/77 is a proposal from David Brown Vosper (Offshore) Limited to save gas. Application 06/77 is an application from British Petroleum on secondary recovery—a very important matter which is recommended for support. Application 39/77, again from BP, which I think can be included in the public sector, deals with through-flow-line technology to ensure at least environmental protection in offshore activity. They deserve the consideration of the House.

  1595
  I regret that we do not have time to consider these important matters.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) certainly teaches precept by example. He has taken exactly three minutes.
  1.11 a.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: The Secretary of State, in a rather disarming and felicitous fashion, said that he was going to Brussels next week and that he would like to be reinforced by the opinions which would be expressed in the House. I gladly take part in that teach-in.
  There are three points that I should like the Secretary of State to convey to his colleagues in the Council of Ministers. The first is that in the decision-taking processes concerning energy, which is now so fundamental to the development of society and of increasing public concern, authority must be seen to be retained and ultimately to reside in this House. The right hon. Gentleman will be in Brussels as a representative of this House in the Council of Ministers and will be anxious, I hope, to use the mechanisms of this House as the democratic and legislative basis in the Community decision-taking process. I think that that is a view that he can offer courteously and, I hope, persuasively to his colleagues.
  Secondly—this point arises from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman)—the energy situation in the United Kingdom is substantially different from that in other Community countries. It may be a matter of some irritation. The same seems to be true of fisheries and of other areas of public debate within the Community. We delude ourselves, however, if we deny that there are sharply differing characteristics about our foreseeable energy resources and the demands that are likely to be made upon them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton said, it means that we are not in the same tight energy situation as a number of Continental European countries. As a consequence, even where there are collaborative projects, including the nuclear field, the time scales on which we shall be thinking are quite likely to be somewhat different from the time scales on which our prospective partners are thinking.
  1596
  The conclusion that I draw from this is that the most likely productive development of policy in respect of energy within the Community is the clear establishment of what are the characteristics of the policies of national Governments, and then to see what extent those can fit within the complementary framework of the alliance that is constituted within the European Community.
  The third point that I hope the Secretary of State will convey—I say that because I think there is an element of bipartisanship in this debate—is that the Commission documents are redolent with emphasis upon a nuclear option which is profoundly repugnant to Members of this House. None of us denies that nuclear energy is already making, and certainly will continue to have to make, a very major contribution to our total energy supplies. But there is a startling imperative which runs through the Commission documents. I prefer the words
  "But at my back I always hear
  Times winged chariot hurrying near."
  in the charming context of Herrick addressing his mistress rather than the Commission addressing the Council of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman might like to draw their attention to that analogy if the evening gets rather long and tedious.
  The desire for public debate, participation and persuasion, which lies at the heart of the democratic process, is challenged by the insistence on speed, which will ensure that decisions are taken of such a magnitude that they cannot then be aborted in the light of subsequent evidence and revised judgment. Those making the decisions are those who today exercise power, and they are unwilling to share that power more widely. Therefore, I hope that when he goes to Brussels the Secretary of State will be able to persuade his ministerial colleagues in the Council that there is genuine apprehension in this country along the lines I have just indicated but that we do not believe that such apprehension is in any way inconsistent with the fraternal working of the Community.
  1.16 a.m.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: Because of the time, I shall concentrate on one particular subject, which follows on very well from what the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said. The real

  1597
  reason why Europe has such a protest movement about nuclear power, and Britain has the nucleus of one, is that Europe has already committed itself totally to the nuclear option. All the documents that I read—and the documents before us are not that much different from others we have read before—lead one to that view.
  I should like to show how difficult is the closing of the circle on the nuclear option and how far Europe, despite concentrating on the matter for a long time, is from closing that circle. The articles that I read in various newspapers show that the waste disposal scenario is no nearer completion than it was many years ago. It was said 15 years or so ago that the answer was to glassify the waste, to drill great holes in South-West Scotland or some other granite outcrop, such as Cornwall, put the waste in a steel container, place the container 400ft. or 500ft. below the surface and then pour cement on top. The industry told us at the time that it was possible to glassify the waste in large lumps, and it went as far as doing it with pellets.
  I understand that no real progress has been made since. In my county, tests are being carried out to discover the heat dissipation characteristics of granite. Such fundamental research has not been done, though we are entering the third decade of nuclear technology.
  Unless the circle is closed, there will be a continuing build-up of opposition in this country. There is no doubt that Europe is on the verge of opposition building up to the extent that the nuclear option, stated in its papers to be the clear and only solution to all its problems, will be overrun by public opinion. This country has not taken that risk so far. We have controlled the whole matter much better. We have been much slower in going into it and there have been more public inquiries and consultation.
  I ask the Minister to ask the people who have control of the research budgets in Europe and this country greatly to increase the percentage spent on closing the waste disposal circle. If that problem cannot be solved, public opposition will continue to grow and the whole industry will one day be flattened by a steamroller.
  1.20 a.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: The logic of these documents is quite shattering in its naivety and simplicity. It is that oil is finite, outside our control, highly expensive and may become more expensive. The salvation, therefore, is in nuclear power. Uranium is also outside our control and may become scarce. The fast breeder reactor is therefore the answer. That is the logic of these energy documents.
  The way in which some of the difficulties of nuclear power and the fast breeder reactor are treated is quite staggering. I refer to Document No. A/1907/77, page 4, where, in speaking about the problems of radioactive waste, it says that
  "the very long-term radiological risks (future generations) will arise mainly from certain long-lived radioactive wastes. Programmes in progress point to the existence of promising solutions for the isolation of these wastes from the biosphere"—
  ignoring completely that there is absolutely no concensus among experts as to exactly how these wastes shall be dealt with, where they shall be put and what shall be done with them.
  A similar point arises in regard to the dangers of terrorism. On page 5 of the same document, it is stated that
  "The risk of plutonium being used for purposes other than that of a reactor fuel can be overcome by adequate and effective measures relating to the supervision of end-use and physical protection"—
  just like that; no difficulty whatsoever.
  My main point, however, relates to the very casual and contemptuous rejection of alternative renewable sources of energy. I refer specifically to Document No. R /1958/77, page 2, where it says that
  "As far as other new energy sources are concerned (solar, geothermal, etc.), their contribution up to the end of the century, though useful, cannot be considered very significant (about 5 per cent.)."
  That is it in regard to the alternative sources. It seems to ignore the fact that, after 30 years and billions of pounds of expenditure on scientific and engineering research into nuclear power, that source of energy is giving us only 2·1 per cent. now. The alternative renewable sources have a better track record than nuclear power by any reckoning.
  What is extraordinary about this dismissal of alternative renewable sources is

  1599
  that in France, for example, some very advanced studies are being made of solar power. In Italy there are quite important sources of geothermal power. Denmark is extremely interested in wind power. In the United Kingdom we are investing money in wave and tidal power. In certain countries of the EEC there are very considerable potentialities for hydroelectric power. These sources are there and are being explored. People are taking more and more interest in them.
  Despite this, these documents go blithely ahead and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, their simple and naive logic is that, as oil is finite and there is not enough uranium, the answer must be the fast breeder reactor.
  I ask my right hon. Friend, when he goes to Brussels next Tuesday, to point out to the Commission that these alternative sources have enormous potential. If one-tenth of the effort in money, time and scientific and engineering manpower were to be devoted to them in the next 20 years, they would show a far better and far safer return to mankind than anything we have had yet from nuclear power.
  1.24 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: In the few minutes left before we have to conclude the debate, I shall refer to only two points. I was rather disappointed that the Secretary of State appeared to take a rather too negative line on the proposals in the documents. We should try to get together a little more on collaborative research and development. That is very much the fundamental issue in these documents.
  If the Secretary of State is genuine in his wish to find long-term solutions for the energy problems, including the nuclear and the fast breeder option, surely he should not be saying that, because we have not made up our minds in this country whether to do it, we really cannot get involved with collaborative research and development in Europe. It should be the other way round. We should welcome that there are opportunities to do it perhaps more quickly, more safely and at less cost if we get together on it. After all, we are spending £60 million a year now on fast breeder research and development. Why should we not be getting together on it and trying to do it in a more sensible way?
  1600
  The same applies to the research and development of waste disposal and to reprocessing. We should be getting together to try to solve these problems. A more constructive approach from the Secretary of State in Europe might be more helpful than the impression that we have had tonight.
  My second point relates to the document on the energy mix for 1985. The EEC says quite clearly that although it is three years since the first recommendations, and four years since the energy crisis, not enough has been done to get energy conservation moving. That criticism is clearly made.
  I therefore ask the Secretary of State what we have done to pull our weight and to play our part in the genuine consensus in Europe that we should be doing more in this direction.
  1.26 a.m.
  Mr. Neil Macfarlane: This time of night is all too familiar for those of us who take an interest in energy matters. It is a tragedy and nothing short of a travesty, that one cannot do other than make speeches at breakneck speed in order to try to impart briefly our expertise towards the Secretary of State as he tries to ensure that EEC energy policy develops.
  The documents have revealed a widely varying series of important issues. It is a very great tragedy that we have to debate all these energy subjects which are embraced under one heading and at such a late hour. These subjects are of vital importance, and I hope that the Secretary of State will let it be known to his colleagues in the Cabinet—we shall do so—that we want more time to discuss these matters, because they are of critical importance.
  The particular subject that we are debating tonight plays a central part in the national economy and in national planning, not only in our own country but in the EEC. I want to address my brief remarks to the consultative document No. R/2347/77, but that does not mean that I am ignoring the importance of the nuclear argument which has been made tonight. However, that argument, has occupied most of the comments made during the debate and we widely debated that subject last Friday at some length.

  1601
  It was a great pity that Document No. R/2347 was not discussed at the Council of Energy Ministers on 25th October, because the Secretary of State indicated in his memorandum to the House that it would be discussed. This discussion paper underlines an aspect that gives real cause for disquiet and confirms that the Government—perhaps not alone of Governments—are complacent on certain energy matters in Europe.
  The document states that the present picture is one of a "fairly calm energy market" in the Community. That may be true at the moment, but when that kind of picture is presented I have the fear that we may well find that many Ministers in the EEC have decided they do not want to rock the boat by trying to shape public opinion to accept some of the harsher measures if we are to avoid the energy gap which is prophesied in some energy quarters in the next 25 or 30 years.
  It may be that Ministers are members either of minority Governments or of coalition Administrations and are conscientiously and anxiously looking over their shoulders at domestic public opinion and impending elections. Fortunately, however, the paper goes on to point out that this "calm" picture should not cause the basic medium and long-term problems to be overlooked. They may well be being overlooked because the document was not discussed at the Council. I should like to know why it was not discussed at the meeting on 25th October when the Secretary of State had indicated in his memorandum that it would be discussed.
  I draw the attention of the House to two aspects. First, the first half of 1977 shows increased consumption of 2·5 per cent. compared with the same period in 1976 and draws into question the effectiveness of the EEC energy savings policy. Second, I turn to the potential problems with Community nuclear programmes. During the first six months of 1977 there was a marked increase in the production of nuclear energy to the tune of 26 per cent. That is a very significant figure. The trend is there both in the Community and in our own national requirements for nuclear power.
  1602
  In the United Kingdom, nuclear demand, given the continuity of a 3 per cent. annual growth rate, must grow very swiftly during the years leading to the end of this century and certainly beyond. If the EEC and our Government fail to recognise the importance of nuclear power, they must, in effect, be saying that they accept either a lower annual growth rate of economic development or a return to large-scale imports of fossil fuels. Perhaps the Secretary of State will let us know his views on this matter.
  I only hope that the nuclear hearings which began last week in Brussels will make an important contribution to diminishing some of the fears that many hon. Members have justifiably mentioned, both on Friday and again today. They are important hearings, and I hope that they will make a genuine contribution to allay some of our fears.
  The second aspect of Document No. R/2347, which the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) highlighted and which I find of enormous significance, is the seventh paragraph, where President Carter's energy policy guidelines are discussed. The success or failure of the United States to reduce its dependence on oil imports is critical, and one can only applaud President Carter for the way he has sought to shape American public opinion—never an enviable undertaking—to an understanding of the principal problem. But the very high import figure—some 9 million barrels of oil per day—is very disturbing, and almost everything in this sector hangs on the United States cutting its oil imports. If it cannot do it, we are all done for in Western industrialised societies.
  I turn to Document No. R/1959, which, amongst other aspects, touches on the Commission's desire to remove 140 million tons from refining capacity. Although the whole question of refining and distillation surplus in Europe is an important subject as we approach the 1980s, I think it very doubtful that we shall hear much more about it for some time. Perhaps the Secretary of State will refer to this. The figures are questionable. Voluntary action by oil companies brings into account anti-trust and competition law reasons, and I cannot see the oil industry agreeing to take this action in the near future. The problems in the Continental countries are different from our

  1603
  own. Whereas we have a refining surplus, we do not have a cat-cracking surplus, because of the different nature of the oil in the North Sea and the problems facing imports from OPEC countries.
  The document also includes member States' forecasting of future energy production and consumption up to 1985. It is this aspect to which I want to turn for a few concluding minutes. The purpose of the document is to highlight some shortcomings in national programmes. Our own energy programme has considerable shortcomings which are fast emerging.
  The argument that nuclear power can be replaced by benign sources before the year 2000 is an argument which, alas, the realist has to ignore. In an ideal world it might be possible, but the slowness of research and development programmes, both here and in the rest of the Community, shows that to expect conventional power stations to be generating electricity by non-conventional sources is stretching the imagination. I, who am a devotee of the Severn Barrage principle, realise that the feasibility project could take years before the Government were in a position to make a proper decision.
  The danger signs are there for the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State must make some all-important decisions. He has spent far too long in avoiding many of them. He knows that coal production is declining annually. He knows that North Sea oil production has a limit. He knows that the demand for gas will not diminish. He knows that Britain's nuclear capacity must expand. Yet all that seems to happen is that we get more committees and working parties.
  The principle of working parties and committees may be of benefit. but it is clear for all to see that while most of the committees or working parties may have the best brains summoned and could well be a modest contribution to open government, they do not seem to meet too often once they have been created.
  We have the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation in Industry and Commerce, which has met only four times. We have the Chief Scientist's Requirements Board, which has met only three times in 1977. We have the Combined Heat and Power Group, which has met only three times. The Energy Thrift Committee has not met at all. MISER,
  1604
  which is the Methodology of Industrial Sector Energy Requirements, met in October.
  I am sorry that Government Ministers are over-anxious about the statistics, but they must face up to the fact that they are there. This seems to me to be one gigantic public relations hoax.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that he recognises the importance of energy conservation, and I hope that sometime in the future he will speak at length on the importance of the EEC combining on energy policy and on the importance of restoring Britain's reputation in Europe.
  1.37 a.m.
  Mr. Benn: I sympathise with the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), who obviously wanted to make political points. He had to shorten them so that they appeared less credible than perhaps they would have done had he made them at length.
  I was asked why the papers that we thought would be discussed at the last meeting were not dealt with. They were not reached because of other business which lasted so long. I was also asked about the famous unpublished document, and one hon. Member referred to it as my document. It was not my document. It was a Commission working paper, and it was not published because the Commission did not want it to be published.
  On the nuclear arguments, there was not much division on the question of whether they should be nuclear power. Not one hon. Member said that we should abandon it or that benign sources should replace it. One hon. Member made the point that, if one is continually put under artificial pressure to make decisions, one is prevented from giving any measure of thought to the matter. If I had given the impression that I was pointing my finger at others, I can only say that I was not. All over the world—in the United States, Sweden and other countries as well as the EEC—there is anxiety about the way in which nuclear decisions are handled.
  I make no apology for the publication of information from independent inquiries. The attitude adopted towards dissenters—whether they are regarded as subversives or as serious people—and the ministerial responsibilities and decisions and hearings that are not manipulated

  1605
  are matters to be considered. I do not want to hold a hearing in order to brainwash someone who does not agree with me. These are the factors in determining whether nuclear policy will be acceptable. "More haste, less speed" is a saying that might be considered in this context.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North-East (Mr. Palmer) was less than just on Windscale. Two years ago I specially asked the Select Committee to look at Windscale. My hon. Friend took the view that it was not right to do so. But 18 months before the inquiry was launched I asked him whether the Select Committee could find time to look at the reprocessing problem. To say tonight that I am shielding behind the Secretary of State for the Environment is doing me less than justice.
  Mr. Palmer: On that occasion I told the Secretary of State that if he wrote to the Select Committee I would put his letter before it. He did not write.
  Mr. Benn: My recollection was that my hon. Friend felt that this was not a subject that was appropriate for discussion. He is slightly less than just in suggesting that I prevented the matter from being raised in the Select Committee.
  It is a mistake to link waste disposal with Scottish nationalism. Scottish waste also must go somewhere, and it might be pushed in the direction of the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson). I cannot possibly allow Community waste to be put here by a Community decision without the House determining the matter for itself.
  As for conservation, I can say no more than that there will be a statement next week, and I think the House agrees that it will be a statement of some importance.
  This has been a late debate, but it has been a full and helpful one from my point of view because every hon. Member who has taken part has entered into the general spirit of being co-operative and helpful in discussing the harmonisation and sharing of costs but in not wishing to yield too much in terms of the basic decision, not from Britain to the Community but from democratic to bureaucratic control. That has been the spirit of this debate.
  1606
  I said on an earlier occasion that I would send the Hansard report of our proceedings to Community members, and I was rebuked for that suggestion, but I do not think it would be a bad thing if that could be done on this occasion in time for next week when we meet the other EEC Ministers. They would then know that when contributions are made in this House on these EEC subjects they are not made in any party or anti-European spirit but are aimed at putting forward the views of the House of Commons, at whatever hour that may occur. They will then learn that these energy matters are quite properly taken very seriously indeed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1955/77, R/1959/77, R/ 2347/77, R/2348/77 and R/2594/77 on Energy Policy and R/1901/77, R/1956/77 and R/ 1958/77 on Nuclear Energy.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Motion made,
  That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  ROBERT EDMUNDS (MOBILITY ALLOWANCE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
  1.41 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I am grateful to the Minister for staying so late for this debate, which, as he will appreciate, is of some importance both in principle and to the individual concerned.
  The subject of the debate is the case of Robert Edmunds, a 12-year-old boy who has a considerable medical disadvantage since he suffers from a disease known as Down's syndrome and a number of other mental afflictions.
  The boy's parents have throughout the 12 years of his life bestowed upon him all the love and affection that parents

  1607
  can give to a child with those problems and disadvantages. They have made immense sacrifices for him. They are a family of limited means, as are many families suffering similar circumstances. The results of this case will affect not only the family in question but hundreds of other families with similar problems.
  Robert's parents applied on his behalf for a mobility allowance in 1976. Their first application was turned down and they appealed to a medical tribunal. That body concluded that the boy should be given a mobility allowance. However, the Department appealed against that decision and asked for leave to appeal. The medical tribunal again considered that the boy was entitled to the mobility allowance, and the Secretary of State decided to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner.
  Having won their case before the medical tribunal in March 1977, the boy's parents now find themselves still awaiting an appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner. That appeal will be held on 16th December. I suppose that they are lucky in being afforded such a date, because the delay in their case is less than the current average in cases that go before the commission. I presume that the Department has done its best to see that the case is heard as quickly as possible, and I am grateful to the Department on that ground.
  There are three basic points of principle with which I wish to deal. The first relates to the basic problems of administering appeals of this nature. I have been told by the Secretary of State that the average delay in the hearing of appeals by the commissioner is seven and a half months. I have received letters from those involved in similar cases, and some people have had to wait as long as nine months for appeals to be heard. I hope that, as a substantial increase in the time lag has taken place over the last two years, administrative action will be taken to speed up these appeals.
  I hope that everyone will recognise the ghastly depression that one suffers when one has won an appeal to a medical tribunal and then suddenly receives a letter saying that one will not receive the allowance and must wait for yet another appeal before the National Insurance
  1608
  Commissioner. I hope that that delay will be looked into.
  In this case, the medical appeal tribunal found in favour of Robert on 24th March. The Department had three months in which to appeal. In fact, the solicitors for Robert received the appeal three days before the three months expired. On 12th July the medical appeal tribunal again found in favour of Robert. The Department had 21 days in which to appeal. Some of its appeal documents were dated the day before the 21 days had expired and others were dated three days afterwards. On 6th September the Department was given leave to appeal, and it then took it seven weeks to lodge its appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner. There has, therefore, been a total of five to six months' delay due to the lack of speed taken by the Department in making and lodging its appeals. I hope that the Minister will examine this matter carefully to see whether in any other such cases the procedure could be speeded up.
  I want also to raise a point about a matter for which the Minister is not responsible and which is the responsibility of another Department—that is, the whole question of legal aid in such cases. In the case of Robert, to put the case to the medical tribunal and to argue against the Department before the commissioner, the estimated legal costs are in excess of £500. There was no way in which Robert's parents could have found that money. They are fortunate that a local solicitor has given his services totally free, and a barrister is doing the same for the appeal to the commissioner.
  In 1974 the Advisory Committee on Legal Aid recommended that legal aid should be given in such cases. Recently, the Attorney-General told me in reply to a Question that, while the Government were sympathetic to this recommendation, they considered that it was not opportune now due to the limitations on public expenditure. It is a considerable injustice that, when a Government department—doubtless for perfectly valid reasons—decides to make an appeal and has its presentation and preparation of its case for that appeal done at the expense of the taxpayer, the parents of a handicapped child of extremely limited means should have no form of legal aid whatsoever.

  1609
  Even if one accepted the principle that where a Government Department decided to make an appeal against an award given to a handicapped person legal aid should be provided to the person concerned, the costs would be extremely small. The number of cases heard by medical tribunals each year is about 3,000, and only a handful are heard by the commissioner, so the total cost would be extremely small although the hardship involved is not. Probably there is a number of cases that do not go to appeal because parents without legal advice are bewildered and frightened of the whole process. That should cause the House considerable concern. In such cases it is essential that legal aid should be made available.
  There is another principle involved, and that is of the case itself. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the basic arguments that have been used. I cannot do better than give the House the views that were expressed by the medical appeal tribunal when, in March, it pronounced in favour of Robert's obtaining a mobility allowance. I quote:
  "We agree that the boy is suffering from mongolism a condition which is due to faulty genetic inheritance and can therefore be classified as a physical disorder. We accept the evidence that while he walks for some yards he is liable to run, stop, lie down and refuse to go further; this reaction which seriously impairs mobility is directly due to the physical condition of mongolism.
  We therefore conclude in the light of the available evidence that Robert Edmunds is virtually unable to walk because of physical disablement. We further find that such virtual inability to walk is likely to persist for a period in excess of 12 months from 24th November 1976 and will probably persist until pensionable age, or the duration of life whichever is the shorter. We also find that he will have direct benefit from receipt of the allowance."
  The Minister sought leave to appeal against that, but the medical appeal tribunal said:
  "The submission of the Secretary of State seeks to separate the claimant's mental state from the physical condition to which that mental state is directly due. This cannot be accepted because the mental state is the direct consequence of the physical malformation of a particular chromosome.
  Since the claimant's condition is such that he cannot walk without danger to himself because he has no control over his movements and is also such that the time or distance for which he will walk is predictable only in that it is severely limited. The claimant is virtually unable to walk because of physical disablement.
  1610
  We see no reason to believe that there was any factor contributing to the claimant's inability to walk other than the physical disability which prevents the co-ordination of mind and body."
  The basis of the Minister's appeal, according to the document that he has put in, is:
  "The Secretary of State submits that a person who is physically able to walk but does not make effective use of his walking ability, or uses it in a bizarre or dangerous manner, because of mental limitation or disorder, cannot be said to be unable or virtually unable to walk."
  If that principle were maintained at the appeal, if the appeal were successful and the Government decided to apply it to people in similar circumstances to Robert, it would be a real and grave injustice.
  I concede that someone with this form of mental disorder may not be entitled to a mobility allowance. Many can walk long distances and, under the present limitations, do not deserve the allowance. But Robert has rarely, if ever, walked more than 30 yards, and it can be shown by medical evidence that he is virtually unable to walk.
  I also concede that there are cases of mental disability in which the allowance would be of no purpose because the nature of the disability is such that the person would not gain any benefit from being mobile. But the medical tribunal found that Robert would benefit from mobility.
  I hope that the Government will concede the principle that, if someone is virtually unable to walk as a result of a mental disorder and it can be shown that he would benefit from having mobility, he will have the same entitlement to mobility allowance as someone suffering from a physical infirmity. This is a vital principle to concede.
  I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will be able to answer some of the questions that I put in my letter to the Secretary of State. I am doubly concerned about the Minister's appeal succeeding. There are a substantial number of children suffering from this complaint who are less disabled than Robert but who are receiving the mobility allowance—I know of three cases personally—and they may lose it.
  If the appeal does not succeed, I hope that the Minister can assure me that he will do everything possible to contact the

  1611
  many other cases that are similar to Robert's who have been turned down for mobility allowance and also the parents who have not yet applied for the allowance.
  I hope also that the Minister will be able to say—this is my main hope tonight—that if Robert's case succeeds, that is, from Robert's point of view, there is no need for amending legislation, but that if the object of the Department is to establish the legal position, and the legal position is that somebody such as Robert who, by reason of mental disorder, is unable to walk and would benefit from the mobility allowance is prevented from so doing, the Government will introduce amending legislation at an early date.
  Always in a case such as this there tends to be the suggestion that criticism of the Minister or the Department is intended. That is not my objective. Most hon. Members on both sides want to improve the lot of the disabled. I know that the present Secretary of State, for personal reasons and his motivations in politics, shares that wish. The same is true of the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply tonight. At no stage have I suggested that they want to limit help in cases of this kind because of any hostility at any point.
  All of us want to see such people have the best possible treatment. But because of a fault in the law, perhaps, or a fault in circumstances, we have a situation here in which a boy—both he and his parents have suffered enough already—who deserves the benefit of the Government's innovation of the mobility allowance will not receive that benefit, unless the Government fail in their appeal to the commissioner or, if they succeed, they bring in amending legislation.
  I hope that those three basic points of principle will be met—improved administrative machinery, providing legal aid to such people, and amending legislation to provide benefit to people such as Robert Edmunds. I look forward to favourable answers from the Minister.
  1.56 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) for this opportunity to address the House on a matter
  1612
  of such importance. This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has initiated an important debate on the problems of disabled people. As on the earlier occasion, he has argued his case with courtesy, with sincerity and with force.
  The right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the case of Robert Edmunds which is now before the National Insurance Commissioner. While I have no wish to intrude into the legal processes, I want to make my position clear from the outset. I shall be delighted if the National Insurance Commissioner finds in favour of Robert Edmunds. Moreover, if he does find in Robert's favour my Department will pay all the arrears from the earliest due date.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows of my very close involvement in the introduction of mobility allowance, which has been of enormous help to tens of thousands of severely disabled people who previously received no outdoor mobility help at all. Indeed, we are now in the process of more than quintupling my Department's expenditure on mobility for the disabled compared with what was provided under the previous Administration.
  With that credential let me, therefore, make plain that I should have wanted no part in the making of any scheme for mobility help which specifically excluded cases of Down's syndrome. Yet the false impression has been given that such cases are excluded. I must strongly emphasise, therefore, that our present scheme does not exclude cases of Down's syndrome. In fact, the mobility allowance scheme is not in any way related to particular diagnostic groups. Entitlement is based on inability to walk, and there certainly are people suffering from Down's syndrome who have already established title to the allowance.
  Some of the news coverage of the case of Robert Edmunds reveals serious misconceptions about the help available to the families of disabled children. There are misconceptions about the rules of entitlement to the mobility allowance. There are misconceptions about why a reference was made to the National Insurance Commissioner and about how the reference will be considered. These are misconceptions which I must now seek to correct.

  1613
  Mobility allowance is payable to those who can show that they are suffering from physical disablement such that they are unable or virtually unable to walk. The right hon. Gentleman is reported in The Times of 5th December as saying that the scheme needs amending so that
  "mentally handicapped people who cannot walk are treated like those with a physical handicap that prevents walking".
  This gives wide currency to a very serious misconception indeed. The allowance was always intended for anyone who cannot walk from whatever cause. It is available just as much to the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped as to other peope who are unable or virtually unable to walk.
  I turn now to the misconception about why the case of Robert Edmunds was referred to the Nationl Insurance Commissioner. It was to obtain a decision on an important point of law. There are 13 medical appeal tribunals sitting at over 20 centres throughout the country. These tribunals are independent adjudicating authorities, and neither the Secretary of State nor any Minister has power to intervene in their decisions. Ministers are bound by their decisions, as are the claimants who appear before them. But the interpreation of the words in the Act
  "unable or virtually unable to walk because of physical disablement"
  has led to inconsistent decisions. The reference is essential to enable the National Insurance Commissioner to clarify the meaning of the legal provisions which Parliament as a whole approved.
  It is quite wrong to suggest that the Secretary of State is taking sides, when, in fact, what he is seekinkg is a clarification of the law that could be of help to many disabled people. What is sought is not a victory but a decision that can be consistently applied.
  My right hon. Friend made his position clear in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman from which I quote. It reads:
  "I repeat that I am not trying to exclude children like Robert who suffer from Down's Syndrome from mobility allowance. The sole purpose in putting this case before the National Insurance Commissioner is to ensure uniformity, consistency and equity in the interpretation of the law throughout the country."
  We are the very last people to be accused of ministerial diktat in cases of
  1614
  this kind. Before my time there was no appeals machinery whatever in outdoor mobility help. Nor was there any outdoor mobility help of any kind for any disabled child. I take some pride in the fact that it was this Government who first introduced an appeals machinery in mobility help for the disabled. In so doing we diminished ministerial power. One of our main purposes in doing this was to guarantee both consistency and fairness in the operation of the scheme. Without any appeals machinery, Robert Edmunds would have been denied mobility help and would have been without any right of appeal.
  I must repeat to the House that the adjudicating authorities which decide cases of this sort are independent of the Secretary of State and of my Department. But, until they are clear as to the interpretation of the law, it is impossible for them to decide claims to mobility allowance consistently and fairly throughout the country.
  A further misconception is that mobility allowance is the only benefit which can help people in the position of Mr. and Mrs. Edmunds. This again is quite untrue. The attendance allowance is available to any child over the age of two years who requires frequent attention or supervision.
  The higher rate allowance, which the Government have very considerably increased, now stands at £14 a week. Furthermore, I understand that this higher rate allowance is currently being paid in respect of Robert.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that this action is being taken purely to establish a uniform pattern and that the Government hope that Robert will succeed in his appeal when the application to the tribunal states:
  "The Secretary of State submits that a person who is physically able to walk but does not make effective use of his walking ability, or uses it in a bizarre or dangerous manner, because of mental limitation or disorder, cannot be said to be unable or virtually unable to walk."
  If the Secretary of State succeeds in that, he will have stopped Robert. Does the Secretary of State mean that?
  Mr. Morris: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman on this point. He has quoted from a document which has now

  1615
  been entirely superseded. What we are concerned with is the reference to the National Insurance Commissioner on 25th October 1977, not the reference to the medical appeal tribunal on 24th March. The quotation that the right hon. Gentleman used is from the document of 24th March.
  The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that the attendance allowance is payable to almost 16,000 people suffering from Down's syndrome. Altogether there are over 250,000 people receiving the allowance, at a total cost of about £170 million. In addition, as has been pointed Out to Mrs. Edmunds, in cases of hardship involving disabled people the Family Fund may be able to assist. The Government will have contributed £12·5 million to this fund by the end of 1978. I know that the House will agree that it really does not aid the cause of disabled people to further misconceptions of the sort I have dealt with in my speech so far.
  The right hon. Gentleman has asked whether, if it is shown that Robert Edmunds is not entitled to the mobility allowance as the law now stands, we can consider amending the law to include Robert Edmunds and other children like him. The answer is "Yes". Requests for changing the criteria for entitlement to the allowance can certainly be considered. The effect of widening the criteria would, of course, be to bring in more people. That in turn would further increase expenditure. I must, therefore, make the point, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday in the House, that there are many competing claims for further spending.
  We are now in process of doubling in less than a year the rate of mobility allowance to £10 a week, and it is hoped that this, together with help to be provided by the new agency, motability, will provide really effective outdoor mobility for a very great number of disabled people.
  I have been under considerable pressure for some time to extend the scope of the allowance in a variety of ways, and the new developments are unlikely to ease that pressure. Claims for priority have been put forward on behalf of the blind and of people suffering from epilepsy and agoraphobia. A very strong claim has also been advanced on behalf of people
  1616
  who already clearly satisfy the existing medical criteria for the allowance but are precluded on grounds of age. All these competing claims must be considered, and we shall be glad to build on the new scheme as soon as we can.
  It cannot be disputed that this Government have made available a very great deal of new help to the disabled. The overall value of additional cash resources already available, or pledged, for benefits for disabled people and their families amounts to about £2,000 million a year since we came into office. We want to do very much more and will do so as financial resources permit, taking into account services as well as cash benefit needs in a close and continuing scrutiny of priorities.
  Meanwhile, we might all reflect that new benefits bring new problems. They sometimes not only bring much-needed assistance but also cause disappointment to those who do not qualify. New benefits must of necessity exclude people as well as include people. This is one of the penalties of breaking new ground by introducing new benefits. But the difficulties we meet at the margin of entitlement should not discourage us from trying to provide new help for those in special need. Moreover, we must not be diverted by criticism from seeking a clarification of the law to ensure that it is applied consistently and equitably.
  The right hon. Gentleman has also raised the question of legal aid for appellants presenting cases to the independent adjudicating authorities under the Social Security Acts. This is, of course, a matter for the Law Officers. What I can say is that, in the view of my Department, proceedings before the independent adjudicating authorities must not be regarded as if they were adversarial proceedings before a judge.
  In our view, the sole purpose of these proceedings, unlike others with which the right hon. Gentleman may be more familiar, is to establish whether the claimant has a right to a benefit which is prescribed in law and which Parliament considers he should have if he satisfies the relevant conditions. It is the duty of the independent adjudicating authorities to consider all aspects of a case before arriving at their decision, and I am confident that this is done. What is more, my right hon. Friend's letter to the right

  1617
  hon. Gentleman shows that we were prepared to present the case for Robert Edmunds and to do so as strongly as we could.
  The right hon. Gentleman put to me the further question of the average time taken to decide appeals by the 10 national insurance commissioners. As he was informed in reply to his recent parliamentary Question, this is estimated at about seven and a half months from the lodging of the appeal. The time has lengthened from the period of five months that was usual in 1974. This is due to an increased propensity for claimants to appeal and to the effects of EEC regulations, among other causes. With regard to avoidable delays within the Department, I shall have what the right hon. Gentleman has said very carefully considered. Meanwhile, as he will know, a hearing has been fixed on 16th December for the case we have been discussing tonight.
  As I have pointed out on many previous occasions, Ministers cannot influence the decisions of the independent adjudicating authorities, and the number of cases referred on behalf of the Secretary of
  1618
  State depend upon the decisions of the authorities themselves and not upon external considerations. As a matter of record, the number of cases referred, mostly cases under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, during the period in office of this Government amounts to approximately 3,000 fewer than those made during a similar time at the end of the period in office of the previous Government.
  On the question of appeals, the right hon. Gentleman may recall that I legislated as a private Member in this important matter. In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 there is provision for speeding up war pensions appeals. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore appreciate that I am ready to have fully considered all that he has said tonight about the need to do as much as we can—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.

INDUSTRY
  Hitachi Company
  Hitachi Company
  British Shipbuilders (Polish Joint Venture)
  British Shipbuilders (Polish Joint Venture)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (CASH REGISTERS)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (CASH REGISTERS)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department (Staff)
  Refreshment Department (Staff)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Science Research Council
  Science Research Council
  Energy Research Support Unit
  Energy Research Support Unit
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Science and Engineering (Postgraduates)
  Science and Engineering (Postgraduates)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police and Firemen (Pay)
  Metropolitan Police and Firemen (Pay)
  Firemen
  Firemen
  Police (Special Branch)
  Police (Special Branch)
  High Point Prison
  High Point Prison
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Pay Policy
  Pay Policy
  Textiles (Police and Prison Uniforms)
  Textiles (Police and Prison Uniforms)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Tyres (Departmental Purchases)
  Tyres (Departmental Purchases)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  African, Caribbean and Pacific States
  African, Caribbean and Pacific States
  United Nations Agencies
  United Nations Agencies
  United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
  United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Land Drainage
  Land Drainage
  Potato Chips
  Potato Chips
  Abattoirs
  Abattoirs
  Employment
  Employment
  Cattle Exports
  Cattle Exports
  Sheep Exports
  Sheep Exports
TRANSPORT
  Euroroutes
  Euroroutes
  A38 (Branston-Fradley)
  A38 (Branston-Fradley)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Cars and Motor Cycles
  Cars and Motor Cycles
  M1 (Junction Sign)
  M1 (Junction Sign)
  Heavy Vehicles
  Heavy Vehicles
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Motor Cars
  Motor Cars
  Attleborough Bypass
  Attleborough Bypass
  A590 (Meathop-Sampool Bridge)
  A590 (Meathop-Sampool Bridge)
  British Transport Hotels
  British Transport Hotels
  Tolls
  Tolls
  British Railways
  British Railways
  Lorry Drivers (Working Hours)
  Lorry Drivers (Working Hours)
TRADE
  Textiles (Imports)
  Textiles (Imports)
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  Commodities (Common Fund)
  Commodities (Common Fund)
  Motor Vehicle Components
  Motor Vehicle Components
  Employment
  Employment
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Movements
  Price Movements
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
ENERGY
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Coal (Reserves)
  Coal (Reserves)
  Employment
  Employment
INDUSTRY
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Steel
  Steel
  HS748 Aircraft
  HS748 Aircraft
  Timber Trades
  Timber Trades
  Paper
  Paper
  Employment
  Employment
DEFENCE
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Greenwich Naval Hospital
  Greenwich Naval Hospital
  Naval Pensioners
  Naval Pensioners
SOCIAL SERVICES
  St. Andrew's Mental Hospital, Northampton
  St. Andrew's Mental Hospital, Northampton
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Special Needs Payments
  Special Needs Payments
  Health Authorities (Staffs)
  Health Authorities (Staffs)
  North Thames Regional Health Authority
  North Thames Regional Health Authority
  Pensionable Age
  Pensionable Age
  Tyres (Departmental Purchases)
  Tyres (Departmental Purchases)
  Pharmacists (Pay)
  Pharmacists (Pay)
  Ear, Nose and Throat Treatment
  Ear, Nose and Throat Treatment
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Part-time Workers
  Part-time Workers
ENVIRONMENT
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Ordnance Survey (Archaeology Division)
  Ordnance Survey (Archaeology Division)
  Water Charges (Direct Billing)
  Water Charges (Direct Billing)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Water (Quality)
  Water (Quality)
  Electricity (Home Heating)
  Electricity (Home Heating)
  Sub-standard Dwellings
  Sub-standard Dwellings
  Households
  Households
  Library and Museum Services
  Library and Museum Services
  National Library
  National Library
EMPLOYMENT
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
  Luton Campaign for Homosexual Equality
  Luton Campaign for Homosexual Equality
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Torrington
  Torrington
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Walsall
  Walsall
  Unfair Dismissals
  Unfair Dismissals
  Wages
  Wages
WALES
  Snowdonia National Park (Access Orders)
  Snowdonia National Park (Access Orders)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Immigration (Indian Sub-continent)
  Immigration (Indian Sub-continent)
  COCOM
  COCOM
  Imperial Bank of India
  Imperial Bank of India
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Mrs. Lystra Downs
  Mrs. Lystra Downs
  China
  China
  Morocco
  Morocco
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Yuri Orlov
  Yuri Orlov
  Chile
  Chile
  BBC External Services
  BBC External Services
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Helsinki Final Act (Belgrade Meeting)
  Helsinki Final Act (Belgrade Meeting)
  Belgrade
  Belgrade
  Hong Kong (Police)
  Hong Kong (Police)
  Diplomatic Service
  Diplomatic Service
  Dependent Territories
  Dependent Territories
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Refugees (South-East Asia)
  Refugees (South-East Asia)
  Indian Ocean
  Indian Ocean
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  A94 and A92
  A94 and A92
  Local Government Staff (Pay)
  Local Government Staff (Pay)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Tolls
  Tolls
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Oil-related Industry
  Oil-related Industry
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Prisoners (Christmas Release)
  Prisoners (Christmas Release)
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Departmental Staff (Housing)
  Departmental Staff (Housing)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Clubs
  Clubs
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Direct Elections
  Direct Elections
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
  Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Estate Settlement
  Estate Settlement
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Customs and Excise Revenue
  Customs and Excise Revenue
  Revenue and Expenditure
  Revenue and Expenditure
  Economic Planning
  Economic Planning
  Reflation
  Reflation
  British Shipbuilders (Polish Joint Venture)
  British Shipbuilders (Polish Joint Venture)
  Pay Policy
  Pay Policy
  Beer, Wines and Spirits
  Beer, Wines and Spirits
  Coinage
  Coinage
  Low-income Employees
  Low-income Employees
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  FIRE BRIGADES UNION
  FIRE BRIGADES UNION
  TUC
  TUC
  FOOD PRICES
  FOOD PRICES

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF GUILDFORD
David Alan, Lord Bishop of Guildford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Salisbury and the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.

COAL: UNDERGROUND GASIFICATION
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 why the Department of Energy's first working document for the Energy Commission omits any study of the underground gasification of coal.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, paragraph 6.19 of the Working Document on Energy Policy—Energy Commission Paper No. 1—states that the National Coal Board are considering the long-term prospects for the conversion of coal in situ following their reappraisal in 1976 of the underground gasification of coal.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which shows that as well as I he has read the document, may I ask him whether he is aware, and whether the Energy Commission are aware, of a pilot scheme which was tried out from 1966 to 1969, if my dates are right, at Newton Spinney in Derbyshire and Bayton in Worcestershire, when gasification of coal was tried, as a result of which studies seemed to show that energy could be raised by this means at anything from a farthing in old pence to a penny-halfpenny
1612
in old pence per therm cheaper than that which could be obtained from deep-mined coal obtained in the ordinary way?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, copies of the reappraisal and of the review, both of which the noble Earl and I have read, have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. The 1976 report concluded that the cost of producing gas by underground gasification would almost certainly never rival the cost of natural gas, and that while supplies of natural gas were available there were no grounds for recommending the development of the process in the United Kingdom. The 1977 review also concludes that work is not yet at a stage when a decision can be made about underground coal gasification, but suggests that when the results of work in the United States and in Europe are known in two to three years, the position should be clearer.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the experiments which were conducted in England in the past on the gasification of coal in the small thin seams were absolutely uneconomic? Has the NCB carried out any more research to make economic the gasification of thin seams in coal mines?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that is a slightly different question which I would rather deal with, if I may, in answer to the noble Earl's next Question.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, earlier this week, at Question Time, the noble Lord was indicating that we had to look into what would happen when our natural gas supplies ran out. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Department of Energy or the Coal Board are looking for the areas where the conditions are right for the underground gasification of coal, because this could save a lot of difficult and dangerous work by men underground?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly, my Lords. The United Kingdom is keeping in touch with R and D work, both in the United States and in Europe, particularly in Belgium and in Germany, where they have difficulties with their deep-mined coal. With regard to policy, I may say that at present we believe that it may be

1613
more economic eventually to produce substitute natural gas and liquid fuels by the processing of mined coal, coal brought to the surface, rather than by any in situ conversion. Furthermore, the British Gas Council are in a very strong position for the manufacture of substitute natural gas from mined coal by gasification on the surface rather than underground, through experiments that they have carried out.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some years ago there were very colourful reports of considerable success achieved by the Russians in the underground gasification of coal? Has he been informed as to whether there is any evidence of further progress by that country in this field?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there is evidence, yes. There are three underground coal gasification sites reported to be operative in the USSR, two commercially for electricity generation and one as an R and D centre.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, could my noble friend tell the House whether any steps have been taken for the fluidisation of coal, as distinct from gasification?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, and I gave some details to your Lordships yesterday.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether he thinks that sufficient urgency is being given to this matter, bearing in mind, for example, the rather off-hand way in which it is treated in the first paper of the Energy Commission? Is he also aware that those who are taking an interest in this subject are looking for it, not so much as an alternative to natural gas at present but as a way of improving our energy supplies generally without, as my noble friend said just now, needing to send human beings down to work in these inhuman surroundings?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. The position in this country is not as urgent as in the United States where they have not such large supplies of natural gas. We think it better, rather than
1614
conducting our own experiments at considerable expenditure, for the next two or three years—no longer—to keep in close touch with experiments in Europe and in the USA and also to pursue other means, some of which I have just described.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that this was one of the problems that was being discussed and argued about in the first Election in which I took part in 1929? Perhaps, in the circumstances, he could bring the matter to the notice of the Energy Commission so that they should speed up their inquiries, because time is running heavily against us.

COAL RESERVES
2.50 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 whether the Energy Commission will be given detailed information by the National Coal Board about the location, depth and thickness of undeveloped coal seams discovered in the United Kingdom and estimated to total 190 billion tons with a recovery potential of no more than 45 billion tons.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, if the Energy Commission needs this information, I am sure that the National Coal Board will do its utmost to assist. I think the noble Earl should be aware, however, that until the reserves are fully explored, it would not in any case be possible to give all the detailed information he suggests.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, helpful as was the last one, may I ask him whether or not he considers that the enormous differential between an estimated 190 billion tons of reserves and a mere 45 billion recoverable ought to be open to public discussion, debate and examination in the freest possible way by all the experts, private and public, that exist? Can he also say whether it would not be advantageous to that end if the National Coal Board were

1615
to make that information widely available so that useful debate can take place?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I will pass that on to the National Coal Board. The reason why the recoverable reserves are less than the total coal in place is because some coal is inevitably left behind because of the need to leave shaft pillars in areas of disturbed ground and, under mechanised mining, there is a degree of selectivity required. Also, a proportion of the coal in place will be in seams of unacceptable quality. I should like to put the position into perspective by saying that the 45 billion tons represents 300 years of coal at our present requirements.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the difficulties that he has referred to might, in the opinion of some, be overcome by underground gasification?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, yes. Of course, we might be able to get up more of the coal. The 190 billion tons figure is based on going down 4,000 feet. In America, they go down only 1,000 feet. If you go further—and I am sure we shall be able to do so with technological improvements in the next century—there will be far more still. But there is a thousand years at the moment.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that these figures would be higher if we had not closed down collieries in the last 15 years and reduced our manpower by nearly 300,000? Is he aware that that coal still lies there?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on the other hand some of the collieries which were closed were uneconomic while, with the new mines, there will be considerably higher productivity.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is it not misleading for the authorities to say that these recoverable reserves represent 300 years at current consumption, bearing in mind that after the turn of the century the coal reserves will have to take over from the declining oil and natural gas reserves? Does the noble Lord care to
1616
recalculate the number of years' supply that will exist at present levels of consumption, taking into account the exhaustion of our natural gas and oil supplies by about the year 2025?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that would be a very hypothetical calculation to make; but I think I can say that the operating reserves, which represent that proportion of the recoverable reserves which have been fully proved as regards quality, are 6 billion tons, which represents 50 years' consumption. But as we go on, the recoverable reserves will be upgraded to operating and the reserves will be upgraded to recoverable. It is a continuing process.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there are extensive reserves offshore and to what extent these occur in the North Sea? If they do so, can he tell us the location, the depth and also the size of seam in what could be these underground workings under the North Sea?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is difficult to give a precise figure for coal under the North Sea since coal measures are known to exist up to 100 miles from the shore and down to a depth of 14,000 feet. However, it must be remembered that the reserves figures that I quoted are calculated only on a depth of 4,000 feet.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while future availability of coal is an intensely interesting subject, as is gasification and the use of coal in general, a much more interesting question is this: Why is it that the National Coal Board is unable to reach its targets? Is he aware that the production of coal is dwindling very rapidly?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we are aiming for a target of 170 million tons a year by the year 2,000.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord—
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we have had a long run on this Question.

LUNCHEON VOUCHER CONCESSION
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: 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 what has prevented the luncheon voucher concession of 15p for each working day from being raised since 1959 and what corresponding value does it now have compared with 1959.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, successive Governments since 1959 have not considered that an increase in the concession would be justified. The present Government have kept the matter under review but consider that to increase the value of the concession would be unfair to the millions of employees who have the benefit neither of luncheon vouchers nor of subsidised canteens. The corresponding value today for a 1959 15p luncheon voucher would be about 57p.
The EARL of KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the 15p luncheon voucher has a purchasing power of one elderly cheese sandwich and of (and not with) one steaming cup of British Rail coffee? Does he feel that this gives sufficient sustenance to people to give that extra productivity that the present Government are urging? Could the noble and learned Lord say whether he is aware of the unfair discrimination between an employer who is able to offer canteen services and an employer who can offer only one 15p voucher?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I would not handy words with the noble Earl about what you can buy for 15p. The purpose of the concession was never to provide the full cost of a meal; it was to give an equivalent to persons who were not receiving the opportunity of eating in a canteen. In fact, the value of the canteen subsidy is very difficult to get from any available figures, but it is thought that the 15p voucher concession which exists
1618
today is roughly equivalent, at about £40 a year of the tax repayment, to the actual average value of the canteen subsidy.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether luncheon vouchers are available to Members of this House, like subsidised meals are available to Members of another place?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if I discover that they are, it will be a pleasant surprise for me, but I do not know.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has said that it was never the intention to cover the cost of a full meal. Is he aware that when luncheon vouchers were first available one could get a three-course meal for 2s. 6d. which was then the cost of a luncheon voucher? It certainly was the intention originally that you could get a full meal for it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not think it was ever expressed as being the intention. When the concession was introduced in 1948 it was 2s. 6d., and no doubt you could do fairly well for 2s. 6d.; but the intention was to give an equivalent to the canteen subsidy.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that young people are suffering very great hardship in this particular area now? Could he lean on the Treasury—if that is the phrase—to alter their decision and ask them for a luncheon voucher to the value of at least 60p? Many young people now cannot afford anything at lunchtime. It seems wrong that, not only through very inflated fares but other expenses, they have to forego any lunch at lunchtime.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps this matter under review. No doubt what the noble Baroness has said will be taken into account in considering the possibility of varying the concession.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that some Members of this House commend the Government on proceeding slowly with a

1619
concession which is sometimes abused and certainly do not regard it as one of our priorities?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I can certainly accept that.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I hope that that is not the message that the noble and learned Lord will take back to his right honourable friend. There is very strong feeling that luncheon vouchers are not keeping up with the times. This is a very great pity.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, may I say—I hope finally—that it is always a question of priorities. When it comes to considering tax concessions which have been eroded, one has to look to see whether this is the best way to redistribute the sum of money involved. If the luncheon voucher figures were raised to something like 57p each, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to find over £30 million extra.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT RATES
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider the current lending rates of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation to farmers are in accordance with the duty laid down under Section 1 of the Agricultural Credits Act 1928; whether these rates are included in the cost of living index; and why farmers are still being charged a minimum of 14 per cent. when seeking funding for food production.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the lending rates of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which are currently 10½ per cent. for variable rate loans and 12½ per cent. for fixed rate loans, are reviewed from time to time by the Corporation and reflect the cost of borrowing on the market for subsequent long-term lending. The rates are not included in the retail prices index.
1620
The Government are satisfied that the Corporation continues to act in accordance with the requirements of Section 1 of the Agricultural Credits Act 1928.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that reply. I do not think he answered the question of whether it comes within the cost of living index.
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is the policy and I stand by it. When I was Minister of Agriculture I had to operate this Act. I think it works well.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Would he agree that long-term finance for agriculture is a vital part of industry? Would he also agree that the Committee of his noble friend Lord Northfield, who are examining at present the ownership of land, should consider the not unimportant aspect that the young farmer had to pay earlier this year 17 per cent. for fixed-term finance, whereas the foreign competitor was probably paying a great deal less?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I understand the problem. It is quite right that the Corporation which we are talking about provides funds for the farming community and it is welcomed by the farming community. I think that our own method of not subsidising credit but giving direct grants is a far better system than operates in most other countries.

DEFENCE
3.4 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON Lord CARRINGTON rose to move to resolve, That, in view of the increasing disparity in the conventional defence strengths of the Warsaw Pact and NATO Forces, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore their planned defence cut of £267 million and honour their pledge to NATO to spend in real terms 3 per cent. more and to improve the remuneration of the Armed Forces in April, and, as soon as possible thereafter, to restore full comparability. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

1621
I should like to thank in advance the formidable number of your Lordships, including two maiden speakers whom we welcome to the active ranks of this House, who have said that they are going to take part this afternoon.
Your Lordships will see that I am asking the Government for three things. First, to restore their most recent defence cut. I am not entirely sure about the figure of £267 million, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will put me right. I think that it may be nearer £300 million. Secondly, to honour the pledge that they made to NATO to aim to increase in real terms their contribution to the Alliance; and, lastly, to take steps as soon as possible to put right the pay of the Armed Forces. I ask for this in the context—as I say in my Motion—of the increasing disparity in conventional defence strengths of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO Forces.
I do not think that the Government will deny the truth of that last statement. It is obvious to all of us; it is a fact. Each year the Soviet Union increase their defence expenditure by something like 5 per cent. The Soviet Union spend between 11 per cent. and 13 per cent. of their gross national product on defence, nearly three times the NATO average. In real terms they spend something like 30 per cent. more than the United States. We in Britain spend about 5 per cent. of our gross national product on defence. There is no doubt that the gap in quality and capacity which was greatly in favour of NATO for many years after the war has diminished until it has very largely disappeared. Your Lordships will no doubt remember the paper written by the International Institute of Strategic Studies for this year in which it is stated that in general the pattern is one of a military balance moving steadily against the West.
Certainly in terms of quality, the money that the Russians have spent on research and development, which is now being translated into production, has transformed the capacity of their forces. There is a relentless growth in Soviet military power and capacity, and the preponderance of American strength in strategic nuclear weapons has dwindled to parity. The Soviet fleet—more modern than its potential adversaries—is a worldwide navy operating in all the oceans of the world, with bases in the Indian Ocean
1622
and the Pacific, equipped now with aircraft carriers as well as both "hunter killer" and "missile firing" nuclear submarines.
In addition, the Warsaw Pact has a number of advantages over its NATO rival. It is centralised in the sense that geographically it can act much more quickly and is capable of more rapid reinforcement. By virtue of the dominance of the Soviet Union, its weapons are standardised and ours are not. Its manpower is much cheaper than that of the West, enabling a greater share of money available for research into and procurement of modern weapons. None of this is in dispute. The United States is becoming increasingly worried about this, and a reassessment of the strategic nuclear position, both as a result of growing Soviet power and SALT II talks, is taking place.
Not even British Secretaries of State in the Labour Government have sought to dispute the growing Soviet power. Indeed, in every White Paper and every speech made by a Labour Secretary for Defence there has been an emphasis on increasing Russian capability. Of course the White Papers—and perhaps the speeches—were written by the Ministry of Defence; but one had hoped that the Secretary of State actually believed what he was saying. But what was the response to all this? Last year they slashed nearly £600 million off the defence budget. This year the figure is £953 million and next year it will be just under £1,200 million. In total their planned reduction projected until 1983 is £8,400 million at 1966 prices. At first blush a somewhat remarkable response to the acknowledged increase in the threat from the potential aggressor.
There are other reasons for querying the wisdom of the Government's actions over defence expenditure. Not so very long ago, partly as a result of the Vietnam War and partly because of a growing belief that the financial responsibility undertaken by the United States Government in defence of the West was totally disproportionate to that of its NATO allies, there was a move in America to reduce their involvement in Europe unless there was a significant increase in European expenditure. It is fair to say that in 1972 and 1973 there was a response to that pressure. It would be a mistake to assume

1623
that their decisions to cut down on defence have gone unnoticed in the United States, or that our repeated further cuts in defence have not caused the greatest concern among our allies. Without American participation, NATO is as unreal as is the Warsaw Pact without the Russians.
We in Europe have no nuclear capability of a kind which would enable us either to withstand or deter the Soviet bloc. Without American involvement in Europe with ground forces, a number of our allies would not find it attractive or necessarily advantageous to remain in the Alliance, for it is the guarantee of American involvement that makes Western Europe secure. The Government should consider very carefully not just the military effect of their defence policy in terms of decreasing capability of British forces in equipment and numbers, and with that diminishing capability the effect that it has on the Alliance as a whole; they should also consider the effect it has on our allies, and particularly on the most important of them all.
President Carter, at the very outset of his term of office as President of the United States, attended the NATO Summit meeting in London and he put the United States, under him, wholeheartedly behind NATO. That was a most significant and welcome development. But he also made it abundantly plain on that occasion that further effort was needed on the part of the European allies to increase their spending to meet the increasing threat from the Soviet bloc. He asked for more, and subsequently it was agreed in Brussels that the aim should be to increase defence spending in real terms by 3 per cent. annually.
Among those who agreed to that were Her Majesty's present Government. I hope that the Secretary of State did not agree to that just to get himself out of a difficulty. Of course, it is easy to say that your aim is to increase by 3 per cent.: it does not commit you to anything. No doubt it would have been very difficult at that stage not to have gone along with the rest of the Alliance; but a solemn pledge of intention of that kind cannot just be ignored as easily as that, nor can the consequences to American commitments in Europe be glossed over on a play of words.
We should do equally well not to ignore the feelings of our European neighbours who have watched our contribution decline in these last four years. We in this country have always been the bastion of the European side of NATO. We have been regarded both as reliable and as a nation which will contribute with certainty and with sacrifice to the common aims of NATO. That is not the feeling that our allies have about us at the present time. Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed the acid rebuke made on behalf of NATO by Dr. Luns to the Government of this country. It will, of course, be said that all this has been due to our economic situation. I think it has been due just as much to the priorities which the Labour Party have given to the defence of this country—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, defence was the first area to be selected immediately after the Government were elected and it has taken a disproportionate share of the cuts ever since. I hope this afternoon that we shall not hear that old argument about how we spend more of our gross national product on defence than others. I have no doubt that we spend more on education than a number of other countries, or on roads; but is that a good reason for cutting down expenditure on education or roads? It is only a good reason if you believe that education and roads are a bad thing or, to put it another way, it is only because the Labour Government put a low priority and importance upon the defence and security of this country, in comparison with those other activities, that they single it out for special cuts.
It is futile to determine defence spending on the basis of a quite arbitrary mathematical formula based on GNP percentages. The aim should be to assess the nature of the threat and the resources other allies are making available, and then see what further contribution from the United Kingdom is necessary. I am absolutely sure that the Leader of the House will agree with that last remark; indeed, I am surprised that he is not already nodding, for those were the words of Mr. Mulley's deputy, Dr. Gilbert, at the Ministry of Defence, reported in the Financial Times on 23rd September, when

1625
seeking to rebut a pamphlet issued by the Labour Party called Sense about Defence.
Even so, let us suppose that the argument about the economy in these past four years was so overriding that what was done had to be done. In my Motion I am not seeking to restore the cuts in full; I am asking only for the last defence cuts to be restored and for the Government to honour, the year after this, their aim to spend 3 per cent. more in real terms. Is it really true that we cannot afford that? Is the economy not to grow in the future? Are we not assured by Government Ministers almost daily that an economic miracle has occurred?
"Thy country is in a much better shape to face the future than it has been at any other time in this decade",
said the Prime Minister.
"By the end of next year",
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of his many speeches of recent years—and that means this year—
"we shall really be on our way to that so-called economic miracle".
My Lords, either we have or we have not; you cannot have it both ways.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord CARRINGTON: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his recent Budget, increase public expenditure by £1,000 million next year? There was, of course, no mention of spending more on defence, but then defence does not loom very large in the Government's thinking. Yet £400 million, as I understand it, was to go to the construction industry. Would not an increase in the defence budget have provided almost as much employment? That is a theme which I think will be taken up by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. What about shipbuilding? France and other countries build warships "on spec". If they sell them, well and good; if they do not, they are absorbed into the navy of the country concerned. Would not that be a better way of doing things than the rather doubtful deal with the Poles? We should in the end at least have got something which would be useful to this country. I remember, when I was Secretary of State for Defence at the time when we were worried about unemployment—which then involved less than
1626
two-thirds of the present numbers—doing precisely that, and ordering more warships to provide employment in the shipyards. Three per cent. of our defence budget is about £200 million. Is it really conceivable that a country with an economy as big as ours cannot afford such a comparatively small sum?
Lastly, I ask for the Government, at the earliest possible opportunity, which is next April, to improve the pay of the Armed Forces and, as soon thereafter as they can, to restore full comparability. There is no need in this House for me to labour the situation which has developed over the pay of the Armed Forces; it is well known. I must say that I do not understand why, if there has been fairness all round since the Labour Government were elected, the Forces seem to have done worse than anybody else, and I should be interested if the Leader of the House could explain this to me. I am told that even if the Government pay the Forces 10 per cent. more next April they will still be 30 per cent. behind in comparability with what they were before. In real terms, since the Labour Government were elected, the pay of a lieutenant-colonel has dropped by 18 per cent., that of a captain, 11 per cent.; a sergeant has dropped by 10½ per cent. and a private soldier by nearly 9 per cent. Yet we expect the Armed Services to do almost any job which other people in this country refuse to do or are unwilling to do.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, they are not paid as well as the firemen; yet they are doing the firemen's job. They are suddenly sent to Bermuda; they have just come back from Northern Ireland, or they have just been at sea. They may be asked in the near future to carry out other tasks which striking workers are unwilling to do but which we expect the Services to do with discipline, with efficiency, without grumbling and with a significantly lower reward. It is wrong to talk about low morale over scales of pay for, in the end, I have no doubt that discipline and loyalty in the Services will prevail. But let the Government be under no illusion about the resentment that is felt in the Forces. Nor let them be under any illusion about the numbers of good officers and men who are not re-engaging.

1627
If I had to say what was the biggest success story of the post-war years in Britain, I would say that it was the continued and increased excellence and discipline and morale and efficiency of that voluntary body of men and women who make up the Armed Services, and who do it in a climate of permissiveness and relaxed standards. The Government have not only the duty to see that the Forces are properly rewarded, for they have no union—they cannot strike—but they would be guilty of an inconceivable folly if they threw away the achievements of these last 30 years.
Two noble Lords have sought to amend my Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, if I understand his Amendment correctly, does not disagree with my essential proposition, but wishes to pay the Services straight away—a proposal that would breach the Government's 12-month rule. In putting down this Motion, it has not been my object to ask the Government to break their pay policy in what is obviously a difficult situation. My object has been to point out to them that they have a choice of priorities in public expenditure, a choice which until now I believe they have made wrongly.
If I may say so, I think that the Government are extremely lucky that, unlike the Conservative Government of 1973, they have an Opposition which is not at every turn seeking to wreck their economic policy. Our memories are not so short that we can forget the kind of remarks made by the Prime Minister, during the General Election of 1974, about miners' pay. But we do not intend to follow that example. Therefore, though I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I do not feel that I could ask my noble friends to accept his Amendment, nor do I wish the Government to use the 12-month rule as an excuse for not accepting my Motion. What they should do is announce, and announce now, their intention as regards Forces pay so that they can allay the doubts and suspicions which exist in the Forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the other hand, walking sturdily and swiftly, crook in hand, to the aid of his defenceless sheep, seeks to move an Amendment which they can accept and which sounds nice, but which has no effect of any kind,
1628
whether good or ill, on what is happening at the present moment. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, knowing him as I do, will argue persuasively and well. But what does his Amendment mean?
First, he is, in effect, asking us to call upon the Government to do something that they are already doing, and which he and I know perfectly well does not have the remotest prospect of success. The prospect of success for mutual and balanced force withdrawals was virtually thrown away when the Helsinki Agreement was signed without any progress being made in Vienna. Of course, it would be splendid if it were possible to achieve balanced reductions on the Central Front in Europe—splendid. I am all in favour of seeking mutual and balanced force reductions. I also believe in world disarmament, everlasting peace and the desirability of having a Labour Party always in Opposition; but to put that down as an Amendment to the Motion would not help me.
The second part of the noble Lord's Amendment means, of course, precisely nothing, because the Government will say that the time has not come. And they will be able to go on saying that the time has not come until such time as they no longer have the support of the people of this country to direct our affairs. I admire the noble Lord's gallantry, but, before he presses his Amendment, let him consider those well-known lines from A King Lear:
"Sleepest or wakest thou, jolly shepherd?
Thy sheep be in the corn".
In forming any British defence policy, one has to take account both of Soviet intentions and of the potential threat which their Forces pose. I do not know, nor indeed can anyone know, what is in the minds of the Soviet leaders. It may very well be that Soviet intentions are wholly peaceful, that there is some simple explanation for the build-up of their military forces. It may be fear of the United States and NATO, though I find that increasingly difficult to believe. Maybe it is the continuation of a momentum, aided by a military bureaucracy which goes on ordering and ordering more and more weapons—maybe not. Even the most experienced Soviet watcher does not, and cannot, know for certain what is in the minds of the Soviet rulers. But

1629
whatever may be in their minds, we can see the military potential as a fact. How can we ignore the continuing build-up? If we believe that our independence, together with that of our allies, is the most precious thing we have, then surely it is not only worth some sacrifice, but should be regarded as of greater importance than some of the more electorally attractive programmes.
I am not asking very much of the Government; indeed, perhaps I am asking too little. I do not see any reason why they should not accept my Motion. But, if they refuse, then we shall all of us know that their understanding of the problem and their resolution to maintain adequate defence forces is sadly lacking, and I shall ask your Lordships to come into the Lobby with me to show your disapproval and your dismay. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That, in view of the increasing disparity in the conventional defence strengths of the Warsaw Pact and NATO Forces, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore their planned defence cut of £267 million and honour their pledge to NATO to spend in real terms 3 per cent. more and to improve the remuneration of the Armed Forces in April, and, as soon as possible thereafter, to restore full comparability.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD rose to move as an Amendment to the resolution in the I name of Lord Carrington to leave out all the words after (" Government ") and insert (" with their NATO allies to pursue negotiations for mutual and balanced force reductions and to seek within the prevailing financial limitations to provide the most effective United Kingdom military contribution to NATO."). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had a very nice quotation. I would only say to him: Always look before you jump. It may well be that when I have sat down he will find that I am closer to him than to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. But we shall know that only at the end of the debate.
The House will note that my Amendment, which I formally move, leaves in the Resolution the words dealing with the disparity between the conventional forces
1630
of the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO. There was a time when such a disparity could be lived with, because it was balanced by the existence of the nuclear capability both of the United States and of the United Kingdom. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the growth in size and quality of the conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact countries creates a completely new situation. These forces can no longer be claimed to be forces of a defensive character. They have a potential for an aggressive act, although, having said that, I do not myself see within Soviet policy today the thought of a military act of aggression, particularly in Europe.
Before I leave that, I should like to say to the Government that I do not myself believe—and this is very much a personal speech; it is not coming to the aid of the Government—that it is right and proper that we, the European members of NATO, should rely upon the nuclear capability of the United States. I believe that the British nuclear capability should be not only maintained but updated. Therefore, I hope that in their most anxious consideration of defence matters the Government will bear in mind the necessity to have within the European NATO Alliance a nuclear capability as advanced in quality as we can provide.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned Forces' pay. I do not believe it was the intention of the noble Lord that Forces' pay should become part of a political football. Much of the difficulty that exists at the moment over Services' pay is due to the decision taken by a Labour Government in 1969 to accept the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board that Servicemen should have an income comparable with their opposite numbers (if one may use that phrase) in civilian life and that, like others, they should pay for their food and lodgings. That decision was, as I say, taken by a Labour Government but the machinery under which we are now operating was the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
I believe that the decision of the Labour Government and of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was right. However, we did not foresee, in particular taking into account the date when this recommendation was made by an independent

1631
body, the effect of the kind of increases in pay that occurred during 1975. The system is not wrong. The difficulties have been caused by the major increases in pay during the middle and latter part of 1975. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that, like all public servants, the Services should be adequately paid and that the Government should be a good paymaster. However, I do not believe—and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was quite specific about this—that in the present circumstances the Government should break the pay policy. Nevertheless, when the review of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body is published—I suppose in the early part of next year—I hope that if a 10 per cent. recommendation is made there will be no question of the British Government not fulfilling the recommendation that the Services should receive the maximum amount permitted under the guidelines.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, goes beyond that. His Motion refers to comparability. I wish comparability to be restored, but I foresee difficulties. There are very many other bodies of a public nature which are in a similar situation. Most of them are governed by independent bodies and work in complete isolation from each other. Recognising the anomalies and the very great complexity surrounding the various professions within the public service, I hope that the Government will consider whether or not it is right and proper now to set up a private review body to review all the existing anomalies and difficulties in order to have a programme to place before the Government. When the economic circumstances and the pay guidelines permit, and when something can be done, the machinery will then be there, the decisions as to how, having been made, the programme may be accomplished. Then one could immediately start to implement those decisions. I believe that it would be quite unfair to the Services if we were to wait until circumstances permitted an improvement in pay and if we were then to sit down to find out how we were going to deal with it. I should like to ask my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to consider this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, then said of his Motion, which I am seeking to
1632
amend, that the Government should restore the defence cuts. I agree with the noble Lord that there is a certain amount of dispute about whether the figure is £260 million or £300 million. We have short memories. I was a member of the Cabinet when the particular decision was taken. I remember the very bitter criticism that was launched by the Conservatives upon the Labour Government: that we had limited our cuts in capital expenditure by only £1,000 million. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his friends wanted public expenditure cuts amounting to £2,000 million. Never at any stage did they say where those cuts were to be made. They never said whether the savings should come from roads or schools, or from here or from there. They just spoke of global figures, and of course the situation is the same today.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I, as a member of that Cabinet, was aware of the very deep concern about where those cuts were to be borne. I am not going to quote the words of Lord Carrington, but he used words not dissimilar to those which I used when I was on the Front Bench: that when you are making cuts in capital expenditure, defence must bear its own share. May I suggest to the noble Lord that he should look at the words he used in the 1970 debate?
It may be that there is a different climate now. The Government were right in 1976 to make these cuts. We recognised that we were getting very close to the bone so far as defence was concerned, but we felt that those cuts were necessary. However, as I say, there is a new climate now. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, and my noble friend Lord Peart spoke the other day of the major transformation of the financial situation of this country. It is very much to be welcomed. I share the views that were expressed by my noble friend Lord Robbins, if I may call him that, when he acknowledged the improvements during the last 14 months. Nevertheless, he said that, taking the world situation as a whole, it would be a very brave man indeed who could honestly say what the future is likely to be. I hope that the economic progress of this country makes it possible for the kind of cuts that were imposed by the Government in 1976 to be restored.
To me, the most significant matter, if we are to have a serious debate about defence, is the agreement that was entered into by the Ministers at the NATO Summit: that in the light of the growth in Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces the NATO allies should seek to increase their annual expenditure on defence by 3 per cent. from 1979 to 1984. But there was a general understanding and recognition, which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did not touch upon, that for some countries within the NATO Alliance such a target would be unacceptable because it would place too great a strain upon their economies. An ally within NATO has not only a duty to provide the most effective military contribution but a duty also to ensure that it has a firm, sound, economic base. I believe that to be the essential.
However, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the ability of this country: if we only have the will to do it, we have the capacity to provide this sort of figure. But the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is asking the Government to commit themselves to a figure regarding which there can at this present moment, taking the possible economic situation, be a doubt as to whether we should be able to fulfil a particular pledge. I sincerely hope that the Government will be able, in terms of the restoration of cuts, to go a good way towards what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said this afternoon. In this respect, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has greater experience than myself as to whether it would be possible at this stage effectively to spend such a sum of money if it were to become available. But I hope that the Government will say a little more and will give many of us on this side of the House assurances in regard to the undertakings that were made by our Secretary of State at the NATO Ministerial meeting.
I know my senior Ministers very well and I do not believe that they would wish in any way, if the money were available and the financial ability were there, either to deny proper equipment to our Servicemen or to deny the necessary contribution to our allies within NATO. I would only say again to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it has always been the philosophy of the Labour Party, going back to well before the war, that collective
1634
security was the one sure means by which a country could secure its boundaries. Therefore, we not only have an interest in the maintenance of NATO but there is—if I may use the word—an ideological sense of support to mutual defence.
So, my Lords, why did I put this Amendment on the Order Paper? I tabled the Amendment because I believe the resolution that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to be premature. I believe that if the Conservatives or, for that matter, your Lordships' House feel that there is an economic capability not only for the restoration of these cuts but also for the honouring of the 3 per cent., then the time for such a vote of censure is not today but when the Budget Statement and the public expenditure figures are known and when the Defence Review is published and debated.
When the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, tabled this Motion he can hardly have believed that the Government could possibly accept it. I tabled an Amendment because I believed it to be an Amendment that pretty well every Member of your Lordships' House would support. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, poured cold water on it and spoke with derision about that part of my Amendment which called upon Her Majesty's Government to pursue policies for mutual and balanced force reductions. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we are all disappointed—perhaps dismayed—at the small amount of progress that has been made. However, some weeks ago, we spoke in the same terms of the situation in the Middle East; and now, because of an imaginative act by President Sadat, we have a new situation with new possibilities.
We must pursue negotiations for disarmament. If we do not, then the end can only be one of complete horror and destruction. Disappointment we shall have, but we need to pursue disarmament. I therefore thought that those words ought to be in an Amendment and I challenge any noble Lords on any other side of the House to vote against such a call.
My last words were of a general nature: they called upon Her Majesty's Government,

1635
"within the prevailing financial limitations to provide the most effective"
forces to NATO. Whatever criticisms the noble Lord may have made about cuts, this country has undoubtedly played its full and honourable part in NATO. We provide the best equipped soldiers and the best trained soldiers. We have made a notable contribution to NATO, and I believe that this Government will continue, as have previous Governments, to maintain that particular record. At this particular moment, the noble Lord is asking too much in his Motion. The time for a vote of censure of this nature will be in the spring of next year when we have the Defence Review before the House. I beg to move the Amendment.
Moved, as an Amendment to the resolution in the name of Lord Carrington, to leave out all the words after ("Government") and insert ("with their NATO allies to pursue negotiations for mutual and balanced force reductions and to seek within the prevailing financial limitations to provide the most effective United Kingdom military contribution to NATO.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL Lord SHINWELL rose to move, as an Amendment to the resolution in the name of Lord Carrington, after ("more") to insert ("as and when our economic and financial circumstances improve; and meanwhile in view of the unusual and special services arising from the firemen's strike to compensate all ranks in Her Majesty's Forces within the guidelines laid down by Her Majesty's Government;"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this period of time when your Lordships' House is subjected to criticism, much of it misguided, it appears desirable in the course of an important debate to dispense with partisanship and to pursue the subject with the utmost objectivity. That is a philosophy which I have ventured to advocate for some considerable time in your Lordships' House in a different context from that which occupies our time today.
I understand that brevity is the order of the day, according to my instructions from the appropriate quarter. Whether I respond will depend almost exclusively on what happens to occur to me. Instructions are not a matter of which I
1636
wholeheartedly approve. As for felicitations, which are customary in the course of a debate, they would appear to be quite unnecessary. Congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would be superfluous. He is a professional of the highest calibre. He can see both sides of the question—he can advocate them, too ! Nor do I need to indulge in congratulations to my noble friend the former Leader of the House, except to say that since the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has treated us to a quotation from Shakespeare, perhaps I may counter it with a few lines from Omar Khayyám:
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Sage, and heard great argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door as in I went".
That is almost all that is necessary to say about my noble friend Lord Shepherd. How often have I heard it said that we must advocate balanced forces. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, completely disposed of that with the assistance of his formidable opponent, Lord Shepherd, for they both spoke in words of wisdom of the disparity between the forces of Moscow and the forces of NATO. We are agreed about that.
So I beg of my noble friend Lord Shepherd and my noble friend the Leader of the House and in particular the Chief Whip of my Party in this House, not to expect me at the end of the debate to vote for a vacuum. One should never vote for a vacuum, for something that means nothing. The record that my noble friend played is getting very frayed at the edges. The concept that some people appear to hold—they anchor themselves to it; they have nothing else to grasp—is that the Russians, when they speak of détente, mean what they say. All that the term "détente" in the Russian language means is balanced forces, by which we interpret that both sides should have the same number of men in the forces—or women for that matter—with the same number of tanks and the same number of missiles, et cetera. Is there anybody who really believes that that is a practical idea that could ever be implemented? The Russians are taking jolly good care that it never will, despite all that the United States can produce or NATO can produce or the rest of our allies in co-operation with us can produce. Let us dismiss it; it simply will not work.
Of course, it is a delightful, idealistic concept, the idea of peace in this world, this crazy anguished world. Of course, in theory I plead affirmative, but in practice and implementation, negative. I only wish it were so; I wish I could speak as my noble friend Lord Brockway can, as my noble friend the Reverend Donald Soper speaks, or perhaps my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, who I understand is to make his maiden speech today. They have pleaded for disarmament and balanced forces whenever there was the need for defence, for as long as one can remember. That it has failed is not due to anything they have done; it has failed in spite of them. That is that.
Every country in this world, civilised and uncivilised—and, unfortunately, there are far too many of them still uncivilised, in behaviour, in ideas, in practice—must have defence, however small; they must have defence. If we are to have defence—and let this be clearly understood—it should be adequate, or let us not have any at all. Let us not have a military nonsense. Of course, one does not mean by that that we must always strive to have as many men as those available to the Warsaw Pact, or as many tanks or missiles and the like. But, at any rate, we must be strong enough, even if we never have to go to war—and I hope we never have to go to war—to deter the other fellow from going to war. This is essential.
After all, what does the Warsaw Pact understand? What is their language? It is the language of force, of military strength. Perhaps it could have been otherwise if in 1917 Lenin and company, instead of embarking on such military adventures as we have seen and experienced over the years, had embarked on industrial development. They could have conquered the world, as indeed China may do, with its vast manpower and potential. But we have to face what exists; we have this disparity.
I have not entirely disposed of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, but of his Amendment—I do not want to dispose of him personally, but his Amendment seems to me to be a vacuum, outmoded, outdated; the record has been played out. Now I come to Lord Carrington. I must confess I was not amazed, not even
1638
amused, but interested, if that is the right term, when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said he was entirely on the Government's side in connection with the 12-month rule. That is something. Let it be clearly understood in the country that the Leader of the Opposition, no doubt speaking for those behind him and his supporters in the country, is in favour of the Government's economic policy, maintenance of the 12-month rule. "Oh, no, whether it is the soldiers or the firemen or anybody else, we must maintain the 12-month rule". That is something.
So the condemnation of the Government which is implicit in the Motion before the House, submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is split into two parts; it condemns the Government because of the cuts but praises the Government for the maintenance of the 12-month rule. So the poor men in the Forces, now having to shoulder these responsibilities, for which there was no contract, no undertaking, when they became recruits, or at any other time—oh, yes, to come to the aid of the police if there was disorder, but not when there were fires or anything of that kind—are to get nothing until April next. Meantime, they suffer all the inconveniences created by another section who have actually gone on strike and will not accept the 12-month rule. There is a situation. How contradictory, how anomalous it is I am really surprised that perhaps one of the cleverest politicians in this country, one of the most professional, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, ventured an argument of that kind.
So let us dispose of the 12-month rule and let us do something for the soldiers. And why now? What guarantee have we that in April anything will be done? Now is the time to do something. Now is the time for the soldiers to get something. Now is the time, if they are not going to get 12 per cent. in cash, to give them, at any rate, some improvement in conditions, some reduction in the rent of married quarters, perhaps not having to pay for accommodation to the extent that they do or for the food that they get. Indeed, the amount required to restore the cuts the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, wants restored could be utilised for the purpose of providing some benefits and improvements for the men in the Forces. That is the purpose of my Amendment.
If one looks at the various Motions on the Order Paper one discovers that originally the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did not think of the soldiers and others—or he omitted to mention them. That was an afterthought. But in fact he has become a follower of mine. I put it down as an Amendment, and I add him as one of my few followers in the country because he has accepted it, and I want the House to accept it. I venture to go so far as to challenge anyone who opposes it, who says that we cannot do something for the soldiers, the airmen and the Navy who are helping to deal with the outbreaks of fire in the country and who says they have to wait until April because the Tory Party says they should. The Tory Party believes in the maintenance of the 12-month rule. This is an astonishing state of affairs.
We now come to another point. It is not for the Conservative Party to talk about cuts in defence. After all, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I also have been associated with defence—indeed for longer than anybody in this House. I became Financial Secretary to the War Office as long ago as 1929. Even before then, in the First World War, I was associated with the two Government Departments undertaking work which has hardly even been mentioned. Therefore, I know something about it. Before the First World War who was responsible for lack of preparation?—the Liberal Government. Who was responsible before the Second World War (and I bring to my aid Sir Winston Churchill) for the lack of preparation of the Conservative Government? Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Mr. Baldwin. There was no preparation; there were cuts and cuts and cuts. And not so long ago, when the question arose in another place about our auxiliary forces, the Territorials, and about creating reserves of that character, it was the Conservative Government that reduced the numbers. It is not for them to talk about cuts.
Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Of course he is right. I am against cuts in defence, not because I believe that a matter of £300 million would make all the difference in Brussels or in Bonn or in any other place on the Continent where NATO undertakes its operations. It requires
1640
more than that. A matter of £300 million is nothing. As a matter of fact, we are spending nearly £3,000 million a year on manpower in the Forces. Almost 50 per cent, of the total cost of defence goes in manpower. In the last 10 years, under the Labour Governments and a Conservative Government we have actually spent £57,000 million on defence, and what have we got at the end of it? We are still short of what we need.
In order to build up our defence to anything like that which the Warsaw Pact has undertaken we have to spend not another £200 million, £300 million or even £1,000 million, but many thousands of millions. We cannot do it. Therefore, in my Amendment I put what I thought was a practical proposition. Of course, if it is merely a question of condemning the Government, if it is a motion of censure, I understand it. If it is to be practical a politician keeps his options open and says, "We will not do it just now because we know we shall not get anything from the Government". You can pass the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, tonight by an overwhelming majority but it does not mean that next week the Government will restore the cuts. We shall have to wait for a favourable opportunity to come along. That is the purpose of my Amendment.
So I want the House, first, to vote for the restoration of the cuts and the provision of adequate defence as and when the country is in the position to undertake the task. Secondly, now is the time to provide some benefit for the men in the Forces for the work they are undertaking, for their marvellous and gallant services to the country.
Moved, as an Amendment to the resolution in the name of Lord Carrington, after ("more") to insert ("as and when our economic and financial circumstances improve; and meanwhile in view of the unusual and special services arising from the firemen's strike to compensate all ranks in Her Majesty's Forces within the guidelines laid down by Her Majesty's Government;")—(Lord Shinwell.)
4.5 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we have before us this afternoon a Motion by the

1641
noble Lord, Lord Carrington, calling upon the Government to restore the cuts in our defence expenditure planned for 1978–79; to honour their pledge to spend 3 per cent. more on our defence rather than less; and to improve the remuneration of the Armed Forces in April—it is not said by how much, but at least to raise the present pay level by that date. That is a suggestion which I believe is more or less accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell; at least it is not out of harmony with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, except that, as I understand it, his Amendment may perhaps be considered to be a breach of the pay code.
We also have an Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which strikes all this out and simply asks us—and I hope I shall not be considered by the noble Lord to be in any way cynical—pending some miracle, to contemplate an indefinite continuation of the obviously bogged-down negotiations for MBFR in Vienna, and to agree that Her Majesty's Government should make the most effective contribution to NATO within the prevailing financial limitations. My Lords, sharing the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I would regard all this as a kind of truism.
In spite of its unexceptionable wording we can, indeed, only take the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as being in effect a rejection of the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and hence as a concealed indication of a Governmental intention—or what he assumes to be a Governmental intention—to go back on their obligations. We shall therefore, if necessary, vote against it. We shall vote against it because, as we see it, our financial situation, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would admit, has improved since last May when the whole question of cuts was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. At that time, as your Lordships know, I said that Liberals had grave apprehensions regarding the proposed cuts for 1978–79 and would seek to have them abandoned, or at least reduced, if our economic situation should have taken a turn for the better, and it has taken a turn for the better. We shall also vote against it because the disparity between the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe has increased even further since last May and, whether we
1642
like it or not, is becoming a matter of real concern for all members of the Atlantic Alliance.
Besides, everybody knows—indeed nobody has denied—that, failing the construction of some new forward defensive system in the North German plain which could in theory be established over the years at less expense than is now being devoted to defence, the one hope of checking, without resort to nuclear weapons, any Soviet armoured thrust before it reaches the Rhine would be to bring our Armed Forces right up to strength by the mobilisation of our available reserves.
Everybody also knows that this process, vital as it is in default of the possibility of some kind of forward strategy which I have been suggesting for the last 10 years, will have only some chance of success if there is a warning period of at least a week. For, if it is less than that, then the reserves will never get there owing to the likely destruction of airfields and ports and, of course, the intervention of Soviet submarines. So, clearly, nothing whatever should be done to weaken our capacity for transporting our exiguous reserves with the utmost despatch, more especially since with the improvement in Soviet infrastructure and communications, the so-called "warning period" is getting shorter and shorter and may even, in the foreseeable future, be reduced to zero.
It is precisely here that the proposed cuts for 1978–79—corning on top of the three previous cuts—may have a deplorable, and even, I submit, a disastrous effect. I know that the exact nature of these further cuts has not yet been revealed—anyway that is what I understand—and that the assumption must be that, if they do take place, they will for a large part consist of yet further postponement of projected plans for essential equipment. But there must also be a temptation—at least a temptation—to economise on air and sea transport for the reserves, and even perhaps, God forbid, to weaken the TAVR itself. I only say that it may be a temptation, because I do not know what the cuts will be. But temptations are seldom resisted.
Be that as it may, what is really impossible to understand (at least I cannot understand it) is how the Government can

1643
decrease expenditure on defence by a considerable sum—£267 million has been mentioned, but I now understand it may be anything up to £300 million—and, at the same time, in accordance with their obligations, increase it by 3 per cent.; that is, by about £220 million. To do both would presumably result only in a cut of about—taking the higher figure —£70 million, and that, of course, would be a welcome relief in itself. But at the same time it would obviously be irreconcilable with our assurance to our allies, and notably with our assurance to the Americans. The two things cannot be reconciled.
What the reaction of Congress, and indeed of an otherwise friendly American Administration would be to such a proposal, still more what the reaction would be if the cuts are made and there is no increase in expenditure on balance, can safely be left to the imagination. Indeed, I think that the American Secretary for Defence, Mr. Brown, has been saying something on that subject recently in Brussels. But there will be many among our foreign friends who will say that the Left, or neutralist, Wing of the Labour Party, working behind the scenes, is doing its best not only to undermine the European Economic Community which, of course, it is, but also to undermine the whole Atlantic Alliance.
Therefore, if the cuts are proceeded with, we can only conclude that the Government are running fearful risks with their eyes open. What it seems to amount to is that, if the Government persist in maintaining the cuts, they will not only be repudiating an obligation essential to our safety but will, as it were, be doubly repudiating it. What we want them to do and what everybody who has the defence of this country at heart must want them to do, is not only to admit that our improved financial position now makes the proposed cuts for 1978–79 unnecessary, but also to explain to us in exactly what spheres the promised, and welcome, 3 per cent. increase in out total defence expenditure will take place. We shall also expect them to announce when they contemplate an increase in the pay of members of the Services, many of whose wives, if we may believe the Press, now enjoy a rather lower standard of living than those of some
1644
unemployed workers—an absurd paradox which simply must not be allowed to continue after next April.
I have said that for the reasons given we shall vote against the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if it is formally moved. Whether we vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—again if pressed to a vote—will largely depend on the attitude taken towards it by the Government when they wind up the debate. If we do vote for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I must point out that our vote must not be taken as a technical vote of censure against the Government, but rather as an expression of our own point of view.
In the debate last May I explained that we did not think it was the function of this House to pass votes of censure on the Government, at least in respect of measures with financial implications which had been approved in another place, seeing that clearly no such censure, if forthcoming, could have any positive effect, and would thus be a rather futile gesture. But it is certainly desirable that on any great issue—and this is a great issue—this House should be able at least to make its collective view known, and I have little doubt what its collective view on this issue will be. Perhaps even some Government supporters may be found to favour the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rather than the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. In any case, it looks as if at least one Government supporter will do so, if not more.
To resume, it surely must be clear to all that a Soviet preponderance of power—because that is what it really comes down to, even in the nuclear sphere—can be countered only by what is called a "credible" defence. In other words, it must be countered by a build-up of the conventional forces of the West sufficient, or deemed to be sufficient, to hold any conventional Soviet aggression by purely conventional means. Reliance on the first use of so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons, whether they be neutron bombs, "mini-nukes" or Cruise missiles or whatever—however essential these may be thought to be as deterrents, and however desirable an early debate on them and indeed on their strategic implications may be—will not prevent the American President, on whose willingness to press the

1645
button their use depends, from being placed in an increasingly terrible position. Yet, if we cannot build up our conventional forces, his position will become more and more terrible as time goes on. For, of course, if even a single mini-nuke is released, the chances that the nuclear war will escalate, or at least become general in Europe, are extremely high. Would Mr. Carter have, for instance, to obtain the prior consent of Congress? Might he not in any case be obliged, in the absence of strong conventional resistance, to delay any decision? After all, it might well be a matter of life and death for the United States.
The trouble is that the more the Government cheese-pare on defence the more such doubts as these arise. The time has passed when they can plead détente as a reason for not strengthening our conventional—and I repeat our conventional—forces, more especially as they can now do this without any evil economic consequences. As for actually weakening our forces, that is something which we can hardly imagine that
they will consciously agree to at the present time. That is why we are now eagerly awaiting any reassurance which may, perhaps, put our minds at rest.
4.19 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I reckon that we have been here before. We have often had a debate on defence spending, or defence cuts as they have turned out to be, and it is not the slightest good. It is always too late. On this occasion I hope that it will be in time. I shall emphasise only two points, so will be short. Others will give their views on pay, which has rightly been included in Lord Carrington's Motion, and I will not.
My two reasons for speaking are both strategic: First, the effect of the cuts and, secondly, the importance of increasing our defence spending by an annual 3 per cent. in real terms. On the effects of the cuts, the £267 million may, or may not, be absolutely right, but it is merely a succession of cuts by the Labour Government. The only exception to this rule involved the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, himself when he restored, so far as the Army is concerned, four battalions. I cannot remember this, I think he also kept the "Ark Royal" going. I shall turn it up if necessary.
1646
I have often pointed out that health and education and transport, and the pouring of money—our money, incidentally—into the nationalised industries is less important than defence. I have often quoted the then President of the United States when he said:
"Defence spending provides no benefit except the most precious benefit of all, the freedom of our country".
To prove it, the United States spends 460 dollars per head, whereas we spend only 209 dollars. There I am quoting from the Defence Paper. The Cabinet is split on this. They have a very strong Left-Wing element which apparently can only be pacified when other elements give way.
In case it is thought that defence spending is a waste of resources, the all-Party Report of the Expenditure Committee (and I said there was going to be a lot of repetition to the House) said:
"We are bound to report to the House that we have come to the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the cuts has been, and is likely to be, increasingly felt not only by the Services support structure, itself important, but also by the frontline forces".
Forgive me for repeating that injunction, but I have a feeling that it is the answer. To take my arm, the Army, for example, one effect of the Expenditure Committee Report is that it will have fewer modern weapons than its allies. They went on to give examples. Apart from weakening the flanks of NATO, to which the Supreme Commander objected like anything, the chief strategic effect is automatically to bring nearer the nuclear threshold. Incidentally, the Royal Marines have to go to Norway in their pre-planned adventure in a civilian ship. I cannot imagine they will be very pleased about that. Because of the Warsaw Pact superiority the nuclear threshold is already near enough.
The annual increase of 3 per cent. applies to all allies of NATO and was originally President Carter's idea. It was immediately taken up by the Ministers at NATO on 18th May 1977, on which day they issued a communiqué in Brussels taking note of the power and flexibility of the Warsaw Pact forces and the need for NATO to improve its defensive capabilities. The Ministers then went on in an annexe called Ministerial Guidance to

1647
give Ministerial guidance. This was only in May this year. In this annexe they noted a Soviet expenditure of 11 per cent. to 13 per cent. of gross national product, and an annual increase of 5 per cent., which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
On the last occasion I spoke in your Lordships' House I was only able to quote the Supreme Commander, General Haig, but this time I am in a position to quote the communiqué. In case there is any doubt about it I am ready to quote from it. That said that the target to be aimed at by all the allies was an annual increase of 3 per cent., recognising that economic circumstances will affect what can be achieved. If NATO achieves the target of 3 per cent.—which I rather doubt—then we will be losing 2 per cent. in the future, let alone the past. NATO recognised this because it says in paragraph 4 of its communiqué that the disparity continues to widen. In spite of this widening, which they knew all about, the British received a letter from Dr. Luns. They only pledged their 3 per cent. in May; in September Dr. Luns felt it necessary to write a rather stiff letter to the Ministry of Defence, and got a complacent reply.
Thus, in pursuing our policy of flexible response we automatically bring the nuclear threshold closer. I suggest that this cannot be our policy. After all, what is NATO for? If it is for sufficient conventional forces—and I asked General Brown about this and I got the favourable reply "conventional"—to resist, do not forget that the force of example is very great in NATO. Whatever we do is likely to be followed by our allies. In other words, we have to pay at least an increase of 3 per cent. in order to live, because we are determined to live on.
The British public are, or ought to be, told what they are in for. It does not matter about our children, or even our grandchildren, but it matters very much in regard to our successors all over the country. If the effect is to bring forward nuclear day from D.14 to D.7, or even closer, surely that cannot be our aim. Surely it is worth spending a few hundred million pounds instead of having a new school or new hospital. Surely that is better.
1648
The reason the successive cuts have had no physical effect on NATO yet is that the Warsaw Pact forces, despite their superiority, have not yet attacked. I have two conclusions. As I said in May, the Russians are doing quite well in the Mediterranean and in East and West Africa without firing a shot. If we do not look out, they will do the same in Europe. Why make it easy for them? The chief reason I have for supporting the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is that this country keeps its pledges, and I hope that we will keep this one.
4.32 p.m.
Viscount ADDISON: My Lords, I very much welcome this opportunity to thank your Lordships individually and collectively for the very warm and friendly way in which I have been received here. I will not say "treated"; I have not been treated yet! I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for enabling us so kindly to laugh with him, and thereby to release some of the tension. I am aware that I stand here only because of the great achievements of my father, and of the fact that my dear brother died without a son to succeed him. I will try to earn the goodwill
which your Lordships have shown to me. I am also aware that it is not customary for Peers to speak on subjects about which they know little. I am not qualified to speak about the larger matters of defence finance, but I can speak from personal knowledge of the kind of effect this Motion may have on those who work in the Civil Service Departments on which the fighting Services depend.
Of the 30 years for which I survived in the Civil Service, 12 years, from 1951 to 1963, were spent in the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aviation, mostly in the establishment division and training branch, and I met and got to know a very wide cross-section of engineers, scientists, and technical staff of all kinds. I found out what made them tick, and how they related to the ordinary civil servants like myself. Much of my work was concerned with ensuring that those relations were good.
In the late 1950s a certain very senior, and I think very perspicacious, civil servant coined, or perhaps let slip, the phrase "soggy middle layer" to denote

1649
those middle management strata of the Civil Service, and particularly the upper levels of the executive class to which I belonged, and from which, as your Lordships will know, most of the training staff of the Civil Service are drawn. Following that, there were introduced what were called conference on the conduct of public business. They were called conferences because the Treasury rules provided that one got one's money back quicker if one went to a conference than one would if one went to a course. They were, in fact, courses, and I ran a large number of them. They may have had some good effect; there is no means of judging. But they led to one very important development; namely, the introduction of middle management courses, to which were brought members of the professional, engineering, and scientific staffs, and the technical staffs, along with the ordinary civil servants, in approximately equal proportions.
So there was a management course composed of about four quite different elements. It was fascinating to watch those people discovering that they were, in fact, all the same, and that the cloven hooves and horned tails which they had expected were not present. When we had succeeded in demonstrating to them that they were all really doing the same work but using different tools, and that their management skills were interchangeable, they showed a remarkable ability and liking for working together as a team.
When I left the Civil Service I went into what is called management education. Management education, like other modern pseudo-scientific disciplines, is apt to rediscover the wheel every decade or so, and it has recently discovered the importance of the team in management. This has been well known to the fighting Services almost certainly for centuries, and it is also well known to the Departments which support them.
What, in fact, I have learned from my management training experience has been that any group of people will work happily and successfully together if they have an objective which is clear and which they understand and agree upon; and that is the kind of situation which most likely exists in the fighting Services. I am trying to make the point that the fighting Services
1650
and the Civil Service Departments which support them have already a long tradition of good management and good training. I am sure they could do with much better management and much better training, but there is a great potential there. They are also Departments which contain within them research and development establishments of a very wide range, and the civil applications of whose work go far beyond the ordinary meaning of defence.
There is the other thing which civil servants soon learn; that is, that the better managed a particular branch, department or establishment is, the more it suffers from any finance cuts. What I wish to say particularly to your Lordships is that here there is a proposal to cut further money which will most affect parts of our Services and the Departments which support them much more acutely than might otherwise be the case with other Departments. These people not only deserve encouragement, they need it, and they are equipped to use it. My reason for supporting the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is that I think it would be disastrous if they were further discouraged.
4.38 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, on a masterly speech. It seemed to have every merit. First, it was short and to the point. Secondly, it was done entirely without notes, and it was most acceptably and beautifully delivered. Thirdly, it mirrored the fact that he comes from a very distinguished family, which has long given service to our country and to Parliament. The more we hear the noble Viscount the better it will be for this House.
I liked the noble Viscount's story about the Civil Service and the difference between a conference and a course. I had a similar experience in the Admiralty when I was Civil Lord there for five years. At that time the dirty term was "aircraft carrier", so it had to be called a "through-deck cruiser". We used to call it a "see-through cruiser", because I am sure that the Treasury saw through the bluff just as quickly as we did. Then cruisers of 6,000 tons had to be called destroyers, whatever their displacement. I do not

1651
know who this deceived, but at any rate we got it through the estimates. So the noble Viscount is not unique in quoting the odd meanderings and diversions we had to make in order to get business through.
My Lords, on the 12th May I moved an Amendment to the Government's Motion that we take note of their Defence White Paper; and, six months having gone by, I have a feeling that this is a follow-up Motion. That Amendment which I moved was accepted by the Government. I am not sure whether that was because their heart was behind the Amendment or whether it was because they had so little support on their Benches that evening, when there was not a single speaker from their Back-Benches. However, the poor outcome of that debate is that absolutely no action has resulted; and, meanwhile, the disparity between our own strength and the strength of the Warsaw Pact countries has grown wider and wider. That is why my noble friend has spoken so aptly on his Motion today.
I was in the House of Commons, on our Bench, to listen to (I think it was) the twelfth Budget which Mr. Healey had introduced, and I was pleased when he said at column 1349 [Official Report, Commons, 26/10/77]:
"Allowing for these decisions and the measures announced in the summer, public expenditure next year is being increased by £1 billion at 1977 Survey prices".
I had hoped that that would mean that at least a portion of that money would go to the defence of our country. My Lords, £475 million was to go to manpower training to reduce unemployment; and £400 million was to go to the construction industry, again to reduce unemployment in an industry which is sore beset. That was a strange apportionment, I think, because the last cuts, which we are discussing this evening, included a £53 million cut in defence works. It seems surprising to inject £400 million in the Budget while cutting £53 million at this time. Then, there was an extra £20 million to be given to overseas aid, a portion of which, £5 million, was to go to Mozambique. That seemed to many of us a strange interpretation of priorities, and not much help to our friends in that part of the world.
1652
My Lords, if money of this sort is available for such projects, surely now is the moment to say, "Yes, we can spend a bit more on defence". The Government do not lack funds for those things for which their Left Wing feel enthusiasm, whether it is nationalisation, semi-nationalisation or expenditure by the National Enterprise Board. Nearly £500 million has been spent by the National Enterprise Board; and £246 million has been promised to British Leyland—and no one is certain that that company is by any means out of its troubles—with further loans to support it and keep it going. This is all to help the unemployment situation. This week, we had Fairey Aviation being bought, despite the fact that other people wanted it. The National Enterprise Board paid another £20 million. Then, the British North Sea Oil Corporation is to spend £2,000 million in the next five years—an average of £400 million a year—to share the development costs in the North Sea, although the companies which are there are perfectly prepared to pay for it themselves. This is the price of dogma. There is always money for the Left-Wing sacred cows, but there never seem to be any money for improving our defence in the face of threats.
In speeches on the 12th May and on the 10th November, I appealed on patriotic grounds and I appealed on the need to support the NATO Alliance. Today, I want to add a further argument, and that is to help the unemployment situation. Why not place orders now for some warships? In view of the threat from the growing submarine fleet of the USSR, perhaps the most suitable might be frigates with a strong anti-submarine capability. If someone comes to our country from the Free World and wants to buy ships, they are quoted for delivery in four or five years' time. How much more likely are we to get an order if we are able to deliver almost from stock? The French and the Italian Governments do just this, and if no purchaser arrives then these ships add to the strength of the French Navy or the Italian Navy, and thereby to NATO. Surely this is a course the Government could reasonably adopt. My noble friend who opened this debate did just that when he was responsible. Why has this not been done again?

1653
Moreover, it would help not just the warship builders, it would help not just the shipyards. It would help the engineering industry, too; because, whereas for every one man who is employed in a shipyard building merchant ships there are two men employed in the engineering industry on the equipment for those ships, in the warships sphere, for every one man in the shipyard there are five in the engineering industry to equip and fit those ships. So, to adopt such a course would be of tremendous help, and both those industries, engineering and shipbuilding, are in sore need of some help. Is this not a very much better investment than the £115 million which is being given (with, I believe, £50 million of subsidies) to build ships for Poland? They are merchant ships which will be in competition for world trade, and in violent competition with our own merchant fleet. Does it not seem more logical, in the present state of our defences, to spend money on building warships?
I should have liked to develop the case, which others have already mentioned, for extra provision in pay for our Armed Forces, but I have no doubt that other noble Lords will develop that case. However, I must just point to one extraordinary anomaly. Recently we had a strike of the assistant air-traffic control officers, and I was looking at the figures involved. I find that a flight-lieutenant with extensive experience is paid £5,500 a year. A civilian air-traffic controller, alongside him in the same room, is paid £8,500 a year. Surely this disparity, which can be quoted in almost any sphere of our Armed Forces, has grown too wide to be sensible, to be logical and to make sure that we get the best men serving in our forces.
On the 12th May the Lord Privy Seal and the Chief Whip of the Government Benches accepted our Amendment, but they did not take action. This time, I understand, they have a three-line whip; and if, by the combined support of Conservatives, Liberals, Cross-Benchers and, it may be, several Labour Peers, too, this Motion moved by my noble friend is carried, I hope that the Government will accept it and will implement the action proposed. I remember watching television and listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, when she staunchly supported the work being done by this
1654
House. I am afraid she did not carry the day at the Brighton Labour Party conference, but, anyhow, she spoke up with great vigour, telling of all the good things we have done here. Nothing is more important than to accept the democratic decision of this House, particularly when it is widely supported. I hope the noble Baroness will do that, and that the Lord Privy Seal, when he comes to answer, will say that he is prepared to accept at least some of the points in this Motion. We want them all accepted, and if he does not accept them all then we shall, I hope, record a vote in support of an expansion.
By implementing this Motion the Government would accept what Lord Carver said in July 1976, that our forces are down to bedrock; and, as Lord Gladwyn has said, a lot has happened to strengthen the armed forces of the Warsaw Pact countries since then. Just about a year ago the Chiefs of Staff—and this is not usual—demanded to seethe Prime Minister of the day, to say that the defence cuts had become so serious that he must stop any further cuts and try to restore, as early as possible, the correct position. I think we could not complain about our allies in NATO: they have been understanding, they have been tolerant and they have been extremely patient about our difficulties. They have been waiting for Britain to pull her weight. Let this Government show by their actions that they reject the pressure of the Left-Wing of their Party and that they accept the argument of their military advisers and the vast majority of the citizens of this country, and let them now start spending more on defence. Nothing could give our allies in NATO more encouragement and show more convincingly that we had turned the corner.
4.50 p.m.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I crave indulgence for a second maiden speech in this Palace of Westminster. My first was in another place nearly half a century ago, in November 1929. Coming back to Parliament after a long time away, I am forcibly reminded of the Press conference given by the late Lord Attlee on his 80th birthday. A bright young spark among the newsmen asked him, "Lord Attlee, tell us, what does it feel

1655
like to be 80?" In a flash, Lord Attlee answered, "When I think of the alternative, it feels wonderful." It feels wonderful for me to come back to Parliament to debate the affairs of Britain and the world with men and women of wisdom, knowledge and experience. I express my gratitude for the privilege that is mine.
When I first read the Motion on the Order Paper—a Motion moved, if I may say so without impertinence, with such high personal authority and with what I found to be such magnetic charm, by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—I felt that the first thing that I must say was that I had never been a unilateral disarmer. Year after year, I have argued at our Party conferences that unilateral gestures will not promote the cause that we all desire; that only world disarmament—multilateral disarmament—can give the nations ordered peace. But, when I contemplate the appalling burden of our defence expenditure today, I am bound to add that I fear for the whole system of our social services of which we are so proud and I ask myself whether, for the long, future greatness of our nation, the cuts in education are not really worse than any cuts we may make now in defence.
My Lords, looking at the Motion, I feel that many people of little sophistication outside Parliament may feel that any increase in our expenditure on arms will strengthen our national defence. On that proposition, I hope I may, without controversy, offer three reflections. First, it was President John Kennedy who said that, in a spiralling arms race, a nation's security may grow less even as its armaments increase. He had good reason to say it. In 1940, Adolf Hitler, with bitter chagrin, said that the United States were invulnerable to attack from any quarter by any enemy however strong. Today, in the 1970s,
"Every citizen of the United States"—
and these words are not mine; I quote Dr. Albert York, who was for years the Chief Secretary of State in the Pentagon—
"knows that his nation can be destroyed in half an hour and that there is nothing—repeat nothing—that he can do about it".
When the Americans began to build up their stocks, the Russians had no nuclear weapons; they had no missiles. But today
1656
the safety of the people of the United States depends upon the whim, the sanity, the misinformation, of a Kremlin potentate. That is how the arms race works.
Secondly, the modern weapons are not weapons of defence; they are weapons of attack, of offence, of, if you like, unprovoked aggression. Against them, there is no known and no probable system of defence. That is true of the nuclears, it is true of the nerve gases, it is true of the biologicals, it is true of the radiologicals, of which the first is the neutron bomb. There is no defence. Those weapons, with great respect, may be essential but they do not help to save our people from dangers of war except in so far as you believe in the doubtful doctrine of deterrence; and they may be a grievous menace to our nation and to the world.
Thirdly, in an arms race, it is not only what you do that matters but also what your potential enemy may do. NATO may increase by 3 per cent; the Russians may reply with 6 per cent. That is very likely and we take a dangerous gamble if we believe that we can certainly outspend them. Therefore, I conclude that, in an arms race, the only rational, realistic policy is to end it—to end it by both sides giving up the armaments which bred the fear and the distrust in which the race began.
I am sure that by now, some of your Lordships are saying to themselves, although they are too courteous to say it aloud: "How can this man go on repeating the foolish things he said when he was young? Cannot he see that the whole of history since then has proved him wrong? Is he blind to the realities of our imperfect world today?" If I may, I will use this opportunity—to me a significant one—to say why I go on repeating now what I said when I was young, and what David Lloyd George said in the debate when I made my first maiden speech. He predicted, as, later in the debate, did another great man, Arthur Henderson, that, unless the League of Nations could make the policy of world disarmament succeed, there would inevitably be a second world war and that war would break up the British Empire.
My Lords, why do I go on saying the things which Lloyd George and Arthur Henderson said then and which I have

1657
tried to support throughout my life? It is, first, because I feel with deep conviction that history since then has proved not that Lloyd George and Arthur Henderson were wrong but that the warnings which they gave were right and that the principles which they stood for then apply even more strongly today. I say it; and I go on saying these things because, on his death bed, Albert Einstein repeated what Edward Grey, Lord Grey of Falloden, said fifty years ago:
"The nations must disarm or perish".
Albert Einstein was in anguish when he died because he feared that, by helping to release atomic energy, he had prepared the suicide of man. I say it and go on repeating it because President Eisenhower—surely an authority on armaments and war—said that war today is an anachronism. He said that the risks of disarmament are as nothing to the risks of not disarming, of sitting on your hands. He said that we must take every care that the military industrial complex—the vested interests—did not prevent the world disarmament that we ought to have.
I go on repeating it because Eisenhower's chief scientific adviser, Isidor Rabi—one of the greatest weapons experts in the world—said that the facts of nuclear war just had not penetrated. That, said Rabi, goes for the heads of governments. Otherwise, they would ponder those facts every day as their number one daily problem. I go on repeating it because I am convinced that, if men of faith had not built up the League of Nations and the United Nations, had not worked for world disarmament, had not solved—as they have solved—the technical problems which disarmament involves, if these men had not laboured, we should face the future today with little hope that we could escape a nuclear doom.
It is very easy to be pessimistic in 1977, and to say with that English poet:
"Behind us lies the thousands and the thousands and the thousands years;
Vexed and terrible, and still we use the cures that never cure".
It is easy to share his pessimism; but, faced with nuclear doom, defeatism is the deadly unforgiven sin.
On the house where I live in London there is a blue plaque which bears the legend:
1658
"Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, creator of the League of Nations, lived here".
Lord Cecil was for more than 30 years a Member of your Lordships' House. It was the most precious privilege of my life to work for him from the end of the First World War until he died. In 1941, when the League had broken down, when his lifework seemed in ruins, when there was war in every continent and Hitler's bombs were falling round his London and Sussex homes, Lord Cecil wrote a book, A Great Experiment, to defend the League. On the title page of the copy that he gave me he wrote the words, "Le jour viendra".
Standing here within a yard of the place where Lord Cecil stood so often when he addressed your Lordships' House, I say with deep conviction that hope is not dead: morality has not perished from the hearts and minds of men. Reason can still triumph over violence; law can still rule all men and nations as it rules us in Britain. Standing here within a yard of where Lord Cecil stood so often, I say with deep conviction, "Le jour viendra"— the day will come.
5.5 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, it is my privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, and to be the first to congratulate him on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. Shortly before I came into the Chamber, I went to the reference books to remind myself of a point in his distinguished career of service to this country. I could not help feeling, as I read of his long career, that the ordeal through which he has just come cannot have been as awful as it was for the rest of us in making our maiden speeches. His great experience and wisdom on so many and varied subjects will add very much to the conduct of our work in this House. We hope that we shall enjoy his speeches on many more occasions. We have enjoyed his wise and charming speech very much this afternoon. I should also like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, on his maiden speech.
Turning to the subject of the debate, I wish to begin by saying that I strongly support the contention that the successive and continuous round of cuts which this Government has inflicted on our defence

1659
expenditure has gone too far and is now making serious inroads into the capabilities of our Armed Forces. These cuts have brought us to the position that our contribution to NATO in real terms now lags behind at least six of our immediate allies and neighbours. The battlefield capability of the British Army of the Rhine is impaired by shortcomings and, in some cases, it lacks an essential modern weapons system. At the same time there is grave disquiet among all ranks in all three Services that the Armed Services Pay Review Body has not successfully represented their best interests; they are all convinced that they are at the tail end of the pay cycle, and that the so-called military salary is fast falling behind the wages and other privileges of their counterparts in civilian life.
But in my opinion by far the most serious effect on this continuous round of reductions in defence expenditure is overstretch. It is that which I wish to emphasise this afternoon. Overstretch affects the everyday lives of not only the Servicemen themselves but their families as well, to an extent which it is hard for us to appreciate. With fewer men doing the same number of tasks, it means longer hours of work, more weekends on duty, and for the married men it means more frequent separations and turbulence in their lives. Leave rosters get cancelled, and planned holidays with families are more difficult to arrange.
I want to give a number of examples of overstretch, and I am using the Army as my example because naturally I have more experience in that arm. Under the cuts already announced, the total establishment
of certain units are each to be reduced by between 30 and 50 men according to the role of the unit. This will merely aggravate the existing overstretch that I have mentioned as even fewer men will have to do the same work. In addition to training and the normal life of the battalion, such as vehicle maintenance and other tasks, battalions will still be required to go to Belize on operations, or to Bermuda, and they will still be required to carry out a variety of civilian emergency tasks which are too well-known for me to list today.
Another example of overstretch occurred within the British Army of the Rhine. It was decided to abolish all brigade
1660
headquarters and to require divisional headquarters to command on manoeuvres a greater number of out-stations. Naturally, that would save a large number of staff officers and other staff. But, as reported in The Times yesterday, this restructuring experiment has failed and the British Army of the Rhine now needs a further 2,500 men in order to carry out its rôle properly. In all probability, it will not get these extra men; they will have to be found by extracting individuals from other battalions and regiments serving in the British Army of the Rhine. This, again, will still further aggravate the overstretch.
My final example, which I must admit is an unexpected one—but a soldier learns that the unexpected always happens—we read in this morning's papers that newly-joined recruits are being sent home because the instructors are too busy fighting fires to deal with them. That is fair enough. But what about those instructors when the strike is over and they have an enormous backlog of training to face? What are their prospects of leave? My Lords, you may think that leave is a frivolous subject, but I would ask you to remember that most civilians can expect every weekend off, whereas the average soldier nowadays can only expect two weekends in a month.
I have not mentioned Northern Ireland, but the situation there, certainly after six years, cannot be termed unexpected. It causes considerable overstretch, especially in the British Army of the Rhine, from which many units are drawn for service. Because of this overstretch—I have given only four examples, but there are many more I could give—it is not surprising that a serving officer, writing to The Times on 24th November, had this to say about the state of the Army:
"Morale is low, and if pay and conditions continue to deteriorate the numbers applying to leave may reach stampede proportions".
Since that letter appeared, I have talked to a number of commanding officers and other serving officers. As a result of those conversations, I am not prepared to accept that morale is low—because that would be a very serious matter indeed. Our Army is far too loyal and dedicated for that; but we must not take advantage of that loyalty in any way, which, in my opinion, we are now doing.

1661
I am convinced that there is a widespread anxiety and even dismay amongst all ranks at the treatment they are receiving. I am further convinced that unless Her Majesty's Government take some action now as a matter of urgency, many valuable trained and experienced officers and non-commissioned officers will protest by the only means available to them. As one commanding officer put it to me:
"They will protest with their feet and go by retiring early or purchasing their discharge".
There is no doubt, in my opinion, that commanding officers with responsibility for holding their units together as efficient, effective and happy units are now gravely worried at the prospect of losing their best and most highly-trained men.
One commanding officer to whom I spoke told me that he feared the exodus had already begun. In his regiment, during the next six months eight officers, five of them married and all between the ages of 30 and 40, are retiring because they can find better prospects outside. These men are captains and majors with not less than 10 years' service, and although the numbers may appear to be small, the loss of eight experienced, middle-piece officers in one regiment will make a serious gap which it will be very hard to fill.
I have no reason to believe that this regiment is in any way exceptional. In the same regiment, in the first 10 months of this year 50 soldiers have purchased their discharge from the Army and 14 of those 50 gave a variety of reasons for doing so, such as "domestic" or "compassionate" reasons. Thirty-six gave as their reason dissatisfaction with the pay and conditions in the Army and said that they could find better opportunities outside. All were trained and qualified personnel which this regiment could ill-afford to lose. Incidentally, by "better opportunities" they mean not only better opportunities for employment or an alternative career, but better opportunities in civilian life to earn all those privileges and "perks" which are not normally available to Servicemen and which can be gained in civilian life, but which are not included in the Government's 10 per cent. pay policy.
What do I mean by that? I mean the privilege of having every weekend free, which most people have; I mean time off
1662
to "moonlight"; I mean the ability to earn overtime, in some cases after 40 hours' work per week, and, of course, the ability to earn double overtime at weekends and holiday periods. I doubt whether any soldier serving today in the Army does less than 55 hours a week on duty. I also mean bonus payments for the completion of a task or for other reasons, which some workers get; I mean special mortgage facilities for home buyers which some employers—including, incidentally, the Fire Service—give to their employees; I mean discount arrangements in certain shops, and so on.
At the other end of the scale, quite rightly, under the Donaldson Report a young soldier who commits himself to an engagement in the Army before he is 18 years old has the privilege, on reaching his 18th birthday, of reducing the length of his engagement. In this same regiment which I have used to give examples, the numbers reducing their engagements in the last three months have doubled.
Therefore, to conclude, I wish most strongly to support the Motion of my noble friend and leader, Lord Carrington, because I think it is imperative for Her Majesty's Government to cancel the defence cuts—and whether the amount involved is £250 million or £300 million, I am not going to argue—in order to restore our correct contribution to NATO and to have that in its rightful place; and also to alleviate the overstretch I have described. I would not be prepared to support the two Amendments which have been put forward because, in my opinion, they dilute the urgency and the effect of the Motion we are debating today.
5.19 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, we have heard today two impressive maiden speeches, one from the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the other from my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, who made a very moving speech which held the attention of the House from beginning to end. I hope we shall hear from both of them often in the future.
I wish to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Shepherd and therefore to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I think it

1663
is harder to assess the military balance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact than many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, seem to think. There are a variety of reasons for that, but for brevity's sake I shall concentrate on the one which I think is the most important. It is this: we are often too pessimistic about the balance of forces, because we look at the problem solely from our own point of view. We should also attempt to look at it from the point of view of the Soviet Union.
The noble Viscount said that no one can look into the Soviet mind. That is perfectly true, but there are some things that one can say about the difficulties which the Soviet Union faces which we often overlook. I am sure that the same sort of arguments prevail in the Kremlin about the balance of forces and about the balance of expenditure between defence and other objectives such as we have in this country. The only difference is that ours are public and theirs are private. But it is quite obvious that they must have many difficult problems in settling this very balance. But that is not the main point that I want to make.
It seems to me that the Soviet Union has two great problems which we do not have to face. The first is that it fears a war on two fronts. This is not true, I am glad to say, of NATO and ourselves. I am told that there are something like 40 Soviet divisions in the Far East, at the end of very long and difficult lines of communication, and the large forces there must be very expensive to maintain and rotate. This must weaken the Soviet Union in the West, too. Even if the Soviet forces in the West have not been directly reduced, those forces in the Far East must come from somewhere, and presumably they come from some central reserve and are therefore no longer available to the same extent as they were before for use in the West.
The second weakness of the Soviet Union, which has not been mentioned, is that it cannot confidently rely on its Warsaw Pact partners. In the case of a conventional war, Russian lines of communication through those countries would be rather precarious. The Soviet Union cannot ignore the possibility that
1664
it may have to divert forces to safeguard its lines of communication, and if it has those thoughts it is already setting such forces aside. Even the fighting forces of the Warsaw Pact countries are not entirely reliable from the Russian point of view. Therefore, we cannot assess the military strength of the Warsaw Pact by simply adding together the strength of the Soviet forces and the strength of the Warsaw Pact forces. In fact, to some extent one may have to do some subtractions in order to get a proper sum.
Despite the confrontation between ourselves and NATO on our side, and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact on the other, the two sides have certain interests in common. Certainly they want to avoid nuclear war—that is a common and mutual interest—because it would destroy both of them. Therefore, they really have to avoid any war, because any war could very easily escalate into a nuclear war. Furthermore, they both have the interest of trying to save military expenditure because they want to spend money on other things. One way of achieving these mutual aims is the proposal of my noble friend Lord Shepherd for balanced force reduction talks to continue, and in the end, to succeed.
It is, of course, very difficult to bring these talks to a successful conclusion, because we need differential reductions. The Soviet Union has bigger forces in the West than we have, and therefore to get a balanced reduction there must be bigger reductions in the Soviet forces than in ours. Of course, it is very difficult to persuade the Russians of this. They want to make a very simple percentage reduction of forces on both sides, so that their superiority will remain all the time. But I do not think it is right to dismiss this proposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did, in a few phrases.
We must go on trying to get this agreement on balanced force reductions, even if it takes us a great many years to get it. It is the best hope of progress towards a proper kind of détente, and the best hope of reducing military expenditure; and although many noble Lords want to increase military expenditure at the moment—and I somewhat agree with them—it must be our great aim to reduce military expenditure by reducing the risks on both sides. Meantime, while we

1665
must continue to support NATO adequately and try to build up the forces of NATO, we should avoid some of the over-pitched and exaggerated assessments of the military balance between East and West that we have heard in some quarters today. The first necessity, it seems to me, is to make as sober and as accurate an assessment as we possibly can of the military balance between the West and the Warsaw Pact.
5.25 p.m.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, I wish to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Carrington. The first and overriding duty of any Government is to provide security against external attack. I emphasise the word "overriding", because defence must without question be accorded the highest priority in any plans for public expenditure. As the Secretary-General of NATO emphasised recently:
"There must be no direct correlation between defence and temporary fluctuations in the state of our economies. If our defence is to be credible there must",
said Dr. Luns,
"be a genuine balance in military strength between NATO and the Warsaw Pact".
Instead of this balance, the disparity between the two sides is staggering and is increasing all the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, explained that the Soviet Union, unhappily, had also to deploy forces in the Far East, and therefore could not concentrate all its strength against us. I quite agree with him that, in estimating relative strength, it is unrealistic—and I do not think that it is being done—to count up all the Soviet forces all over the world, including the forces which they have in the Far East on the Chinese border. Therefore, I shall refer only to the Central Front.
On the critical Central Front the Warsaw Pact has twice as many divisions as NATO, three times as many tanks and six times as many guns. In the last five years, Soviet ground forces have increased by about 100,000 men and in the last two years the number of their fighter bombers has trebled. A report to the United States Senate estimates that, thanks to their incomparably higher state of readiness, the Soviet forces might well be able to reach the Rhine before the NATO
1666
Powers could make up their minds whether or not they would use tactical nuclear weapons. On top of all this, the recent interventions of the Soviet Union in disputes in different parts of Africa clearly indicate their intention to establish a military presence in the African continent which, in the event of war in Europe, could most seriously threaten our vital sea communications.
Against this grave background, we surely have the inescapable obligation to bear our fair and full share of NATO's essential requirements. Moreover, we are concerned not only with our duty to our NATO allies. We are also concerned with our duty to our own British Servicemen. They must be properly paid and properly equipped. Pay has fallen seriously behind the level of average industrial earnings. At the same time, the extent of the Government's cuts in defence expenditure has reached the point where, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, our front line Forces are being deprived of essential modern equipment. This cannot be excused or justified.
In his Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, refers to:
"negotiations for … force reductions".
Of course, we can all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, in his moving maiden speech today, that we must strive by every means in our power to achieve the ultimate aim of general disarmament. The present arms race involves a monstrous and absurd waste of human resources. But, whether it be at Helsinki, Belgrade or anywhere else, we have no hope whatsoever of persuading the Soviet Union to agree to general disarmament, so long as we are negotiating from a position of weakness. The best contribution which we and our allies can make to the establishment of permanent peace and general disarmament is to demonstrate our preparedness for war and to show beyond doubt our will and our ability to protect the freedom and independence of our peoples.
5.32 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord aright, his priority is defence, first and foremost. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to tell the House at what stage in

1667
his approach to the problem he changed his mind. I suffer, unfortunately, from a memory which is perhaps not so patchy as that of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I remember the lot. I remember, of course, when he was Minister of Defence. I have been reading his 1957 White Paper.
Whether noble Lords like it or not, what they are debating today is not exclusively the shortcomings and failures of the present Government to do certain things or the fact that they are doing things which are wrong. Today we are discussing the defence policy of this country as it has evolved over the last 20 years. Not a single Member of this House who makes a serious claim to have studied the subject will deny that there are no short-term policies in relation to defence. Defence is essentially a long-term question, one of decades.
Before I deal in detail with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, may I say that I have looked at the Benches opposite. I do not want to upset the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the Government will be beaten tonight in the Lobbies, because the backwoodsmen have arrived. A Motion of censure on a subject so emotional as defence must be seriously regarded. One face, however, is missing. I have looked to see whether one of the most distinguished Ministers of Defence of all periods is present. I mean Lord Head. I fought with him often, but also I shared objectives with him. The noble Viscount, Lord Head, refused to introduce the 1957 White Paper because he, as an honourable man, knew that this country ought not to be left so weak as it would be over a period of many years, as has most certainly happened as a result of the Defence White Paper.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that I am a dishonourable man?
Lord WIGG: No, my Lords, on the contrary. All I am saying is that if the cap fits, wear it. I am saying that the noble Lord has come to this House today and has said that the top priority is defence, exclusive of other considerations.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, I did not say that the top priority is
1668
defence, exclusive of all other considerations.
Lord WIGG: Then, my Lords, my hearing must be a little bad. The noble Lord stressed that the priority was defence.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: Yes, my Lords.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in paragraph 6 of the 1957 White Paper the noble Lord said that it was therefore in the true interests of defence that the claims of military expenditure should be considered in conjunction, to maintain the country's financial and economic strength. This is exactly what the Government have been doing. But that is not all that the noble Lord did; he abolished conscription.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: Quite rightly, my Lords.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the noble Lord did not break down the overall number; he left that for two years. What he did was to introduce and set a target for the Army—not the Army's needs, nor the 185,000 which was the minimum. The target, as it was revealed the following year, was 165,000. The 165,000 target was not what this country required to avoid overstretch, or in order to fulfil its commitments; this was the number that the noble Lord's actuaries told him he might be able to recruit. And what were we going to do? We were going to save money. What was the gross domestic product percentage when the noble Lord was Minister of Defence? It was 8·7 per cent. It is now 5·7 per cent. The noble Lord was going to save money because he intended to depend upon an atomic deterrent, Blue Streak. This was one of the lame ducks. All we got was the bill for Blue Streak. Then it was to be Skybolt; but the Americans scuppered it, so Skybolt was cancelled. Then we had—what? We had Polaris, a year after the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, had said that Polaris was no good.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could turn this way because I want to hear him.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. A year after the

1669
noble Lord said that it was no good, we had Polaris. Now we have four of them, armed with A.3s and targeted on American targets. When the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was Prime Minister he announced on 1st October 1963 that the Polaris, our great atomic deterrent, was targeted in accordance with the NATO plan.
Now may I turn to the commitment—
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord is getting his facts wrong.
Lord WIGG:—on which the Government have reneged. What was our NATO commitment? It was an undertaking given by the late Lord Avon, then Mr. Anthony Eden, who went to Paris and committed this country—the details are published in the White Paper—to maintain four divisions and the Second Tactical Air Force to the end of this century on the European land mass. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, in his 1957 White Paper, the British Army of the Rhine content was 64,000. We have never had 64,000 in the Rhine Army; the number was whittled down to 55,000. If noble Lords care to refresh their memories, may I ask them to read page 601 of Lord Moran's diary for 1st October 1954. I have referred to this on many occasions. Lord Moran went to see the Prime Minister because he wanted to speak to him about the great success of Eden—how he had been clapped on the back by Dulles, and how Mendes-France had shaken his hand. Britain had saved Europe. Four divisions were to be deployed on the European land mass. What did Sir Winston say? He said, "I don't believe a word of it. We can renounce the undertaking at any time we like. We do not intend to fulfil that obligation". And we never have fulfilled it from the day that the undertaking was given.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, I had no notice that this attack was going to be made upon me. I am a little surprised that if the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, intended to make this detailed and profound attack upon me—the same attack which he made 20 years ago in the House of Commons and which he is repeating here today—he should have changed the order of speakers on the list of speakers in order to speak after, and
1670
not before me, thereby denying me the opportunity to reply, as I could, to many of the points which he has made.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am sorry, but I am not making an attack upon the noble Lord. The undertaking that was given to maintain four divisions on the European land mass was made not by the noble Lord; it was made by Lord Avon. This is a speech which I have made many times before. I changed the order of speaking for very good reasons which I explained to our Chief Whip. Whether I have spoken before or after the noble Lord, I am saying what is on the record. That is not an attack; it is merely recalling to your Lordships' minds facts which have been established over and over again.
I would vote for the Opposition Amendment on one condition: on the only condition upon which it can be fulfilled. We cannot fulfil the commitment to NATO, we cannot avoid overstretch, we cannot have the Armed Forces we want unless we have conscription because once we abandon concription we abandon any possibility of maintaining our Forces within a sum which will enable us to pay them properly and to equip them properly. If this is an attack, please forgive me, because if I really started to al tack I should certainly give notice and I should have something to say.
What has happened is that the noble Lord did something that Lord Head would not do: he introduced the 1957 White Paper. This country and both Houses of Parliament are lumbered with the consequences of that White Paper. The bill for defence since the end of the war is no less than £71,000 million. We boast about what the oil revenue will be in 1985: it will not equal the cost of defence and certainly if the price we had to pay for our freedom was that, I would face it; but that is not so, because our strategy is wrong. We have neither the economic nor the military strength to sustain the obligations on which we have entered. That is why successive Conservative Governments followed by Labour Governments have reneged on the commitment to keep four divisions on the European land mass.
The first weakness is that we cannot provide the equipment. Why? Because

1671
only 37 per cent. is being spent on the equipment: the rest is going on pay, allowances, non-effective pay, research and development, and so on. So the first thing is that we cannot equip, and then the second stage is—and it has happened in America as well—that we cannot afford to pay the Armed Forces what they ought to be paid. The noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, did not realise this. If you get rid of conscription you have to start bidding in the market place to get the specialists you want because you teach them trades and when they have learned their trades they can go outside and can get much higher rates of pay. But that is not all: whereas in the days when I was soldiering you could not get the marriage allowance before you were 26 if you were an other rank, and if you were an officer you could not get allowances until you were 30, now you can marry as soon as you like, you get allowances, you get a house, your children are educated and we reach the position where we have more women and children on the strength of the defence budget than there are soldiers, sailors and airmen in the Armed Forces. This is supposed to be a defence policy.
So if the Opposition want to do what they say, they must go out into the market place, to the hustings, and persuade their fellow countrymen. If they want to carry out their obligations, be they in defence of the civil powers, the provision of firemen, flying off to Bermuda or wherever it happens to be, supporting the civil power in Northern Ireland—if you want that, and you want to be able to keep four divisions on the European land mass, then you will reintroduce conscription. But the day you got rid of conscription any possibility of having any more than the bill vanished from the defence concept of this country. This is no Party point and I am attacking no individuals.
I honour Lord Head; I honour people like Fitzroy Maclean and Brian Harrison whose political careers were rubbed out because, although they were Tories, they had the guts to put their country before their Party. I have tried to do the same. I have always said that we must have conscription if we want to make a contribution to NATO within our capacity
1672
to pay. If we do not do it, then noble Lords on that side of the House who go into the Lobby in support of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are humbugs.
5. 46 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, it is always difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. With a great deal of what he said I find myself in complete agreement, but there are certain differences which I will not follow this evening. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for moving this Motion today and I apologise to him in his absence and to the House for being absent from the House for the first part of his speech. As I shall explain to the noble Lord privately, the circumstances were beyond my control. But his speech and the long list of other speakers today reflects the growing concern among thinking people in this country about the security of the Western world.
Perhaps I may here mention the two remarkable maiden speeches which we have heard today: that of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and I hope he will forgive me if I say especially that of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, one of the greatest figures in the history of the long struggle for disarmament; as one might have predicted he made a moving and distinguished maiden speech.
I shall not rehearse in detail the evidence of the increasing disparity between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. All these sombre facts and figures have been spelled out again and again by Western defence advisers, by those politicians who take the trouble to acquaint themselves of the facts, and of course in the Press, on radio and on television. They have been emphasised again today in speeches in your Lordships' House, notably in the distinguished contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, who speaks with great experience and authority on these matters; and I take it that no one is any longer in any doubt about the underlying assumption of this debate, namely, that the military strength of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is growing daily in almost every way, while that of the Western Alliance is, at the very best, static, and in some cases it is even deteriorating in absolute terms.

1673
But I should like to broaden the debate and to suggest that too often we tend to regard this great confrontation between international communism and the Free World as one with its focus completely in Western Europe. To a very great extent Western Europe relies for its security upon the massive deterrent strength of the United States of America. Even if this assumption were valid it is possible to argue that the strategy of NATO is no longer relevant to the new dimensions of the threat.
I do not for one moment criticise the quality of the troops who man the navies, armies and air forces of the Western Alliance, nor do I criticise the quality of their military leadership. Indeed, if some of the political leaders of the West had shown half the courage and perception of their military advisers we might not be in the perilous state we are in today. I believe it is a perilous state, because my contention is that NATO has allowed itself to be overtaken by changes in Soviet foreign and military policy and by the impact of technology on modern warfare. Furthermore, I contend that NATO has become debilitated by a tendency to regard such concepts as détente, mutual force reductions and other desirable long-term aims as a substitute for an effective and adequate military defence.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in moving his Amendment, challenged anyone to refute the validity of the negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions. I challenge them, and I challenge them on the grounds which were so ably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. They are simply these, that the mutual and balanced force reductions are based upon a logical fallacy. The Soviet Union is determined that any reductions shall be differential in their sense, not in ours, so that the reductions are balanced, leaving the Soviet Union with the immense superiority that it has now. Of course, it does not require a mathematical genius to show that if that argument is carried to its logical conclusion we shall end with NATO having no forces at all and the Soviet Union still with a very strong military capability. On the other hand, it is the firm intention of the Western Alliance that this shall not happen but that any reductions shall leave the two forces mutually balanced; in other words, that
1674
the reductions must be differential in the Western sense. It seems to me that there are two totally incompatible aims here, and whatever one may say, whatever pious hopes one may express about mutual and balanced force reductions, my own contention, from a not inconsiderable experience of disarmament negotiations, is that they are impossible to achieve, however hard we may try to achieve them.
If we allow ourselves to be preoccupied with this narrow concept of the confrontation in Western Europe, even if we accept that that is where the main confrontation is, I would advance the proposition that almost every single assumption upon which the conventional defence of Europe is based is now out of date and irrelevant. The present doctrine for the defence of Western Europe depends on totally unrealistic assumptions about the warning time that might be available before a military attack, in spite of the persistent warnings of our military advisers that the Soviet Union has now achieved what is called, in the military jargon, the capacity for attack without prior reinforcement. Translated into simple English that means a surprise attack. The Soviet Union now has, or is rapidly achieving, that capacity. Similarly, we make overoptimistic assumptions about the availability of reserve forces and equipment and the ability of NATO to deliver them to the theatre of operations in time to have any positive effect on the battle. This is a natural corollary of exaggerated assumptions about warning time.
We assume also, in that context, the ability of the United States to reinforce Western Europe by sea at a time when the massive and growing strength of the Soviet Navy has enabled the Russians, if not to dominate the Atlantic sea routes, at least to pose a very great threat to their security. More than one senior naval adviser in the Western Alliance has recently underlined with devastating clarity the simple fact that we cannot guarantee in time of war to keep open the sea lanes between the United States and Western Europe except at appalling and crippling cost. I believe that we are also making rash assumptions about the implications of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, in spite of the fact that, quite apart from what may be available from intelligence sources, there is incontrovertible published evidence that the Soviet Union does not

1675
subscribe to the concept of a tactical nuclear war in Europe fought according to some cosy and well-defined Queensberry Rules.
Given all these out of date assumptions, it seems to me not surprising that the current posture of NATO gives rise to some very considerable concern. The more obvious weaknesses have been well publicised. General Alexander Haig, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, has spoken of "strategic and tactical maldeployment". What he means by that is, quite simply, that in strategic terms the forces of NATO are where they are today because that is where they were when the war ended. Their disposition bears no relation to military defence at all. The strongest forces are where the point of attack is least likely to come, and where the attack is most likely to come our forces are weakest. By "tactical maldeployment" he means that the troops are in barracks some considerable distance from where they would have to fight. Even those who are closest to where their defensive areas would be would take hours to get there. In the extreme case of the Dutch troops, the Netherlands Corps of two divisions, all those two divisions, with the exception of one brigade, are in barracks in Holland, three days away from where they would have to fight the battle. Indeed, in the context of a surprise attack they need hardly bother to leave their barracks at all. There are other weaknesses too, which at this stage of the debate I will not go into. They have been publicised—difficulties of standardisation, inter-operability and so on.
I know that it will be said that this is an over-pessimistic view and that things are not as bad as I have painted them. Let me say at this stage that I believe that if there were an attack in Western Europe NATO forces would give a very good account of themselves. I have no doubt about that. But what I do say—and I hope that noble Lords will accept this—is that the trend is moving steadily against the West every day, and unless the countries of the West, and especially of Western Europe, are prepared to face this unpleasant fact and spend a little more—not only in the way of treasure but in the way of courage and imagination as well—then we shall before too long be in a position in which the Soviet Union will be
1676
able to achieve one of its principal foreign I policy aims, which is the isolation of Western Europe from America, its "Finlandisation" and then its subjugation without a single shot being fired. That is what we will have achieved if we bury our heads in the sand.
But I would go further, my Lords, in the short time left at my disposal, and say that even if we could get the defence position right in Western Europe, we would still be light-years away from understanding and meeting the long-term underlying threat to Western political systems and to the liberty of the people of the Free World. We must begin to realise that this is not a regional threat, this is a global threat; it is a threat which is posed across the whole spectrum of geopolitical strategy. It is a struggle of economies, of technology, of research and development, of intelligence, of subversion. It is a total global struggle. It is reflected in this, just to give one small example; that in the context of the growth of the Soviet Navy itself there has also been an astonishing growth in the strength of its merchant fleet, which is regarded by the Soviet Union, as in effect, a massive complex of logistical support for Soviet global strategy. It is reflected in the apparent ability of Soviet strategists, political theorists, and political activists for that matter, to pick off African and Asian countries one by one, and gradually to establish a stranglehold over the communications between the countries of the Free World and those which supply them with the resources and raw materials upon which their security and their very survival depends.
It is time, in my view, that the Free World adopted a global view of the policy which lies behind the threat of international Communism. As the American General, General Graham, has put it, and I could put it no better:
"The grand strategy of this adversary is every bit as totalitarian as its internal politics.".
He went on to say:
"All facets of international intercourse, political, economic, military and psychological, are being orchestrated by the Kremlin into a strategy designed to bring down the free institutions and Governments of the West".
Meanwhile, in the face of this relentless global threat, NATO remains, just to give an example of the contrast, solemnly

1677
bound to some convention that it may not operate South of an imaginary line of latitude drawn on a map of the world. This is one of the paradoxes which reflects the principal difference between the two great ideological groupings of the world. The Soviet Union and its allies are motivated by an almost messianic imperial ideology, while the West seems to be unable to summon up the vision or the political will to take those measures, which might in certain circumstances be both expensive and unpopular, to ensure that their institutions and their liberty survive.
Although it will be a provocative and unpopular thing to say, I believe it is time we recognised the community of interests which exists between NATO as it is at present constructed and such countries as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Iran, South Korea and South Africa. At once it will be pointed out that some of these countries have Governments whose internal policies we find repugnant. My answer to that is that, repugnant as they may be, none of them poses an immediate threat to our security, our liberty and our survival. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, whose internal regimes are as repugnant and oppressive as any in the world, do pose such a threat and if we want to survive we had better get some of our priorities right.
What is now needed is some kind of central political and strategic direction for all those countries of the world which share with us a determination not to be engulfed by Soviet imperialism. It is in this context that I wholeheartedly support the aims which lie behind the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. This country can play an important role in the Western Alliance and in the defence of the Free World if it has the courage and the will to do so. If it is going to do so, it must recognise the importance of strong defences furnished with modern weapons and manned by soldiers, sailors and airmen who are adequately paid and looked after as valuable and indispensable servants of the State—not as people whose interests can be ignored and whose loyalty can be taken for granted every time an economic crisis forces upon this Government or that a need for cuts in public expenditure.
1678
Just in case I should be accused of excessive pessimism and doomwatching—the usual criticisms levelled at this kind of analysis—I should like to end by saying that, in my view, the West and the Free World are potentially stronger, morally, materially and economically, and even potentially militarily stronger, than the forces which threaten our freedom and our very existence. The Free World is capable of defending itself successfully against any threat, external or internal, if only it will recognise the threat, combine against it and then have the courage to meet it at its own level with thoroughness and relentless determination. Britain, our country, should be in the vanguard of this struggle, not trailing along in the rear like a poor relation in the family of free nations, making pathetic noises of economic weakness, defeatism and appeasement.
6.3 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to support the Motion for two reasons: first, for the reason so ably expounded, that we should play a greater part in the Western Alliance. But I wish to try to prove that, in addition, the present reduced expenditure does not allow manpower and equipment that we do have to be used effectively and that there is therefore an unnecessary shortfall in cost efficiency through false economies; and to refer to two branches of the Services.
I should like first to mention the Territorial Volunteer Reserve. The majority of units have a direct reinforcement role on mobilisation to the extent of 30 per cent. of the BAOR NATO requirement. This commitment is met by a force which costs no more than 3 per cent. of the total defence budget. The TA is therefore a highly effective and very cheap reserve. However, the role of many of the BAOR battalions of the Territorial Army is based on company groups with tasks which involve wide dispersal. In many cases the battalions, already scaled down to the minimum, will lack the strength to cover their tasks adequately. Yet this shortfall could easily be made up by increasing the scale of the TA reinforcements, which would directly increase the defence capacity of BAOR at the least cost and without the conscription of which we were warned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg.
However, this would require a number of new drill halls, buildings. A large

1679
number of TAVR centres throughout the country were built many years ago when the requirements of TA training were very different from today's. They are no longer located in areas which adequately cover changes in population and the growth of new towns, and some centres have become isolated due to urban development and changes in road communications. Others are old and provide inadequate training and storage facilities, and involve heavy and uneconomical and costly maintenance commitments. The cost of providing facilities to look after the sophisticated and expensive equipment, and to train properly the volunteers, must be very small compared with the overall cost of the whole force. It must be an extremely false economy to have that situation prevailing in a number of units as it does, where the equipment cannot be used to best effect; its full use cannot be realised and it suffers from deterioration or theft; where there is inadequate accommodation to train the volunteers and where the maintenance and heating of outdated centres involves unnecessary waste of expenditure.
Further, there is a great wastage problem in the TAVR which very much reduces the cost effectiveness of the force. While it appears that the AVR is recruited up to 85 per cent. of establishment, the wastage often runs to 20 per cent. per annum. Of course, some people move out of their area, but most of the wastage is due to the financial strain on the volunteers. Due to the serious financial hardship that their service with the TA at camp and weekends involves, people who have good civilian jobs are tending to terminate their services sooner than in the past. This is particularly so for people working in small firms and especially those self-employed, and there is a growing resistance from volunteers, and particularly from their wives, against their staying in the reserve, hence the 20 per cent. wastage.
Despite the apparently favourable recruiting situation, it is essential to encourage volunteers to prolong their service. To do this it is essential to increase the scale of training bounty by some 33 per cent. or about £30 each, particularly for those with two or more years' service, even if this is at the cost of losing the liability bounty. Obviously fully trained volunteers of longer service are far better
1680
value for money than a reserve existing largely of volunteers of only one or two years' service who can never be completely trained.
Expansion of the TAVR would be by far the most cost effective means of increasing our NATO contribution. There have been considerable improvements in the equipment issued to the Volunteer Reserve but the existing remaining discrepancies between the Regular Army and the Reserve must be made up if full use is to be made of the expenditure on the TA as an effective reserve and to get the best value for money.
To take an example, on exercise recently a TA unit joined its BAOR formation and started for its formation area. The regular unit with tracked vehicles went ahead but the TA unit, with old wheeled vehicles, could not follow, and the whole formation had to be resited. That was just an exercise, but ponder the effect if it were the real thing. What a waste of expense if the troops cannot perform when the crunch comes.
I should like now to turn to the Royal Air Force and refer first to the Central Flying School. This has always been responsible for pure flying standards in the RAF, and these standards, which are checked annually by the examining wing, have always been extremely high. As an economy measure the CFS now has to share its airfield with three other non-associated flying units, and it will be difficult for it to carry out some of its corporate tasks in competition with other units, leading to a lessening of efficiency and cost effectiveness. Due to the economies taken, there are now only two basic flying training schools and one advanced school for fast jets. Even at full capacity these schools cannot produce enough pilots to maintain the flow into the front line because of the high failure rate in training. So the Service is entering a situation where the front line will not be fully manned because of the outflow from squadrons caused by normal rotation, wastage, promotion and so on.
There is an urgent need for the opening of another basic flying school and, possibly, another advanced school. That would allow an adequate number of pilots to be trained to serve the aircraft, and in addition, allow room for expansion;

1681
it would allow the training of foreign pilots, with political and financial advantages; and it would prepare for the start of the Tornado programme. Surely it must be false economy to have expensive front line aircraft and yet have an inadequate number of pilots to man them.
However, much worse than the lack of pilots, is the fact that, due to the dwindling fast-jet experience, qualified instructors are becoming scarce. While the CFS were, until recently, able to pick and choose, flying units are increasingly loath to give up their best instructors, and the cream are no longer going to the CFS. Already the basic schools are seven flying instructors short and it is estimated that next summer the deficiency will be 20. It must surely be irresponsible of a Government to place an Air Force in a situation where the numbers of qualified instructors are inadequate to train enough pilots, let alone to expand in an emergency.
A further waste of resources is evident with the Hawk. Only a third of those aircraft are fitted for weapons training, while if they were all equipped they could be rotated between flying and weapons schools and there would be a lessening in fatigue life. Therefore, we have a lot of expensive equipment, such as the Hawks, and yet we cannot get the best use out of it for the sake of the comparatively small extra cost of fitting them all for weapons training.
Finally, I should like to say a little about pay, which is a concern for all ranks in the Services. I should like to take just one example. To get the best results from defence expenditure, the excellence of the commander at each level must surely be one of the most important factors. Yet, in the past 18 months, of 15 Ground Branch Station commands available, no less than five qualified officers refused promotion to take the posts. Refusal is not a decision that an officer would take lightly, but these refusals were made because the officers could not undertake the financial commitments of the appointment. This relates particularly to the cost of service housing. If those officers were the first choice, then the officers finally chosen must, presumably, have been the second choice.
1682
I have already recounted how instructors will become scarcer. The trend points towards a lowering of efficiency of command, of flying and of flying staff which can only mean a loss of cost-effectiveness, possibly even wastage of aircraft, through false economies. I believe that it is urgent that the defence expenditure should be increased, not only to fulfil our proper role in NATO, but just to make the best use of the equipment and the personnel we already have.
6.14 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches this afternoon, although it is impertinent to congratulate so eminent and distinguished a man as the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker. I am intervening in the debate for two reason. For a number of years I have had the privilege of taking part in courses for the training of senior officers in our Armed Forces. In so doing I have come to have the highest possible regard for their skill, their sophistication, their breadth of mind, their genuine enthusiasm for their work and, of course, their patriotism. Today I wish to speak a little about their field of work where extremely important developments are taking place.
Another reason why I wish to speak today is that my university has, over the past few years, produced a fairly substantial volume of work on the economics of defence—a subject not studied very much in this country, although a great deal of work has, of course, been done on it in the United States and Canada. Therefore, my university is a repository of some expertise in the economics of defence and I intend to say a little about it today as it is, in fact, central to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to the two Amendments.
Like everyone else who has taken part in the debate, I do so with a sense of gravity and some sense of despair. I know that the House will forgive me if my first point is a slightly Party one. The Labour Party has a long and honourable record in defence. After all, it was the Labour Party which brought Winston Churchill to power in 1940, and it was Ernest Bevin, Lord Shinwell and Hugh

1683
Dalton who kept up our defence capability in those
terrible years of the Stalin terror at the end of the Second World War. Hugh Gaitskell almost wrecked his career on defence, and I should have thought that Mr. Healey was a powerful and formidable Minister. Labour has a pacifist wing and a pro-Soviet wing, but I should have thought that realism and patriotism have been its principal guiding lights. I hope that I shall be forgiven for this slightly partisan opening, but it seems to me important that we should put on record at this stage the matter to which my noble friend Lord Shepherd alluded. I do not think that there is any division in the House between our commitment to defence. We are arguing about the means and not about the ultimate ends.
My second point is that we are cutting the defence budget as part of the general policy of restraining public expenditure. Up to a point I am a supporter of the policy of cutting expenditure. Twice in recent years public expenditure has become out of control: once under Mr. Heath, and then in the first year of the present Administration or rather Sir Harold Wilson's Administration. The major ground for my support of the present policy of restraints in public expenditure is that the Government in these boosts were wasting a great deal of resources on purposes that, in my opinion anyway, were of a lower priority than higher personal expenditure and, above all, productive investment. Yet, having said that, I am a supporter of higher public expenditure in some areas, especially defence. I shall explain why a little later, if the House will bear with me.
I wish to make the point that in a country with 1½ million unemployed I believe, quite frankly, that there is room for substantial economic expansion fuelled by substantial tax reductions and by some substantial public expenditure increases. In the old days, defence expenditure was limited by absolute physical constraints, especially on manpower. Noble Lords will recall that the Defence Estimates introduced by Mr. Gaitskell when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer were, in fact, too large for the productive capacity and the manpower of the country, and they were cut back by Sir Winston Churchill's Government which came into power in October 1951.
1684
Public expenditure is not now limited by physical constraints and manpower constraints. It is limited by economic doctrine, particularly monetarists' doctrine. Those who support these doctrines have, in fact, committed the nation to what I regard as a wholly unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable, level of unemployment. In other words, in my judgment, defence expenditure could rise and taxes could fall if only we swung back to full employment policies. I am singing an old tune but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I think that it is a correct and proper one.
I now turn briefly to the two main points that I wish to make. The evidence, which over the years one has assembled, has suggested to me, as it has suggested to virtually everyone else who has taken part in the debate, that this country, given the present strategies, needs to strengthen its defences. In one respect, it needs to strengthen them in a way that is rarely publicly stated, and in publicly stating it one is, I think, in grave danger of misinterpretation. Nevertheless, that is not necessarily a reason for not stating it. I should have thought that it is reasonable to assume that the risks of serious internal dissent are now more probable in Western constitutional democracies like our own than they have been for many years. Northern Ireland, hijackings and mass picketing seem to me to be likely to be the pattern of the future, only probably more so rather than less so. I am not advocating that; I am saying that this is my judgment of the way in which things are likely to turn out. Of course, one hopes that that will not be so. But it would seem to me to be most imprudent not to plan for it and, of course, the Armed Services do so. The risks are great.
The skill and the loyalty of the Armed Forces and, one must add, of the police, are surely integral to the survival of constitutional government in this country. On the basis of my own experience, I do not believe that that skill and loyalty can necessarily be taken for granted, particularly if the Armed Forces do not think that they are being given either the resources or the standing in public life to do the job. Above all—and this is the reference to training which I said I would make—we must not neglect the training and education of our officers. Never

1685
before have they required such sophistication, such delicacy, and such restraint; and that means substantial increases in training—training which at the present time is being cut back.
This possible extension of the role of the Armed Forces in constraining internal defence—in fact, it is actually happening in Northern Ireland and during the firemen's strike—is clearly allied to their capacity to contribute to Western defence as a whole. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I see little true evidence that Soviet Communism or its other variant, Euro-Communism, have changed their nature. Since Leninists broke away from the major Party, they have always been opposed to any form of constitutionl democracy or pluralism. I see no evidence whatsoever that there has been any change in Soviet ideology on that point. They remain committed foes of individualist, pluralist societies and, above all, committed foes of Social Democrats. If the Soviet Army landed here, it would be this side of the House that was strung up on the lamp posts first. I think we know that the USSR and their friends will not hesitate to ferment internal dissent in the West by every means, as they are, of course, already doing.
I conclude by drawing together the threads of my argument. I believe that the threats to our security, both internal and external, are increasing and are not decreasing. I believe that détente is an illusion. I believe that we must be prepared to meet these threats with a highly sophisticated, highly complex and intensely loyal Armed Forces—loyal to the Constitution and to Parliamentary democracy. I see no convincing economic case for continually depressing defence expenditure in these circumstances. I plead with the Government that the time has come not only to begin to amend their economic policies, but to cease the continual process of cutting the defence budget.
6.24 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I should like to begin by joining in the tributes that have been paid to the two maiden speakers this afternoon, and to say what a delight it was once again to listen to the
1686
unrivalled eloquence of my old and respected friend Lord Noel-Baker.
Only once before have I spoken in a defence debate—a subject in which I have little expertise—and I do so now with extreme brevity simply because I want to add my support to the case that my noble friend Lord Carrington has put forward this afternoon in moving his Motion. I have always had something like a horror of political Parties—and perhaps most so, my own political Party—which give pledges about future Government expenditure. When I was a Treasury Minister even at the risk of being torn asunder, wild horses would never persuade me to do so.
It is, therefore, not light-heartedly that I say that I, personally, hope that my Party will give a firm commitment, without qualification, to restore the cuts in defence expenditure which have been made or proposed during the past two or three years by the present Government, if those cuts have not been restored when my Party takes office again. I say that because, even in the economic situation which has prevailed over the past few years, those cuts were, in my opinion, irresponsible. So far as I know, they were not backed by any professional advice and, indeed, one understood that the positive advice given by the Government's chief professional advisers was very definitely against the cuts.
Ministers have advanced as justification the fact that our contribution to NATO is larger in relation to our GNP than that of certain other members. But surely, in an honourable alliance, the partners do not compete with one another as to how little each can contribute; they compete as to how much of the joint burden each can manage to shoulder. If we carry a bigger-than-average share of the burden, we should feel proud of being able to do so.
Who can claim, from an analysis of the total expenditure in the civil field, that the figures we are debating this afternoon are beyond our capacity? One would have thought that memories of the 1930s would have warned us that, when the Armed Services are starved of resources—of either manpower or equipment—to a point where training becomes unrealistic, efficiency and morale are bound to suffer and will take a long time to restore.

1687
The quality of the personnel in our Armed Forces today has never been equalled and has certainly never been bettered. Let us, for our part, give them a fair chance of measuring up to the potentialities and the good performance of which they are so capable if they are given the opportunity. A French statesman said that to govern is to choose. Yes, indeed. With public expenditure, the right priorities must be decided on and resolutely adhered to. It is my opinion that, in choosing the cuts in the defence expenditure that have been made in preference to further cuts in the wide field of civil expenditure, the Government chose the wrong priorities in order to placate a section of their Party.
I hope that we shall all support the Motion which my noble friend Lord Carrington has moved this afternoon and, by doing so, show confidence that in the Defence Services we have a quality which has never been bettered. I believe that the argument that my noble friend has so persuasively advocated this afternoon is the only one which is consistent with our national duty.
6.29 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I, too, should like to begin by congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, on his maiden speech. As I myself have a certain acquaintanceship with personnel and training, I have great sympathy for the experiences that he has had. It is also a privilege to congratulate that statesman, the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, on his maiden speech. It was nice to hear that, contrary to what I think my noble Leader felt, he does not agree with unilateral disarmament. However, he did talk about disarmament, and disarmament, if not unilateral, falls into the Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has tabled. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, dealt completely with this Amendment. It is quite clear that to get some sort of mutual force reduction on terms which could be acceptable to us is but a dream at this present time.
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is a little more difficult because he goes a certain amount of the way in the right direction but, as the noble
1688
Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, there is a great deal in deciding on the right priorities. I should have thought your Lordships might agree that the priority which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, gives to the Services' pay—in passing, throwing the 12-month agreement out of the window—is perhaps out of place when one realises that it takes a long time to recover from massive cuts and to build up the sort of Forces we need to provide a proper contribution to NATO.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, reminds us, cuts have been with us ever since the end of the last war. I remember sitting as a very juinor officer in the Admiralty in 1953 and having to deal with the cuts which were then being imposed on us by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. We did not like these much, but we did not really mind them in the way that they later came to be minded. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, put his finger on it when he said that in those immediate post-war days we had resources built up during the war which were more than we could really use for a peace-time Navy. No doubt that applied to the other Services as well.
It is reasonable to say that the earlier part of the cutting in this post-war period had a point to it, and of course there was the Korean War which had effects, and there were various other engagements. It was not until the mid-1960s that the cuts started to go beyond what was reasonable. Of course, ever since then we have been involved in debates trying to decide what is reasonable. The only thing to say now is that one cannot easily put a finger on it. The best one can do is to talk to senior officers—and I am fortunate in having some who are friends of mine—and, rather as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, was recounting what happened at regimental level, my message from senior officers over the last couple of years has been, "For Heaven's sake, be careful about not losing the Americans!"
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put a point on this because maybe the present Government of the United States has made all sorts of declarations, and we are reasonably happy that President Carter understands what is required, but when we are talking about cuts, and building up, and strengths of equipment, we are

1689
not talking in terms of one or two years but in terms of decades. We have had a steady downturn since 1945, and we must bottom off and go up again. Where we go to is a matter of judgment, but we must not go on down—this is the important thing—or we shall lose the confidence not only of our European neighbours but, more especially, of the United States.
The problem which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was the question of the number of escorts, and other craft, for defending the American convoys coming across the North Atlantic. It is a matter of opinion as to whether these convoys could get to us in time if a war broke out. But the important thing is that the American people must think that "their boys in Europe" are supportable. That is much more important than many other things that we might provide forces for. If there is any question in our minds—and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, spelled out very well why there should be a question in our minds—as to whether the United States might come to the opinion that we need greater strength on the part of NATO as a whole to ensure that their people were properly protected at sea, then this is the reason why we have to stop this general decline.
It is important that the Government tackle this problem with the right priorities; look at the facts in the terms of my noble friend's Motion; look at the fact of what to do about the Government's commitment to NATO—because the Government have made a commitment which they are honour bound to undertake. And the Government must not let this drift so that they say, rather on the lines of Lord Shinwell's Amendment, "Let us put it off until tomorrow" because "tomorrow" is already past—if that is not too Irish for your Lordships. "Tomorrow" is already past, and we have gone beyond the stage at which we can make a reasonable contribution to the sort of things which our allies are expecting of us. I implore your Lordships to join with my noble friend in supporting his Motion. I hope desperately that the Government will take great care to heed it in the event that they find themselves being invited so to do.
6.37 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, my first word tonight must be one of appreciation of the maiden speech which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker. I have never heard a maiden speech so noteworthy in either a long membership of another place or in this House. I believe that that speech will be remembered and quoted in the future when all other speeches in this debate are forgotten. It is not only in recognition of Lord Noel-Baker's service to peace and disarmament that he should be welcomed as a Member of this House: I feel that his presence is an honour to us all. I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that I was not present when he made his maiden speech. I am quite sure that that was my misfortune.
Because of the large number of speakers, and the time at which this debate is taking place, I do no intend to make the survey of the defence situation that I had previously intended. If I may insert a commercial, I am more ready to do this because, in association with the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, we shall be publishing tomorrow a detailed survey.
I want to ask two questions of Her Majesty's Government before I turn to my major theme. The first is this: Is it the intention to use the Cruise missile, 200 times more destructive than the bomb which fell on Hiroshima, as an alternative to our present Polaris submarines when they become obsolete? Secondly, I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are supporting the proposals now being made that the neutron bomb—which surely is the climax of destruction, which can end all life and allow buildings to remain—should be included in NATO.
I want to say a few words about the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I am almost inclined to vote for it, because I am so deeply in favour of his appeal that the members of the Armed Forces should be paid more than they are paid at present. I take the view that all those who risk their lives to save the lives of others, whether they are firemen, policemen, or members of the Armed Forces (so long as our Forces continue) are a special case and should have priority when we are discussing the present 10 per cent. limit.

1691
The main theme on which I want to speak is in reply to a number of points expressed today by many speakers, among them the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. It is said that those of us who have been arguing for peace and disarmament for 70 years now are Utopian idealists and romanticists. In contrast with that I believe that we have now reached a stage where disarmament has become a practical proposal. I am confident that all the activity of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, recipient of the Nobel Peace award, will be realised within the next decade.
We have the SALT talks and the Vienna talks. I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, when he says that these discussions about limitation of our armaments are of little avail. The International Institute for Strategic Studies says that despite the SALT talks and their likely agreement, the number of warheads carried on Soviet missiles is likely to rise from 3,600 to 7,500 by the early 'eighties, and those of the United States from 11,000 to 14,000, despite the fall in the number of launchers. These proposals for the limitation of armed forces are resulting in a reduction of the actual missiles, but the warheads on the missiles are becoming so destructive that the danger of human annihilation is all the time becoming greater. Despite all the disarmament conferences that have been held and the millions of words which have been uttered, the power of armaments to destroy grows greater and greater, and the danger of them killing and mutilating more people becomes larger and larger. Therefore I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, when he says that this effort to secure a balance of power between the two sides is doomed to failure.
Are we, therefore, to take the alternative of building up our own defences in this situation? My answer is, No. My answer is that we have now reached a stage where there can be a breakthrough in the arms race in the world, and I base that on the fact that the two great super-Powers, through President Carter in America and Mr. Brezhnev in the Soviet Union, have both made proposals which can be the beginning of the end of the armaments race.
I take the proposals of President Carter first: the abolition of nuclear tests; no
1692
distribution of nuclear weapons; reciprocal reduction of nuclear weapons by 50 per cent; a ban on all chemical and radiological weapons; an end to the abuses of the arms trade. Aside from armaments is his proposal for the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean, which might be so important for other seas in the world. Those are the proposals of the head of one of today's great super-Powers. Before we look at the proposals of Mr. Brezhnev, I should like to add one very far-reaching statement by President Carter. He said at Des Moines, as reported in The Times on 24th October:
"We will proceed towards my ultimate goal of reducing nuclear weapons in the world to zero."
That is the statement of the most powerful head of any State in the world today.
Now, on the other hand, I take the statements of Mr. Brezhnev for the Soviet Union. He wishes to go even further—the destruction of all nuclear stockpiles; and then he proposes that the measures which President Carter has suggested should serve only as a preliminary to a staged progress to complete disarmament over a stated period of years. Thus we have the heads of the two great super-Powers today making proposals for disarmament which could be a beginning of a movement towards complete disarmament in the future.
Her Majesty's Government have said, in answer to Questions which I have put, that they agree with these objectives, but that their realisation depends on verification. We are now in the situation where the Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it accepts the principle of verification, and where in the one case in negotiation about nuclear tests, tests for peaceful purposes, the Soviet Union and the United States have come to an agreement about inspection on the spot and verification. Therefore, a position has now been reached where practical, positive negotiation for disarmament can take place.
My Lords, there are not only these proposals: there are now suggestions as to the way in which they should be implemented. Next spring the General Assembly of the United Nations is to hold a special meeting to discuss disarmament. No doubt both the US and the USSR will make their proposals to that special meeting. There is not the least doubt that

1693
there will be overwhelming support for the proposals which President Carter and Mr. Brezhnev have made, nor that that special meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations will be followed by a majority decision for a world disarmament conference in which these proposals can be worked out in detail. This is a great opportunity for peace and disarmament, and I hope that our Government, in the traditions of our Socialist Movement over the years for peace in the world, will give support when these proposals come before the General Assembly of the United Nations.
My Lords, one final word. We can hardly look at the world today without being utterly dismayed and almost mentally destroyed by its condition. Half of the world is hungry; even in our developed, industrialised nations, there are millions of unemployed; everywhere, there are human needs requiring expenditure on constructive proposals. The world is spending £600 million a day on weapons of destruction. How much that money could be used for construction, so that all may have a full life! I take two examples. The New Tornado multi-role combat aircraft project costs £7,000 million. That is more than the total cost of Britain's health and social services for 1976–77. The frigate "Ambuscade" costs £16 million. That money would provide a 508-bed hospital. The submarine "Superb" is more expensive than the building of 4,000 houses, when so many are homeless. We have been discussing defence—defence of human life. The greatest defence of human life would be to turn our expenditure on armaments into constructive projects by which human life could be saved.
6.54 p.m.
Lord WESTBURY: My Lords, as I was not able to be here last week to ask a supplementary question on the Question on Forces' pay set down by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, I should now like to make quite clear the shocking and bare facts of the pay received by members of the Armed Forces. My examples are the compared earnings of two representative soldiers before and after the April 1977 pay rise. Remember that this year's tax changes have been included, and have improved the position of both these examples. However, the changes
1694
have affected all taxpayers, so the relative position of servicemen has not been improved.
My first example is a grade 1 private soldier. He is on a six-year engagement and has completed two years' service; he is married with two children, and lives in an Army quarter in England. The second example shows the pay of a second lieutenant. He is unmarried, lives in barracks in England and has no private income which would affect his tax position. Incidentally, a married second lieutenant would have to earn only 17p less than he does and he would qualify for free school meals.
This is the situation. Before the April 1977 pay rise, the private soldier earned a gross wage of £48·28; his deductions were £18·06; his take-home pay was £30·22. After the pay rise, his take-home pay is now £32·27. As for the second lieutenant, his pre-April 1977 pay was £57·26; his deductions were £24·84; his take-home pay was £32·42. Now, his take-home pay is £33·38. That is per week. These rates of pay do not compare in any way with either the police force or the fire service, or with any other basic wage; maybe they do not even compare with the dole.
The private soldier's take-home pay is £32. From this, he has to pay a weekly food bill for himself and his family which cannot be less than £18, or 64p per head per day. He is left with £14 for everything else. Every three months, he will be faced with a fuel bill of at least £60. If he is unlucky enough to occupy one of the new quarters, which are serviced only by electricity, his winter fuel bill will be much higher. If he is sensible, he will not turn on his underfloor blower-heaters. He cannot afford to be warm. In BAOR, soldiers pay about £5 a week for fuel. This money, along with the quartering charge, is stopped from his pay at source. Thus, unlike in the United Kingdom, the soldier is not confronted with a bill for £60 each quarter while he has only £14 in his pocket. It might be a help if a similar scheme could be introduced in this country.
But the real problem for the soldier is the shortage of money and the ever-widening gap between the pay of soldiers and civilians. The average industrial

1695
wage is £79 a week. A private receives £51. If this year's pay rises are kept within the Government's target of 10 per cent., the average wage in 1978 will be £87 and a private will receive £56. The gap will already have widened. If, as seems more likely, the average wage rises by 15 per cent. and soldiers' pay is increased by only 10 per cent. the gap will be even wider.
The soldiers have been taught to be cynics by the confidence tricks of past pay rises. They have lost faith in the Government and the Pay Review Body. It is the middle rank of serving officers who have to answer, face to face, the grumbles of their men, and who have to help them with their financial problems. It is the colonels and the majors who see the injustice of it all, and who are beginning the murmur of dissatisfaction. Unless something is done, this murmur will before long rise to such a roar that even the Minister will be roused from his slumber.
6.59 p.m.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I was brought up to believe that the first and probably the most important of the responsibilities of Government was the defence of the country, but during recent years the tendency seems to have been for that to be forgotten, for whenever economies have to be made the Estimates of the Defence Forces are very severely pruned. We seemingly have not got money for defence, but at the same time we continue to spend lavishly in other directions—worthy, no doubt, but not vital for the safety of our country and the nation. I can remember that before the First World War, in the interests of economy, four battleships were to be cut out of the Navy Estimates. In those days the Navy League was a powerful, national institution, and with the cry of "We want eight and we won't wait!" it succeeded in rousing the country and getting the four ships replaced in the programme. Seven of these ships joined the Grand Fleet in 1916, whether before or after Jutland I do not remember. But if before, they no doubt made an impression on the German High Command; and if after, they made good the losses that we had suffered at Jutland so that, again, if we were given the chance we were confident of the outcome.
1696
In that war, we had the most generous help from the Dominions and the Colonies and from the Indian Empire. Latterly the sea and land forces of the United States helped us also, and that help we again received in World War II, but which we cannot definitely feel we shall continue to have at all times in the future. Do let us remember that wars, although as anticipated as possible, can come very suddenly upon us.
In 1914 I was serving in the first division of the Second Battle Squadron which was composed of the four latest of our battleships. With us also were the Second Light Cruiser Squadron which was composed of the last word in ships of that type. In June we were at Kiel with the Kiel Regatta. During the festivities I was present at a party where the men of both our Fleet and the German fleet were gathered together. I saw and listened to a German commodore proposing our health and, with that, vowing eternal friendship between our two nations. On 20th June we joined with their High Sea Fleet in firing a 21-gun salute for the German Emperor on his arrival on the "Hohenzollern". Six weeks later we were at war. If the Government and Admiralty had thought that that was a possibility at all, I am certain that we should not have been at Kiel, and I am also certain that Sir David Beatty and the battle cruisers would not have been at Reval. The Germans did not do anything about it, and so we were able to take up war stations at full strength and in good time.
In World War II we were also fortunate. Those who are frequently scorned as the "appeasers of Munich" gained for us a year's respite during which aircraft production was pushed ahead and a small consignment of modern aircraft was delivered to the RAF. These, as your Lordships will remember, were handled with superb skill and great courage which enabled the Royal Air Force not only to play a great part in rescuing our Army from Dunkirk but also to win the Battle of Britain. I cite these examples of war coming suddenly, without giving time to make good deficiencies resulting from economies imposed in time of peace. In those two wars we were fortunate in our allies and otherwise in circumstances that may never occur in the

1697
future. I cite them in the hope that Her Majesty's Government will always remember that the sure defence of our people and country is one of the greatest responsibilities of Government.
7.4 p.m.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, as usual I shall be brief, and I hope that I shall be honest and down to earth. The morale of the Forces is good where there is something to be done—in aircraft, in ships, in Ireland, or on fire fighting. At present—and perhaps only an ex-Serviceman can say this—the morale of the Forces is the lowest that I have ever known in the 40 years I have been in uniform. This will be repudiated by noble Lords on both sides, but I can assure them that it is true. It is true on three counts. First, pay. There is not a mess in any Service, whether it is an officers' mess, sergeants' mess, corporals' mess or soldiers' mess, where the word "pay" is not mentioned. Having said that I shall be honest—I shall be more than honest. The Party on this side of the House is partly to blame for the situation of the pay of the Forces as it now stands. It is a desperate situation and I only hope that the Government of the moment realise it. Cannot something be done for those who have no right to strike?—and no one would ever want them to strike; nor do they want to join a union. Can they not, for that very reason, have some special weighting in pay? Why need the Services wait until April to get something of that put right? In one unit now serving in London fire fighting, 30 per cent. of the junior NCOs' families are claiming rate rebate. A lot are on social security. Can you think that that is good for morale? I reiterate that it means that the morale of the Forces is low, very low.
The second reason for that is that the previous idea that the Forces were professional is beginning to go out of the window. They were professional because they had trained men and first-class equipment; but that is no longer so. They have the equipment in Germany and not the men to keep it. In Britain, they have some of the men and not the equipment. This very month a Regular unit in Kent had not sufficient transport to do the ordinary things of life. When a soldier
1698
was injured an officer had to go out on to the main road, put up his hand, flag down a vehicle and give the driver a "quid" to get the man to hospital. Can you think that morale is good in that unit? I assure you that it is not.
Finally, the morale is bad and low because they feel that there are no prospects, no future. Does the country, through the Government, want a reasonable size force in the Services? They begin to doubt it. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to try to find out how many officers had put in their papers during the last six months and during the previous six months. I know that he is at the moment unable to answer the question. But I can give another example which illustrates the kind of thing I think is happening. A year ago, in a certain part of the Services, 37 people applied to go. This year 134 have done so. Those were officers, and I can assure your Lordships that for the most part they are good officers—the reason being that it is only the good officer who can be reasonably certain that he is going to get a job outside and will take the risk of going. That is bad for morale. It is an indication of this. The Services have always been marvellous at improvisation, but you have to have something to improvise with. This is beginning to be doubtful now.
I shall be attacked, I know, because it is a convention never to attack the morale of the Services. It is almost an annual ritual to congratulate them on their wonderful morale. I repeat that when there is a job to be done, whether fighting, fire fighting, or any other thing to save human life, then morale is good. It is good and loyal to the regiment, to the ship, to the squadron in the Air Force. There is no doubt about that. But when they get home—and nowadays there are 300 families in a regiment—the morale is really low. I believe that some special arrangements should be made to look after this situation.
Perhaps I should be honest also to say that the morale among the senior people in the Services within the Ministry of Defence is equally low. The trust which should exist between the intermediate political masters, the sovereign commander in-chief of the Forces and the Forces themselves is bad. The trust is going fast. I say this as one who was, and is, a personal friend of the Secretary of State.

1699
He knows that what I am saying is right. A lack of trust is growing. Surely we must put that right. My Lords, I am not a politician; I do not understand the niceties of these various Amendments and points put forward in the main Motion. All I know is that a message should go out that something must be done. The Forces are slowly disintegrating. They will always remain loyal, but they need your Lordships' help.
7.11 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley has made some powerful and worrying points, as one would expect. I am a much smaller "gun", but I hope that I can put some points with equal accuracy and equally effectively. In times of economic stress all Governments have to look at public expenditure to find essential economies. This applies, naturally, as much to Defence as to any other Department of State. But there is all the difference between economies and arbitrary cuts. If arbitrary defence cuts which are made appear to impair the present and future strength and fighting efficiency of our Armed Forces, then the Government have a clear duty to justify their decision to Parliament and to our allies. In this case, and where previous cuts are concerned, that has not been done.
The failure to do so forces one to the conclusion that the Government have got their priorities dangerously wrong, which is something that my noble friend Lord Carrington, in moving the Motion, said from the Front Bench. This could be either through a blind refusal to face the facts or from a desire to maintain Party unity, bearing in mind the heavy pressure under which the Government come all the time from their extreme Left-Wing. Perhaps the correct answer is that there is a little of each. The former is a more charitable explanation. Has there been too much wishful thinking about so called détente with the Soviet Union, and has there been too much wishful thinking about progress and the hope of progress in disarmament? It looks very much like that to me.
If by "détente" we mean "the cessation of strained relations between States"—
1700
which is what my dictionary tells me—I confess that I see no sign of it whatsoever. The Kremlin's strategy remains unchanged, and they say so themselves on many occasions. I see no reason why we should disbelieve them. The driving force in the Kremlin is the Marxist/Leninist dogma coupled with Russian ambitions which have led, to agrowing extent, to the domination of the Soviet Union by what I may call the military juggernaut. Under the Brezhnev doctrine the Soviet Union claims the right to invade and occupy Czechoslovakia, or any other "Socialist" country, to maintain their minions in power; but we are sharply told in Belgrade that the bravery of nearly 1,000 men and women who have dared to sign Charter '77 in Czechoslovakia is none of our business. All they have been doing is drawing attention to the promises, made by their own Government at the Helsinki Agreement, where human rights are concerned. The Brezhnev doctrine is not confined to Europe: witness, for example, the actions of Russia's Cuban mercenaries in Africa.
So let us please not be told that there is some justification for the last defence cut arising from a reduced politico-military threat from the Soviet Union. Sadly, this is the opposite of the truth, though we all pray that the efforts to relax tension and so reduce the threat will not only continue but somehow succeed. I believe that exactly the same principles apply to disarmament. As with détente, we must be right to make every conceivable effort to make a start with mutual and balanced force reductions under a reliable system of verification which the Soviet Union still insists on regarding as spying. We are making such efforts, my Lords, though for some strange reason the bogged-down Vienna talks are only about the Central Front in Europe, where the threat to NATO is not by any means the greatest, and they ignore completely the overall military imbalance about which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made such a dramatic and impressive speech.
Despite the millions of words at hundreds of conferences in the past 25 years, the preponderant strength of the Warsaw bloc forces has not been reduced by one man, one vehicle or one weapon. Our high hopes that the limitation on nuclear testing (the only real breakthrough since the war ended in the

1701
disarmament field) might lead on to other achievements have not been realised. I do not think any noble Lord has drawn attention to this point, though I have missed one or two speeches. If account is not taken of medium-range Soviet missiles in the SALT talks—particularly the SS.20—the so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons, and the back-fire bomber which directly threaten Western Europe we could find ourselves in Europe more and not less exposed. There has been attention drawn to this matter in the past few days in The Times and the Financial Times. It is a real anxiety.
The lack of direct European involvement at all stages of the SALT talks is something which has always surprised me. They are solely concerned with strategic weapons of the super-Powers, which have parity in overkill several times over. I hope that this is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to refer as it is very much in the public mind at the moment. So, as with détente, the most recent defence cut has no justification whatsoever in any progress towards disarmament. Unhappily, there has been none. Yet the mood of wishful thinking, as with détente, is nurtured and encouraged by hints that some real chance of progress is just around the corner. I pray that it is.
My Lords, what I have said so far sounds perhaps as if I am obsessive about the possible threat of war with the Soviet Union. That is certainly not the case. None the less, the steady build up of Soviet forces so clearly designed for aggression, to which several noble Lords have drawn attention—I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was the first to do so—has been made all the easier by the progressive relaxation of strategic controls over exports; and the provision of cheap credits for the Soviet bloc is a harsh fact of which we have all been taking careful account. That latter point, of progressive relaxation of strategic controls over exports to the Soviet bloc, is a subject to which your Lordships might well return. It may be worthy of a debate. I am only too well aware that, despite having shed almost all of our commitments outside NATO, our seriously over-stretched forces may still be required for peace-keeping purposes in difficult circumstances and at great distances from the United Kingdom. I remark in passing that one
1702
quarter of the Army's total combat strength is involved in keeping the peace in the United Kingdom, and that practically the whole of our available Reserves—pledged, incidentally, to BAOR—have all turned into full-time firemen.
So, my Lords, I come to my conclusion. The question that we are asking the Government today is whether they regard adequate defence—by which I mean ever-ready, well equipped, properly paid Armed Forces—as taking precedence over all other demands on the taxpayer. This was well put in a brilliant lecture by Mr. Ian Smart at the RUSI in May. He wrote:
"Defence which is necessary, represents a debenture or preference share in the national economy, simply because the economy, as a national asset, may be rendered worthless if defence, which is genuinely necessary, is not provided".
It could hardly be put better. Twice in this century British Governments have failed the nation in this respect. I ask: Is history repeating itself? It looks horribly like it to me. I believe that as a result of successive cuts made by this Government a measure of defence "which is genuinely necessary" is already lacking, and I deplore the total failure of the Government to attempt to justify this. The Government do not come under much public pressure, and that is hardly surprising when one remembers that a man of 50 today was only 18 when the war ended. So the obligation on the Government to face the facts and tell the whole truth is inescapable, and it is their primary duty. I hope, my Lords, that a crushing defeat in the Vote tonight will drive this message home.
7.22 p.m.
The Earl of GLASGOW: My Lords, may I first pay tribute to our two maiden speakers. I thought they were both magnificent and I hope we shall hear them often again.
A fortnight ago today we had an exceedingly good debate in this House on the review of overseas representation, which was initiated by my noble cousin, Lord Ballantrae. We discussed the parts played in this task by the Foreign Service, by BBC foreign broadcasts and by the British Council; but I do not think any noble Lord mentioned the contribution made by the Armed Forces. I feel that

1703
this is perhaps a suitable moment to correct the omission, even though it may be a slight diversion from the main theme of our debate tonight.
"Showing the flag" sounds nowadays a little old-fashioned and smacks perhaps of the days of Empire. That is absolute nonsense. The Russians are doing it today with extremely good effect, and we ourselves can do it a great deal better. I am sure that many of your Lordships who have been governors, ambassadors or businessmen working in foreign parts will bear witness to the beneficial results of the visit of a naval squadron or even of a single ship to a foreign port. Such a visit is a very broad exercise in international public relations and involves all strata of society. It starts with the smart appearance of the ship and her company and the expertise, almost the panache, with which she is brought into harbour or secured alongside. Then follow the official calls and the exchange of hospitality between the host country and British Residents and the commanding officers, the wardrooms and, in these days, the chiefs' and petty officers' messes of the visiting ships. By this time the starboard watch has been given shore leave and British sailors are mingling ashore with the local population in the bars, restaurants and cafés.
I always maintained that the old-fashioned British sailor of my young days was the finest ambassador we ever had, and I have no reason to suppose that his successor in the modern Navy is any less accomplished. Ships will then be open for visits on certain days and there is nearly always a children's party on board. I have frequently seen tears in the eyes of the most unlikely foreigners watching the Royal Marines beat retreat on the jetty in the dusk at the end of the official cocktail party—and that is not only a tribute to the excellence of the liquor. It is hard to put one's finger on a concrete achievement, such as the gaining of a large order or the solution of a knotty diplomatic problem as a direct result of a successful visit, but the cumulative effect must do something towards preparing the ground.
The Pax Britannica of the last century was made possible largely by the fact that on any given day the white ensign was
1704
flying in all major and many minor ports across the world. I am not suggesting that we could operate on that sort of scale today, but with a few more ships we could do a great deal more. Those ships need not necessarily be the very expensive, highly sophisticated destroyers and frigates of the modern Fleet—of which we have far too few in any case—but an order for larger numbers of cheaper and possibly more specialised ships would give a shot in the arm to our ailing shipbuilding industry. I believe that "showing the flag" is a very important role for the Navy in peacetime, and I was interested to hear General George Brown, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, laying great stress on it when he spoke to us last Thursday.
My Lords, I want to end on a more general and fundamental note. The only way to prevent a future war is to demonstrate to our allies and to our potential enemies alike, beyond all shadow of doubt, that we have the will to resist aggression and the resources to make that resistance effective. That is what this Government have failed dismally to do, and no amount of talking is any substitute. The repeated cuts in our defence budget and the indifference, almost the hostility, of so many Government supporters in another place towards the defence of the realm tend to give the opposite impression. This attitude has got to be reversed; and if only for that reason I hope that noble Lords will follow my noble friend Lord Carrington into the Division Lobby tonight.
7.27 p.m.
Lord SWINFEN: My Lords, the Government already appear to be running the Armed Forces on a shoestring. If the proposed cut in the defence budget of £267 million takes place, the shoestring will be very frayed indeed and will be liable to snap at the slightest additional pressure. No one doubts the need to make cuts in Government expenditure in this period of economic crisis, but these planned cuts will put the country in a position where we could well not be able to deal with any threat from the Warsaw Pact, or indeed to deal with problems that arise in many parts of the world.
Our front line of defence is formed by our Forces in Germany and by the forces of our NATO allies. I understand that even within the current budget certain

1705
of the more expensive weapons can be fired in training only once or twice in any one year. I believe that in a conventional conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries the experts anticipate that the East European Powers would start by launching a massive armoured attack. Asking our troops to stop that armour without having had adequate live firing practice with their weapons is like asking a violinist to rehearse a concerto with a violin that has no strings.
Similar restrictions, I am sure, are attached to the training of the other Services. Not too long ago it was suggested that we should not build ships capable of delivering our Reserve Forces to the Continent but that we should use civilian ferries instead. What would be the position if we had to use those ships to transport troops with armour, say, to Norway during the major holiday season of the year? Enormous numbers of British tourists could be stranded on the Continent, in danger of being caught up in any conflict taking place. One can imagine a second Dunkirk, this time with only civilians involved. I feel it is essential that this House supports the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I should like to concentrate my remarks this evening on the subject of manning in the Services, particularly related to this Motion. We have heard some extremely interesting speeches, especially that by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on global policies, but none of these wonderful things can come about unless our Forces are properly manned. Over the last decade, we have all been hopeful that there would be a lessening of tension, a lessening of the arms race; in fact, that we might have real détente. We have been hopeful that there might be a solution in Northern Ireland. We have been hopeful that industrial relations would improve. But none of these things has happened, and it is sad that this is so. We have the President of the United States asking us to improve the effectiveness of the NATO Alliance. We have the gruelling involvement of our Services continuing in Northern Ireland. Meanwhile at home, industrial relations are more troublesome than ever and we have
1706
the Armed Forces taking over the duties of a public service. This has stretched the Armed Forces to their limit.
There was the recent case of a unit returning from Northern Ireland, expecting their well-earned leave; instead, they were sent straight out on fire duties. I gather that an intelligent counter-order saved a walk-out. One station is manned not, as one might think, by a trained band, a trained integral unit of the Army, but—and I mean no disrespect to another Service—by airmen trained in very different trades and locations. Your Lordships have already heard that in Germany we are 2,500 troops short, which means that we are unable to exercise some equipment. The well-knit regimental life, on
which much morale was built, has already been undermined by wives of soldiers having to go out to work to supplement their pay. Soldiers, too, have begun to "moonlight". I understand that there was a recent case of a soldier being none too pleased when he found that his moonlighting job had been taken over by a striking fireman.
But most serious of all is the wastage, or failure to re-enlist, of good Servicemen, and a number of noble Lords have already spoken on this point. If the Secretary of State wants proof of the state of his Forces, surely this is the best yardstick. It is the bright young corporal and the captain with potential who are leaving the Services. As my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley said, it is the intelligent man, the very person who is most needed, who realises the abysmal comparison between his pay and the wages in Civvy Street, and in order to look after his family he feels compelled to leave the Services.
I am informed that the rate of premature voluntary retirement—PVR, as I believe it is called—in the first nine months of this year has increased steadily month by month. The reasons, about which we have already heard, are not difficult to find and the primary one is, of course, pay. Servicemen need to earn enough to live in reasonable comfort, and to stop their wives from pressurising them to leave the Army. They are now separated from their families for too long, and this adds weight to their wives' first argument. I gather that separation is reaching an average of five months each

1707
year in an infantry battalion. So we have moonlighting, an inability to afford holidays and cars and a lot of wives going out to work. Incidentally, because they move about so much, these wives can seldom get a decent job. For instance, the only jobs available overseas are on MOD posts and those are very hard to come by.
Last in this list of complaints is the cost of married quarters. It now makes sense for soldiers to buy their own homes and pay off mortgages, rather than pay the rental for a quarter; at least the former is an investment. I wonder why the fireman and policeman is better treated in this respect. This last factor also leads to the family spending more time apart, and it would be interesting to learn of the divorce statistics among Service families.
The one factor which helps the Government in their recruitment for the Armed Forces is a sad one; it is the dismal unemployment position. But, if the Government succeed in cutting back the number of unemployed, where do they expect to find their recruits? Meanwhile, there is a steady drain on the excellent material which has been built up over the last decade, and it will take years to replace this. With good men leaving and with recruiting doubtful, how do the Government intend to maintain their Forces at the present level, let alone replace the shortfall? Have they some pay-linked incentive scheme which they are ready to publish; are they going to pay substantial tax-free bonuses on re-enlistment, or are they looking to the rundown of the professional Serviceman and a return to conscription? The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made some points about conscription. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work of the professional Army since 1957, when conscription ended. It has been two decades when the Services have done particularly well.
The present policy of cuts and lack of support from the Government must come to an end, and this is surely the moment to halt the downward trend. The Government have specialised in giving too little too late, and I hope that the Armed Forces will be an exception. I find that neither of the Amendments tabled is designed to give the necessary confidence, and the
1708
Government must give back confidence to the Services now. The Armed Forces do not want a union, they do not want overtime, they do not mind bad conditions—they just want a fair deal.
First, I should like to see the Government stand up to their own Left Wing critics and give the Armed Forces full support. This is best done, and shown to be done, by restoring the defence cuts of £267 million. Secondly, I should like to see them honour the pledge to spend, in real terms, 3 per cent. more on NATO. This will not only relieve and please our allies, but also persuade the Servicemen that there is a future in the Armed Forces. Thirdly, when the next pay reviews are due, the Government must work for the Services and not against them. Others who are keeping to the 10 per cent. limit get reductions in hours, and they get perks, holidays and free travel. What happens to the Services? They get their accommodation and food charges increased.
The last pay rise has become famous as the "Irishman's rise". It is no joke and, what is more, the ordinary soldier will agree that it is no joke. The comments on the increased contributions, which I
saw written on some notice boards, were unparliamentary in the extreme. Here was no 5 per cent. in real terms, or in any terms. The net gain in some cases was 51p. It is no wonder that the Serviceman thinks he was conned. The Ministry of Defence is the employer of more than 300,000 Servicemen, and of a total of more than 600,000 people. The Ministers responsible have lost the confidence of their workforce, and they can regain that confidence only by showing a lead. While Northern Ireland, public sector strikes, NATO obligations and the increasing need to back up law and order continue to hit the headlines, surely the Ministers concerned can hit the headlines, too, by telling the Cabinet, the Treasury and their Left Wing that here, unless they act now, is a real crisis of national security. Nothing short of this Motion will help.
Just before closing, I should like to say something on the NATO Alliance. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made some peripheral remarks about my father and the NATO Alliance. I should like to say that I am an unequivocal supporter of the NATO Alliance. I believe that the

1709
presence of a NATO force, and its preparedness against agression, has ensured the last 32 years of peace for Europe. It would be the utmost folly in any way to jeopardise that Alliance today. I take much pleasure in supporting my noble friend Lord Carrington in this Motion.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, before commencing my speech may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, how much I appreciated his speech. As I was in the other place with the noble Lord, perhaps I may also be permitted to say that although one may not always have agreed with what he had to say throughout his career, he had the courage to say it, and that is what we admire about him.
I wish to confine my remarks to the defence medical services, because they form a very important part of defence. There was an article in the July edition of the Medical Department Bulletin which contained a quotation from Petronius Arbiter in 210 B.C. He said:
"We train hard … But it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised … I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation".
That is equally true today, because it seems to fit the present situation.
In the last four years there have been many inquiries into the defence medical services. There has been the Jarrett Inquiry, the Defence Expenditure review, the Barraclough-Godber Committee and the Edwards Committee. I understand that the findings of the Barraclough Committee were not agreed to by those who could have brought about a change. I understand—perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate can confirm it—that another inquiry is now being held. This is having a disastrous effect upon recruitment to the medical services of the Royal Navy. Out of 149 who answered an advertisement to become doctors in the Navy, only eight attended the interview and seven short service commissions were awarded.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give the present shortfalls in the medical officer manning in the three Services. In the case of the Royal Navy, the shortfall is
1710
34 out of 330 —that is, 10 per cent.; in the case of the Army, 85 out of 594–14 per cent.; and in the case of the RAF, 20 out of 442–5 per cent. I understand that this is partly attributable to failure to recruit new entrants—at present all three Services are unable to recruit more than one-third of their target—and has to be coupled with a high rate of PVR (which was 14 in the Royal Navy last year, 164 in the Army and 20 in the Royal Air Force) that is outstripping recruitment and involves both senior and consultant staff. Regrettably, too, the more junior staff who would normally replace them are not there.
This problem is exacerbated by an increasing reluctance to transfer from short service to longer service commissions. The shortages of doctors and consultants result in overwork for those remaining and inability for junior and middle rank personnel to be spared for the consultancy and specialist training which they have a right to expect as part of their normal medical careers. This situation increases the trend towards PVR and early retirement, which produces a self-generating downward spiral. From those few words, noble Lords will realise that the position is critical and that a period of stability is vital.
Thanks must be expressed to the Royal Naval Reserve. During 1976–77, 59 medical officers and one nursing service officer volunteered for recall to active service with the Royal Navy to fill essential complements in ships' establishments and Royal Naval Hospitals at home and abroad. Some of them served for six days and some for up to 134 days. In total, 1,246 days were given by volunteers. All of these personnel have full-time civilian jobs and often have to pay locum tenens while they undertake their naval duties. Again this highlights the present appalling situation.
The dental service is in the same difficulty. The service has only five direct entries, one being a woman. It has to be remembered also that the Royal Navy medical service is the only service dealing with training in survival medicine. It trains also the Royal Marines, the Merchant Navy and personnel for Shell. It deals, too, with underwater medicine, which is very useful to those who are working on oil rigs.

1711
It is often said that the National Health Service is cheaper than the services provided by the defence medical services. Under 2 per cent. of the defence budget is spent on medical services. I believe that the defence medical services do a very special job. They have to ensure that anybody in the three Services who needs to go to hospital can go there at once, obtain adequate treatment and return to his Service as soon as possible. It has been said that Service personnel eat more than patients in the National Health Service, but they are mostly young, active men and women who need the extra food and services which are provided by the defence medical services.
Also, the position in regard to officers in the medical and dental services is very unfair. They are given acting ranks. When a person holds an acting rank he does not get the pay for it, and when he retires his pension is affected. The rank ceiling must be raised in order to maintain a realistic career structure. Many personnel are leaving now at the age of 53 because they can get 12 years' work in civilian employment. Naturally, this helps them with their final pension.
Cadets also represent a difficulty. At a recent board, of the 14 who applied, 9 were accepted and one changed his mind. Regarding promotion to surgeon captain, only two could be selected last June; two promotions are expected this month, and only one promotion will be possible each time in the future. This will be very detrimental to the service. The one service which is recruiting well is the nursing service. The position there is slightly easier because most of the nurses are single women, with no families.
The Government could easily solve this problem by coming to a definite policy at once. When the Minister answers, perhaps I may be told whether the inquiry which is taking place will terminate in the near future and whether a policy direction can be given. I hope that in these few words I have shown that action now is essential if this excellent and necessary service is to keep up its standards.
7.48 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to begin, if I may do so without presumption, by joining in the congratulations which have been offered to the two maiden
1712
speakers today: the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker. I am sure that the House will benefit greatly from their future contributions to our debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has raised today a matter which is vital to our survival. When discussing it, it is important to be neither alarmist on the one hand nor complacent on the other. It cannot be denied that in recent years we have seen a marked tilting of the balance in conventional armament in favour of the Warsaw Pact countries, and plenty of evidence to that effect has been presented to the House today.
The noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, reminded us that 100,000 men have been added to the forces facing us in Western Europe and that there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in tanks and between 50 and 100 per cent. in artillery. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, spoke about dramatic improvements in Soviet land and air mobility, enabling an attack to be launched without being reinforced beforehand. Also, there has been a fundamental change in the character of the Soviet air arm from what was once essentially an air defence force to what is now an offensive striking arm with the range to attack deep into Western territory. We must add to that the fact that NATO's technical superiority is being eroded, that the Warsaw Pact is stronger in mechanised formations and that the Warsaw Pact weapons are standardised, whereas NATO's are not. Then there is the build-up in the Soviet Navy and the Soviet Merchant Navy to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, reminded us that the Soviet Union is spending between 11 per cent. and 13 per cent. of its GNP with a 5 per cent. annual increase, but of course there are things to be said against this. There is the fact that NATO has greater economic resources; there is the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, said earlier, that the Soviet Union has the fear of a war on two fronts, and there is the fact that NATO still maintains a formidable array of armaments. I have no doubt that, even allowing for the tilting in the balance to which I have referred, military aggression remains at the present time an unattractive possibility for any potential aggressor.

1713
But we cannot ignore the trend, and it is not surprising that the Ministerial session of the NATO Defence Planning Committee which met in Brussels on the 17th and 18th May of this year should have expressed their concern—I quote from the final communiqué:
"..at the steady expansion of Warsaw Pact military capabilities which have greatly increased the power and flexibility of the Warsaw Pact forces. They noted that these forces had become increasingly offensive in posture and were now capable of projecting Soviet power on a global scale. In the light of these developments they stressed the urgent need for NATO to maintain and improve its Defence capabilities".
Of course it was out of this assessment that there came the agreement to aim for a 3 per cent. annual increase, and it is against the situation which I have described, against that agreed intention and in the light of the other cuts which have preceded it, that the proposed cut for 1978–79 of £267 million should be viewed.
During the course of the debate we have been reminded of the letter from the Secretary General of NATO in which he said that the cut "cannot but be detrimental to the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's Forces". The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, spoke of the adverse opinion of the House of Commons Expenditure Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, spoke of the Chiefs of Staff going to see the Prime Minister about these cuts, and we on these Benches share the misgivings about the changing balance. We accept the need for the 3 per cent. per annum increase; we oppose the cut of £267 million for 1978–79 and our colleagues in another place have voted in that sense.
So we support the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington; we fully support what it says about the remuneration of the Forces. But we cannot accept the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, because, as has already been pointed out, it involves a breach of the Government pay policy and to the support of that policy we are fully committed.
With regard to the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, of course we accept what he says about mutual and balanced force reductions. We would certainly like to see an end to the deadlock there—a deadlock to which several speakers have referred
1714
today—and we do not accept the gloomy view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he seems to suggest that nothing will ever come from that venture. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, that it is right to persist in seeking these mutual and balanced force reductions, but we cannot accept the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, because it omits the restoration of the cut and also it omits the commitment to aim for 3 per cent. per annum. It cuts those out. We believe that those matters are necessary if we are to preserve a credible balance.
A credible balance is required to maintain peace. It may well be asked how long such a balance can be maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to 32 years of peace; but we are witnessing an unprecedented peace-time build-up of armaments, and that is a sobering thought. But what are the alternatives for the NATO countries? Surely they are these: either to abandon any attempt to defend ourselves and thus to place our freedom and our independence in jeopardy, or to provide ourselves with adequate arms to maintain a credible balance while vigorously seeking détente and disarmament. A case can be made for either of these options, but I am quite certain that the overwhelming majority of the Members of your Lordships' House in all parts of the House, would choose the second of those alternatives. The mistake would be to opt for the second course while failing to provide sufficient strength to make it credible.
7.55 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the charge being made against the Government this evening is a grave one. It is no less than hazarding the security of the Realm through neglect and, in the process, alienating our allies and forfeiting the respect in which the world used to hold this country. This debate has happily attracted distinguished contributions from two maiden speakers and we welcome them to our presence. I find it somewhat daunting that we are conducting this debate in the presence of so many ex-Ministers of Defence. I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming back my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, after his recent illness.

1715
We have listened this evening to speaker after speaker giving concrete examples which have added specific and real illustrations to the otherwise rather esoteric and abstruse nature of the much discussed cuts. We have already heard of the state of our Armed Forces and what has happened, and yet we still have in the pipeline another cut which we believe should be restored. The Government excuse themselves for their policy apparently on four counts. First, they say that the threat has been overstated; secondly, that the defence budget is adequate for the task in hand; thirdly, that their effort compares favourably with that of their allies, and anyway they say, finally, "We are doing all that we can afford". I think most of us in this House find these excuses both individually and collectively unconvincing.
The potential challenge has been restated many times previously and again today, in a number of different ways. Perhaps in a characteristically authoritative view, I would single out the summary given by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as illustrating the state of the basic balance. Under the umbrella of the mutual strategic balance between the USSR and the US, we find Soviet Russia continuing to increase her massive preponderance of conventional land and air forces. She is constantly and rapidly uprating their technical excellence at the same time as maintaining their numerical superiority.
Not content with these alarming manifestations, this land-locked and historically expansionist Power has chosen over the last 15 years to build a formidable fleet of submarines whose function cannot by any definition be destribed as a defensive one. This force is matched by an impressive modern world-scale navy which in turn is supported by an ever-expanding merchant fleet. I have no doubt that, in spite of the recent setbacks experienced by the Soviets in parts of Africa, they will continue to deploy these forces in support of a politically expansionist Power and they will create mischief wherever they can.
Here we see countries—the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact Powers—with a crying need to improve the standard of living of their peoples, and yet, as my noble friend said, they elect to spend
1716
some 13 per cent. of their gross national product on armaments. And although, as I shall be saying in a moment, we must be careful how we use these statistics, by any standards this represents something of the order of three times the equivalent effort being put in by the West. These facts, I suggest, speak for themselves.
There is one other point that we ought to make. For us unilaterally to announce cuts in our defence spending in the middle of negotiations about mutual disarmament must surely undermine our bargaining position, and I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, say that he counted himself among those who do not believe in unilateral disarmament. I do believe the risks have been demonstrated to be palpable to anyone who will not refuse to recognise them.
So what of the assessment of the appropriate force level to counteract the threat? By the Government's own admission, they were down to bedrock two cuts ago, and many informed observers now think the situation is a good deal worse than that. It is surely sufficient to point out that we have already endured one reduction since we were told that we had cut to the bone, and we are now threatened with another cut of £267 million or £300 million—the exact detail is really not important. I hear that even today it is reported that the NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels have issued a statement expressing concern about the growing strength of the Warsaw Pact, but that they have welcomed the resolve of the NATO Powers to redress the balance. They ought to know. So surely the only conclusion we can draw from this is that the Government know very well that our Forces are already inadequate for the tasks they are liable to be asked to undertake on any reasonable expectation, and that our relative position is deteriorating year by year. This is without the additional burdens that are being placed on our underpaid Servicemen by the special services they are being asked to perform in connection with firefighting, and possibly policing a unilaterally declared 50-mile fishing limit where we might find ourselves having to drive out some of our EEC allies.
All this is serious enough, but I suggest that it is further compounded by the effect

1717
of this country's behaviour on our NATO allies. They are bound to be tempted to follow our example, or at least to use our behaviour as an excuse or ample justification for them to make similar cuts. And yet only a month ago when we had the Foreign Affairs and Defence day on the Queen's Speech, we were depressingly reminded of the situation by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who trotted out the old familiar canard and the misleading and complacent claim that the UK is second in the NATO league table for defence spending. In fact, a number of noble Lords have pointed out—I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, who brought out the point this evening—that, on a proper assessment, our place is at least sixth in the league and may well be eighth out of nine. Small wonder, then, that General George E. Brown, when he was over here last week, having first of all said:
"Peace and security are the best protected by strength",
went on to answer a question about attitude of the United States to the European contributions by saying:
"They are not enough; they never are".
Then he went on:
"But obviously we are particularly disappointed when some of the larger nations do no more than smaller ones like Denmark, for example".
Well, the General is a very tactful man, although he denies it. I believe all of us know what he meant by that remark, and I think this was a point made by my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, in his speech.
This brings me to the fourth of the Government's arguments. When unable to convince their critics that our contribution is an appropriate and fair share, the final resort is to fall back on the plea of poverty, and to say that we cannot afford more. I was particularly glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, say from the Government's own Benches that no convincing economic case exists for continuing to depress defence spending in the present circumstances. This is the real point of the timing of this debate this evening. Indeed, we have listened to ministerial utterances over the recent months in which they have started to count the chickens which will be hatched by North Sea oil. I certainly hope they are right, that this is going to lead us to the economic recovery so long overdue.
1718
Mr. Benn and Mr. Healey are reported to have produced a list of options for using the oil revenues, but conspicuously absent from those six options, in any report I have seen, has been any mention whatever of increases in defence spending.
I should make one further point. Let us not underrate the difficult task that would confront us if we let our defence spending fall to too low a level. It is always difficult to reverse any trend. It is particularly difficult to pick up off the floor a complete organisation of the magnitude of the defence machine if it is once allowed to fall below a certain level. The more major the surgery—and we have seen many amputations in recent months—the longer is likely to be the recovery.
The real point, I think, is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, when he asked how the Government square the signing of the NATO declaration to increase the defence spending by 3 per cent. with their apparent intention to continue to cut the expenditure on defence. Did we never intend to honour this declaration? Was it merely a platitudinous assertion that seemed convenient at the time? Was it only a genuflection towards some symbol in which the Government do not sincerely believe? If so, I suggest that this would be the most abysmal hypocrisy.
We are not calling for immediate expenditure now. We are saying to the Government, "If you say that things are improving, give a commitment now that Servicemen's pay and defence spending are at the top of the shopping list, now that the years of misery and miserly entrenchment are happily passed". In spite of a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, I would suggest that those who are opposed to all defence expenditure should be reminded that it is not all waste; it yields tangible dividends in technical achievement and in overseas sales, and it can contribute substantially to redressing unemployment, both directly and indirectly. This was a point made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and also, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I believe that a forthright assertion would now go a long way to reassuring opinion, both inside and outside the country, that confidence here is reawakening.

1719
We on this side liked the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, a good deal better than we like the text of his Amendment. I think it was he who suggested that this Motion was premature and could not result in Government action. I have tried to point out that this is not consistent with the utterances of the Government Ministers themselves. We cannot support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, brilliantly showed had an element of unrealism about it, and it seemed to me that in an attempt to invite us to be with the angels he was asking us to step off a cloud into the vacuum of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, where we must decline to follow him.
I hope that if the Government will not accept my noble friend's Motion then, happily supported by the Liberals, this House will go on record with a clear verdict of protest against the Government's reluctance to give a clear undertaking that neglect of defence and those who serve in it is to stop, and let us insist that our Government in no way go back on their commitments to our allies to make a proper contribution in the future to our collective defence.
8.12 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, we have had a very fine and interesting debate. After all, it is a vote of censure on the Government. I emphasise that. I am certain that noble Lords have come to vote strongly for their point of view. I am not complaining, but it is a vote of censure. First, I should like to pay my tribute to two excellent maiden speeches. I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that I always think of his father not only as the Leader of the House of Lords as he was, and Lord Privy Seal at one period, but also as a very successful Minister of Agriculture. He was a great man in that field and in many other ways. I also wish to congratulate my noble friend on his wonderful speech. It was a speech that shows what an asset he is in this House. Whatever one's views, I think it was a remarkable speech and I am so glad that he has now joined us.
Our debate this afternoon is essentially about the level of resources to be committed to defence. But as the noble
1720
Lord, Lord Carrington, has recognised in the wording of his Motion, we can only realistically consider this question in the context of the threats facing us. It was on this basis that NATO Ministers agreed earlier this year on guidelines for defence expenditure.
There is no denying that the military strength of the Warsaw Pact forces is formidable. Over and over again experts on defence—and there are many in this House—have emphasised this. But we must resist the temptation of thinking about defence in a purely national context. We are not in this alone, and only today we have heard a communiqué from NATO—incidentally a copy of this will be put in the Library of your Lordships' House—outlining more or less what has been said by most speakers during our debate today.
The Warsaw Pact poses a threat not only to the United Kingdom but also to the nations of Western Europe generally. It was for this reason that the North Atlantic Alliance was founded. Of course, even on this viewing of the situation there is still a substantial numerical imbalance of military strength. Again noble Lords have stressed this, but it has to be remembered that NATO is a defensive Alliance. It exists to deter aggression against its members and, should aggression occur, to defend NATO territory.
To achieve an adequate level of deterrence it is not necessary for NATO to match the Warsaw Pact's impressive military might man for man or gun for gun, so to speak. What is necessary is to demonstrate to the Warsaw Pact countries that in the event of
agression against any member country the Alliance as a whole has both the political will and the military capability to inflict enough retaliatory damage to make such a venture not worth while. Though its conventional forces are undeniably smaller than those of the Soviet bloc, NATO deploys for deterrence and defence the full range of capabilities, comprising strategic nuclear, tactical nuclear and conventional forces. This comprehensive armoury would enable the Alliance, in the event of aggression, to employ a mix of forces to suit the size and nature of the attack. For its success this strategy of flexible response depends to a large extent on sufficient NATO

1721
conventional forces being stationed in a forward position, so as to react quickly to an attack, to preserve the territorial integrity of member nations and to provide time for diplomatic measures to be brought to bear on an aggressor in an effort to end hostilities.
There are other considerations which have to be taken into account in assessing the effective balance of forces. My noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker effectively spoke about these in his contribution. For example, the quality of Eastern bloc equipment is uneven—at least three generations of battle tank are pressed into service. Furthermore, one should not totally discount the possibility that the Soviet Union could not, and would not, place complete reliance on its allies to support an act of aggression against NATO. An additional factor in the equation is that a substantial proportion of NATO manpower, in particular our own and the United States forces, now consists of professional, all volunteer, regular forces, as opposed to the Warsaw Pact which consists very largely of conscripts. These are imponderables, but overall they are significant factors which much he entered into any comparison between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In other words, the point I am making is that their figures—which leave quality out of account—are not the end of the story.
I turn now to another aspect of our debate—namely, how much we as a nation should be prepared in future to spend on defence. Let me start with some facts. This year the United Kingdom is spending over £6¼ billion on defence. Next year, even after the reduction in the defence budget to which the Motion refers, we shall be spending a similar amount in real terms. Now this is an impressive budget by any standards. The United Kingdom ranks third among its NATO allies as regards the proportion of national wealth devoted to defence. It is no use groaning—these are the facts. From the start, therefore, let us put aside any notion that, as a member of the Alliance, this country is dragging its feet or not bearing a fair share of the economic burden of defence. On the contrary, if every member of NATO contributed in accordance with its financial resources on the same scale as the United Kingdom the problems
1722
of the Alliance would be substantially reduced.
Against this background, I should now like to address myself to the first part of the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has moved—that, in view of the military imbalance between NATO and the Soviet bloc forces, the Government should restore the planned reduction in the defence budget for 1978–79 and give an undertaking to increase defence spending in accordance with the guidelines agreed by NATO defence Ministers earlier this year.
I shall take these two subjects separately. First,
the reduction in defence spending next year. Noble Lords will recall that this was announced by the Government in December last year as a cut of £230 million in the defence budget planned for 1978–79. That figure was subsequently revalued at £267 million in terms of what we know as 1977 Survey prices. In deciding where this reduction should fall, the Government were guided by the overriding principle that any cuts in the programme which had to be made should be those which would minimise the effect on our front line contribution to NATO and its essential support. On that basis, a number of savings measures were identified during the first half of 1977 and put before our NATO allies to serve, in accordance with our promise, as the basis of consultation.
It was made quite clear to NATO that at that stage the package could be no more than provisional, and that final decisions on the size and composition of savings measures could not be taken until the beginning of 1978 when the work of preparing detailed estimates for the financial year ahead was complete. Only then would we have a clearer picture of the cash flow required for the programme in 1978–79. NATO was also assured that its views on the proposed package would be considered fully by Ministers before final decisions were taken.
NATO's response was frank and constructive. There was naturally concern that we had found it necessary to make a temporary reduction in defence spending, particularly at a time when the Warsaw Pact's military power was growing, and that the 1978–79 reduction was not the first of its kind since the Defence Review of

1723
1974. On the other hand, NATO recognised the economic background of the Government's decision and the thoroughness of our examination of the defence programme to identify measures which would prove the least damaging to the Alliance's defence posture. Our allies had no alternative measures to suggest for achieving the required reduction.
We are now, my Lords, at the stage of preparing final estimates of the cash flow which will be required in 1978–79 to support the defence programme. It is, I am afraid, yet too early to say whether this will confirm the original package of measures in full or suggest one or two alternative ways of adjusting the programme for next year to the defence budget total. The Government will, of course, give an account of their final decisions on the savings measures in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, which will be presented to Parliament in the spring.
The noble Lord's Motion calls for the restoration of the £267 million cut. My Lords, that is something that the Government cannot do. I hear what the noble Lord says about the threat and the various other reasons he has adduced for restoring the defence budget next year to its original level. But the fact is that the reduction of £267 million in defence expenditure is an integral part of the Government's reduction in public expenditure as a whole for next year. In any case, it is not possible to increase expenditure on defence at the drop of a hat. I have over and over again chided the Opposition for their imprecision on cuts in expenditure. The Leader of the Conservative Party in another place has talked over and over again about cuts in public expenditure, but when it comes to defence that is a different matter. The Leader of the Party opposite has never come clean on this matter and I repeat what I have said tonight
In planning the defence programme for 1978–79 we have worked on the assumption that the reduction will take effect. Thus, we have in a number of areas been marking time, so to speak, in order to be able to accommodate as much of the reduction as possible by means of planned deferments and without recourse to cancellations. Having done this, we cannot simply reactivate the original programme some four months before the beginning of
1724
the financial year and expect everything to fall into place as if nothing untoward had happened. In other words, however much one may sympathise with the intentions behind the noble Lord's Motion, there are good reasons both of principle and of practice why the Government cannot do as the noble Lord recommends.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he telling the House that the Ministry of Defence would actually refuse an extra £267 million if it was offered it? Please will he also explain why it is impossible to restore money to defence when they have already given another £1,000 million on the Budget next year?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not deny that. However, the Government have decided to make a cut and, as I have said, Ministers are carefully considering this matter and where the cut will fall. I think that answers fully the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The noble Lord is entitled to lead his Party against these cuts but, as I shall show, on previous occasions the noble Lord has been responsible for many major cuts and so has the Tory Party. This is not the first time that we have had cuts of this kind in defence expenditure. We simply cannot reactivate the original programme some four months before the beginning of the financial year and expect everything to fall into place as if nothing untoward had happened. As I have said, the Government have made their policy clear.
I turn now to the agreement by NATO Ministers earlier this year to aim at an increase in defence expenditure of 3 per cent. per annum in real terms. The noble Lord's motion calls on the Government, if I may quote verbatim,
"To honour their pledge to NATO".
First, there was no "pledge" in the sense in which that word is usually understood but in its place there is a recognition that countries should aim at real annual increases in the region of 3 per cent. What were agreed by NATO Ministers were guidelines for future defence expenditure, and, indeed, it was specifically recognised that for some Member countries their economic circumstances would affect the level of their defence spending. At this stage, I would simply say that the Government are aware of NATO's concern that

1725
defence spending by Member countries should grow in real terms. They will also see whether, in the light of economic circumstances, it is possible for the United Kingdom to meet the 3 per cent growth target.
I have not heard any Opposition spokesman in this House or elsewhere say that they would restore the £267 million cut and spend 3 per cent. more a year on defence. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, knows very well that, even if the Tories came into office tomorrow—which they will not—they could not restore the 1978–1979 cut.
The second part of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, draws the attention of this House to the emoluments of the Armed Forces and the need to improve these within the guidelines of the current pay policy. I am grateful to the noble Lords for raising this very important subject. The military salary concept was introduced some years ago, and is now well known. I do not need to go into the detail of how the basic comparisons are worked out. But I would say that it is a very complicated and comprehensive process. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is an independent body reporting to the Prime Minister, gathers the information from many sources and then makes its assessment.
The Government are aware that at present Service pay rates do not reflect full comparability. We and the Armed Forces must await the recommendations of the Review Body. The implementation of the pay award on 1st April next year is bound to take full account of the Government's pay policy, which is itself in the overall national interest. But the Armed Forces should be in no doubt that the Government intend as soon as the situation allows to restore and return them to the fully comparable pay position implicit in the military salary concept.
The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, rightly draws attention to the disparity, particularly in the Central region of Europe, between the conventional forces deployed by the Warsaw Pact countries and those deployed by NATO. I welcome the emphasis in the Amendment on Britain's contribution to NATO. It was of course the Defence
1726
Review, initiated shortly after this Government came into office, which concentrated the United Kingdom's defence effort upon the Alliance. In particular, it was a consequence of the Government's desire to make the most effective use of our Armed Services that the Defence Review identified those areas where they would be most effectively and efficiently deployed.
To enable our Armed Forces to maintain their current effectiveness in their roles, a continuous effort has been made to improve and modernise their equipment. These improvements, which I shall not list now, are all clearly relevant to the tasks assigned by NATO to our Forces. But while we must always prepare ouselves with adequate defensive measures, in collaboration with out allies, against the possibility of any hostile Soviet intentions, we must also pursue vigorously the possibilities open to us for some form of negotiated reductions in the forces deployed in Central Europe, which would genuinely improve stability without harming the security of either side.
It is with this object in mind that we must continue to approach the talks in Vienna on the mutual and balanced reduction of forces in a constructive and positive way. Indeed, the principles on which we have based our demands in these negotiations are carefully designed to secure the agreed objectives of the negotiations and to meet the legitimate defensive needs of the participants. We are, therefore, proposing that the outcome of the negotiations should be the achievement of approximate parity between the ground forces of the two sides so that neither side need feel threatened by the other.
Since advancing proposals at the outset of the talks, the West has further developed its position by offering to withdraw significant numbers of United States nuclear weapons from the area, without requiring any further cuts from the East. It is extremely unfortunate that the Soviet Union have not so far taken the constructive attitude and have stuck to their original demands which would have the effect of contractualising the present force imbalance, albeit at a slightly lower level of force. But although progress has so far been disappointing, we must continue to strive for a satisfactory outcome by demonstrating to the East that

1727
the solidarity of Western participants will not allow the equitable principles on which our demands are based to be undermined by delay and prevarication.
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, does two things. It makes the pertinent point that decisions on the defence budget cannot be divorced from wider considerations of the country's economic wellbeing. That is a proposition from which, I venture to suggest, few noble Lords would dissent, and the noble Lord's reminder is therefore timely. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has drawn attention to the courage and determination of members of all three Services who are involved in firefighting duties during the firemen's strike. I, too, should like to pay tribute to them and also to those serving in Northern Ireland.
If I may, I should like to reply to one or two of the matters raised in the debate. I cannot cover every point. I have listened to practically the whole of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that, in response to the Warsaw Pact threat, the Government have cut £600 million from last year's defence budget, £953 million from this year's budget, £1,200 million from next year's budget and, at 1976 prices, a total of £8,400 million up to 1983. It is quite true that in the economic circumstances facing them the Government have reduced the inflated long-term programme which they inherited from the Tories. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, chose 1976 prices and produced some dramatic figures.
However, as I said earlier, defence cuts are not a new phenomenon. The noble Lord was a distinguished member of a Government and he supported defence cuts. If we take figures at 1977 prices, we have a picture which shows that actual expenditure on the defence budget for 1969–70 was £6,555 million; for 1972–73 it was £6,505 million; for 1973–74 it was £6,415 million. In 1974–1975 it was only £6,164 million as a result of the cuts in the defence budget for 1974–1975 of no less than £510 million which the Tories announced in the course of one year—1973. One could go on giving examples.
I should like to answer one or two other points. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said that the British Army of the Rhine
1728
needed 2,500 more men. The British Army of the Rhine is currently undergoing a major restructuring which will improve the weapon-to-man-ratio and thus improve efficiency. My Lords, this is no laughing matter. Extensive trials have generally validated the new organisation. It is only to be expected that we shall identify the need for some adjustments as the reorganisation is implemented, but these are likely to be minor. We acknowledge that commitments have caused strain in the Armed Forces, particularly in the Army, and the Government have means of alleviating the position under constant review.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked whether it was the Government's intention to use the Cruise missile as an alternative to present Polaris submarines when they become obsolete. The Government have no plans to develop a long-range Cruise missile system or to develop a new strategic deterrent. We have no plans to replace Polaris, which has many years of effective life yet. The noble Lord also asked me whether the Government support the proposal being made that the neutron bomb should be included in NATO. One of our nuclear options is the so-called neutron bomb. It is not true to say that that bomb would kill people and leave property intact. Its effects are limited to the battlefield and would thus prevent injuries to civilians and friendly forces. That is all I can say at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, chided the Government for their considerable expenditure on nationalised industries. I would say to him that the nationalised steel industry is vital to defence, as are the coal and energy industries and so also is the strength of our economy. What is happening now? Under this Labour Government the economy will be put right. We can only afford adequate defence if we have a strong economy. It is for that reason that we reject the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
8.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Shepherd shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 70; Not-Contents, 166.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacobson, L.

Serota, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, E.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Kagan, L.

Snow, L.

Crook, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

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

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Vaizey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wall, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

White, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Northfield, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gregson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, L,

Drumalbyn, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Adrian, L.

Dulverton, L.

Howe, E.

Ailsa, M.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Eccles, V.

Inglewood, L.

Amory, V.

Effingham, E.

Kemlsey, V.

Ampthill, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Audley, L.

Elles, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Avon, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinross, L.

Baker, L.

Elton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balerno, L.

Exeter, M.

Liverpool, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Banks, L.

Falkland, V.

Luke, L.

Barnby, L.

Falmoutn, V.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

McFadzean, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Forester, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boothby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margadale, L.

Bourne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Furness, V.

Middleton, L.

Bradford, E.

Gage, V.

Monck, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Gainford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Garner, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Gisborough, L.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Burton, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Camoys, L.

Glendevon, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Northchutch, B.

Carrington, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northesk, E.

Cathcart, E.

Gray, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chalfont, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Chelwood, L.

Grey, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chesham, L.

Gridley, L.

Pender, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cobham, V.

Haig, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reading, M.

Croft, L.

Renwick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Daventry, V.

Hanworth, V.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hatherton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Deramore, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

1730

1731

St. Helens, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Trenchard, V.

Sandys, L.

Sudeley, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Seear, B.

Suffield, L.

Vickers, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Swansea, L.

Vivian, L.

Sharples, B.

Swinfen, L.

Wade, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Terrington, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Slim, V.

Teviot, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Stamp, L.

Thomas, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Westbury, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Torphichen, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.50 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will take note of the general feeling about the need for adequate defence in order to ensure the security of our country. I am less influenced by what I have heard in the course of a debate than I have been in the past two years as chairman of the All-Party Defence Group listening to military experts from all parts of the world, including those from the Warsaw Pact. The only other observation I wish to make is that I take
note of what my noble friend said about the intention of the Government to take into account what has been said in the course of the debate about the need for remedying defects in payment et cetera to members of our Forces, and I hope that something will be done in that regard. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
8.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the original Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 163; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Addison, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gridley, L.

Adrian, L.

Daventry, V.

Grimthorpe, L.

Ailsa, M.

Davidson, V.

Haig, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

de Clifford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Amory, V.

Deramore, L.

Hampton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Auckland, L.

Dulverton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Audley, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Hatherton, L.

Avon, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Hereford, V.

Baker, L.

Eccles, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Balerno, L.

Effingham, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Howe, E.

Banks, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Barnby, L.

Elles, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Inglewood, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Elton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Boothby, L.

Exeter, M.

Killearn, L.

Bourne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Falkland, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Bradford, E.

Falmouth, V.

Kinross, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ferrers, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Forester, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Fortescue, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Luke, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Furness, V.

Lyell, L.

Burton, L.

Gage, V.

McFadzean, L.

Camoys, L.

Gainford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Margadale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Carrington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Glasgow, E.

Monck, V.

Chalfont, L.

Glendevon, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Chelwood, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chesham, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Morris, L.

Cobham, V.

Gray, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Croft, L.

Grey, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Sandys, L.

Teviot, L.

Northesk, E.

Seear, B.

Thomas, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sharples, B.

Torphichen, L.

Pender, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Slim, V.

Trenchard, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Stamp, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Reading, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Vickers, B.

Renwick, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vivian, L.

Rochdale, V.

Strathspey, L.

Wade, L.

Romney, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Sudeley, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Suffield, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Swansea, L.

Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Swinfen, L.

Winstanley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Terrington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Kagan, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Vaizey, L.

Diamond, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wall, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

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

Melchett, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

White, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Northfield, L.

Wigg, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
  APPOINTMENTS BY LORD CHANCELLOR AND LORD PRIVY SEAL
  APPOINTMENTS BY LORD CHANCELLOR AND LORD PRIVY SEAL
  LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS: INCLEMENT WEATHER
  LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS: INCLEMENT WEATHER
  MR. SEAN O'CONAILL
  MR. SEAN O'CONAILL
  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: LAW COMMISSION'S REPORT
  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: LAW COMMISSION'S REPORT
  MERCHANT SHIPPING: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  MERCHANT SHIPPING: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  WATER AUTHORITIES: COSTINGS
  WATER AUTHORITIES: COSTINGS
  THE BROAD SANCTUARY SITE
  THE BROAD SANCTUARY SITE