Sitting of 10 February 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Unemployment
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland; and what measures he intends to take to reduce its level in the Province.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): In January of this year, the latest date for which information is available, the total number of unemployed in Northern Ireland was 57,975 or 10·9 per cent. of all employees. The Government will continue to make every effort to preserve existing employment and to stimulate new job opportunities.
    Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware that, if conditions of fair competition are not secured for the heavy and light clothing industries in Northern Ireland, this will add considerably to the alarming
    1632
    figure of unemployed in the Province? Is he also aware that the removal of every defence establishment in Northern Ireland, with the exception of the guided missile section at Short Brothers and Harland, has added unnecessarily to the unemployment level and is nonsense in terms of military strategy?
    Mr. Concannon: The main long-term cause of the decline in sections on which Northern Ireland has traditionally relied for employment is the current recession, but the civil disturbances have also made it difficult to attract new industry. When Rolls-Royce was leaving the Province we wrote to 1,400 leading firms in 13 different countries. Only 33 replied and 17 expressed an interest. Only one of those firms is now interested. Those are the lengths to which we go.
    Mr. Fitt: The figure of over 50,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland is intolerable and unacceptable for any region of the United Kingdom. Is the line of communication between the Department and trade unions in Northern Ireland adequate to deal with this disastrous situation? Do the Government plan to set up new State-sponsored industries in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Concannon: Our relations with the trade unions in Northern Ireland are as good now as they have ever been. Since 1972 the number of employed in Northern Ireland has risen from 470,487 to 494,000. That means that there are more workers in Northern Ireland than there have been for a long time. We shall do all we can to help. Sometimes, however, I feel like the fellow who tried to sell caravan holidays on the beaches of Normandy in 1944.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Since energy costs, particularly those of electricity are so high, will the hon. Gentleman provide immediate aid to industry so that it is able to compete more favourably with the rest of the United Kingdom and with the EEC and to take on more workers?
    Mr. Concannon: We have many pluses vis-à-vis the rest of the country and the EEC with our investment programmes in Northern Ireland. We have some minuses as well. Among the pluses is the retention of the regional employment

    1633
    premium. The situation has been considered in the Quigley Report, which we are examining.

    Road Accident Casualties
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional measures are being taken to reduce road accident casualties in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I have been gravely disturbed at the high incidence of road accident casualties in Northern Ireland. Accordingly I have taken the initiative of forming a study group, with members drawn from a wide cross-section of the community and charged with the following terms of reference:

    (a) To examine the problem of the high level of road casualties in Northern Ireland;

    (b) To consider the effectiveness of current and planned programmes which are designed to influence public attitudes on road safety;

    (c) To look at the options for future road safety action with particular reference to publicity, education and enforcement; and

    (d) To make recommendations.

    Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister accept that his announcement will be welcomed in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is essential to remove the apathy that exists towards road accidents in the Province? Will he confirm that deaths from road accidents last year exceeded those caused by terrorism? Does he agree that road accident deaths are just as intolerable and tragic? Will he draw to the attention of the study group that he intends to set up the problems of young motor cyclists?
    Mr. Carter: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. The stark truth is that in Northern Ireland in the past two years almost 3,000 people have died on the roads—more than have died as a result of the civil disturbances. The fatal accident figure is over three times higher than the figure for the rest of Great Britain, and we must do something about it.
    Mr. Hardy: Although my hon. Friend is right to take action about the tragic
    1634
    situation, has not the level of expenditure on roads in Northern Ireland over the last 10 years been substantially higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Carter: That is quite true. Unfortunately, the level of road safety consciousness has not kept pace with road developments. If we get the two in step with one another, I am sure that the accident figure will drop.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: What progress is being made in introducing road safety courses in schools?
    Mr. Carter: Ironically enough, Northern Ireland has an excellent record in that matter. I have looked at the schemes used in the schools. There is a high incidence of education in all schools and at all levels, yet, surprisingly enough, this does not seem to have much of an impact on the level of road safety. I hope that this will be one aspect of road safety in Northern Ireland that the study group will be examining.

    Republic of Ireland (Talks)
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his visit to Dublin on 24th January.
    Mr. Sandelsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his discussions in Dublin on 24th January with the Government of the Irish Republic.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): In my first visit to Dublin as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 24th January, I had full and wide-ranging discussions with Dr. FitzGerald, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other Irish Ministers. I paid a courtesy call on the Taoiseach.
    The visit allowed me to establish a direct relationship with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and to discuss areas of mutual interest in a friendly and constructive manner.
    Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, will he reassure the House that all the rumours that we have been hearing from time to time about diplomatic relations between the British Government and the Eire Government are totally false?
    Mr. Mason: I found during my visit, having met five Ministers and the Taoiseach, that they were very cooperative in all the fields for which they have ministerial responsibilities. In retrospect, I think that there has been a noticeable improvement in relations between Her Majesty's Government and that of the Republic.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Did the "direct relationship" of which the Secretary of State speaks include his expressing any views about the craven failure of the Government of the Republic to sign the European convention on terrorism? Did he say to them that within civilised States it is not acceptable to have constitutional excuses for harbouring known criminals, murderers and thugs, who ought to be returned to the North for trial, let alone to the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Mason: The Republic was aware of my views before I went, because I placed them on record in this House. I reiterate that I regret that the Government of the Republic have not signed the convention. I still hope that all Council of Europe States will do so.
    Mr. McCusker: Did the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to tell the Prime Minister of the Republic that his Government were being at least hypocritical in pursuing the British Government through the courts in Europe while they were inflicting similar torture on my constituents in Port Laoise Gaol?
    Mr. Mason: I do not think that I would be as blunt as that to the Taoiseach. However, the Republic knows, as the House knows, that our views concerning the Irish State case have been placed on record. The more that they are publicised at the European Court, the more they serve only the cause of the Provisional IRA. However, some years ago we recognised, as a House and Parliament, that we had been guilty of ill treatment and that 14 prisoners had been ill treated. We admitted that, and we have now paid compensation to all
    1636
    14. I thought that that was a first-class example of a mature democracy. Only the Provisional IRA can gain as a result of pursuing this cause.

    Employment (Newry)
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the net balance of jobs known to have been created and lost in Newry in 1976.
    Mr. Concannon: The information available about jobs created and jobs lost in the Newry area in 1976 relates only to firms which have received selective assistance under industries development legislation. For these firms the known job losses and creations were 311 and 258 respectively, a net loss of 53 jobs.
    Mr. Powell: Does the Minister agree that it is, as far as possible, desirable to present both sides of a balance sheet, and that attraction is too readily diverted from new enterprises towards the cases where enterprises fail? Will he further agree with me that the continued development of Warrenpoint port should tilt this balance in the opposite direction before long?
    Mr. Concannon: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the infrastructure at Warrenpoint and the new roads and the development of new factories there show our concern about areas of high unemployment, such as we have at Newry. There are other sides to the matter as well. It is remarkable that I can give those figures and then say that unemployment has fallen in Newry from 22·5 per cent. to 21·2 per cent. in the same period. We have the same problem in Newry as we have in the rest of Northern Ireland. There are more people now available for work in Newry than there were. There are more people now at work in Newry than there were as recently as, say, 1972.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Minister of State aware that the official Opposition think that the efforts being made by the Government, not only in County Down but throughout a Province with a splendid record of productivity and a great recent export achievement, give the lie to talk about economic withdrawal, which can only help the terrorists?
    Mr. Concannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which back up all the hard work that has been done by my colleagues in Northern Ireland and by the Department of Commerce, the Department of Manpower and other Departments.

    Massereene Hospital, Antrim
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take to ensure full utilisation of the existing facilities at Massereene Hospital, Antrim.
    Mr. Carter: Responsibility for this matter rests with the Northern Health and Social Services Board, which has it under review. I am, however, keeping in close touch with developments.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that the new wing of this hospital, which in today's values would cost about £2 million, is lying idle? Will he ensure that the 50 surgical beds involved and the modern theatre are brought fully into use? Will he give an undertaking that there will be no further rundown of any existing departments?
    Mr. Carter: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. He has written to my noble Friend on the subject. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the difficulties at the hospital are currently the subject of investigation. Indeed, my noble Friend intends to reply to the hon. Gentleman's letter in the very near future.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that the future of the Massereene Hospital is closely connected with the future of the Waverley Hospital in Ballymena, and that these two hospitals depend upon each other for their services, especially theatre services? Will he tell us when the board, which has been very slow in making up its mind on the future of the hospitals in North Antrim, will be able to bring in final recommendations about them?
    Mr. Carter: As far as I am aware, there is no doubt about the future of these hospitals. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is some doubt hanging over the two hospitals, perhaps he would write to my noble Friend, when he would get a categorical reply on the future of both hospitals.

    Commercial and Industrial Investment
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of investment in the commerce and industry of Northern Ireland in 1976 from public funds and from private sources.
    Mr. Concannon: In 1976, total investment in manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland from public and private sources was in the region of £171 million. A particularly encouraging feature was the continuing high level of investment by firms in modernisation and re-equipment which over the past two years has averaged £90 million, an increase in real terms of some 40 per cent. over the 1974 level. Further encouragement can be taken from the confidence shown during the past year by firms which have indicated their intentions to undertake new projects and expansions in the immediate future involving additional investment of over £67 million, of which nearly £21 million will be carried out by major foreign-based companies.
    In addition, substantial investments were made in the service and commercial sectors, but details are not readily available.
    Mr. Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend for that very satisfactory answer. May I invite him to inform the House how many new jobs have resulted or will result from that very gratifying investment?
    Mr. Concannon: I wish that I could give my hon. Friend a more gratifying answer about new jobs as a result of this new investment. Unfortunately, however, in these days investment is to a great extent in infrastructure and job stabilisation. Although the value of the investment is well above the levels of 1972, 1973 and 1974, but slightly below that of 1975, job expectation from the investment of £67 million is about 2,250 jobs. Much of the investment is in job stabilisation.
    Mr. Bradford: How much of the £171 million was invested by American or European complexes, and how does the figure from private sources compare with the amount invested by Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Concannon: I think I said that £21 million has been invested by foreign

    1639
    companies. I cannot break that figure down into individual companies. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to do that.
    Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend prepared to accept the implied suggestion from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) that we need to extend public investment—in other words, State enterprise—to help with the unemployment problem?
    Mr. Concannon: To be quite honest with my hon. Friend, I do not think we do too badly in that respect in Northern Ireland. I find myself in charge of a salt mine, shirt manufacturing and just about anything else he cares to mention.
    Mr. Farr: What funds came from EEC sources in the year in question for industrial training grants and purposes of that nature?
    Mr. Concannon: I cannot say offhand to the nearest million, but Northern Ireland on a population basis, or on any other basis, has had far more than its share in this respect. Grants such as this are available and should be available for areas with high unemployment such as Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The IRA, or the Provisional IRA, has declared that it intends to take Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland apart brick by brick. Will the hon. Gentleman initiate a campaign—a counter-blitz—forthwith to rebuild industry, shops, factories and houses in Northern Irelands as an act of faith?
    Mr. Concannon: We have been doing that for some considerable time, not as an act of faith but as an act of Government policy. This gives the complete lie to any talk of economic or any other sort of withdrawal.

    Trainee Nurses (Recruitment)
    Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what newspapers circulating in Northern Ireland vacancies are advertised for trainee nurses for Tyrone and Fermanagh Hospital and Tyrone County Hospital.
    Mr. Carter: None. Personal applications are sufficient to meet the demand for trainee nurses.
    Mr. Dunlop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that strenuous efforts are now being made to obtain work permits for many applicants from the southern Irish Republic as trainee nurses in the area of the Western Health and Social Services Board? In view of the calamitous unemployment situation in that area will the hon. Gentleman request his noble Friend to instruct the authorities to give the utmost priority to local applications, especially from school leavers who may want to enter the nursing service or an ancillary medical service in the Western area?
    Mr. Carter: I think that the hon. Gentleman has probably asked the wrong question. There is no need to advertise for trainee nurses. If he had referred to trained nurses instead of trainee nurses, he would have received the reply that we advertise in the Sentinel, the Journal, the Strabane Weekly News, the Strabane Chronicle Tyrone Advertiser the Tyrone Constitution, the Ulster Herald and the Fermanagh Herald and Leitrim and Monaghan News, not forgetting, of course, the Impartial Reporter.

    Official Secrets Act Declarations
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why members of the Housing Executive and other public bodies in Northern Ireland have recently been asked to sign the Official Secrets Act.
    Mr. Carter: All persons entrusted with official information in confidence have an obligation to protect that information. Whether or not such persons sign a declaration of their awareness of the requirements of the Official Secrets Acts, they are subject to their provisions.
    The Housing Executive is the only public body in Northern Ireland whose members have recently been asked to sign such declarations.
    Mr. Aitken: Has the Minister forgotten that the Official Secrets Act is a major criminal statute designed to protect the security of the State, a measure that should not be used as a convenient suppressing device for preventing ministerial embarrassment? As information on matters relating to housing can hardly involve national security in Northern Ireland, will the hon. Gentleman please

    1641
    find other methods of preserving confidentiality? Will he ask the Government to stop abusing the Official Secrets Act in this way?
    Mr. Carter: I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to study the affairs of Northern Ireland in a somewhat more profound way than he has done so far. Housing matters can be the subject of severe problems and difficulties in Northern Ireland in a way that they are not in the rest of the United Kingdom. I might add that every member of the Housing Executive voluntarily signed the Official Secrets Act declaration.
    Mr. Fitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of resentment has been occasioned in Northern Ireland by locally elected representatives of the various district councils being asked to sign an official declaration that they will not divulge information? Does he recognise that this is understandable in respect of civil servants but not where local authority people have been elected by popular mandate? Surely their right should not be infringed. From the knowledge we have gained in the House, does my hon. Friend agree that it would not he difficult, whether or not an official declaration is signed, for the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to get the information that he has so often divulged in the House?
    Mr. Carter: No other bodies have been asked to sign the Official Secrets Act, although its provisions have been drawn to the attention of the chairmen of a number of bodies. As for the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I have no knowledge of leaks that might have occurred and the information from them that has found its way to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
    Mr. Molyneaux: As this practice would have the effect of muzzling the indirectly-elected members of the various bodies if it were extended, is that not a sound reason for suggesting that ultimate control of such bodies should be restored to directly-elected representatives?
    Mr. Carter: That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman and his hon Friends to attempt to resolve.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it the fact that drawing the attention of certain chair-
    1642
    men of boards to the Official Secrets Act is the beginning of insistence that the members of boards will have to sign the appropriate declaration? Is it not a fact that there was no talk about the Official Secrets Act until there was a scandal in the Housing Executive and many millions of pounds—this is now under investigation by the police—went into the hands of the Provisional IRA? Is is not the case that it was only then that the Official Secrets Act was brought in?
    Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. It had nothing to do with the revelations to which he refers. As for the extension of the Act to other bodies, I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), that there is no intention now of extending it.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Having heard the views that have been expressed strongly from both sides of the House, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to reconsider this matter? Should not distinction be drawn between officials and elected members of local authorities?
    Mr. Carter: In the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland, many statutory bodies deal with functions which are normally in the hands of elected bodies here and in the rest of the United Kingdom. There was no demur on the part of individual members of the Housing Executive when they were asked to sign.
    Mr. Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Assassinations
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many assassinations and attempted assassinations there have been in each of the last four months in the RUC O Division.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): There were no assassinations or attempted assassinations in October 1976; there were three assassinations and one attempted assassination in November; there was one assassination and one attempted assassination in December; and in January 1977 there was nine attempted assassinations but no actual assassinations.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware of the great concern felt by my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) at the rising tide of assassinations and attempted assassinations by the IRA in South Londonderry on the eastern side of the Sperrins? The situation is deplorable. Will the Minister undertake to take every necessary step, including an increase in police manpower and the use of the SAS, to destroy the IRA element which is so active in that area? Will he further seek extradition warrants against such persons who flee the jurisdiction, whether to the Irish Republic, the United States of America or any other State?
    Mr. Dunn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that every possible step will be taken to deal with these criminal acts. The hon. Gentleman referred to many complicated issues. He will be aware that the control and use of the SAS are in the hands of the GOC. No doubt the remarks that have been made today will be drawn to the attention of the GOC.
    Mr. Fitt: Will my hon. Friend rebut the innuendo in the question asked by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that only the IRA is responsible for assassinations? Will he bring to the attention of the House that quite a number of innocent Roman Catholics have been murdered in the Glencairn area of Belfast in a most hideous and vicious manner by having their throats cut? If he is to send the SAS anywhere in Northern Ireland, will he send it to that area, to prevent assassinations continuing?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a fact of life. Assassination, murder, bombing and maiming are acts that do not belong primarily to any one section of the community. We are diminished by any murder, assassination, maiming or bombing, from no matter where it comes.
    Mr. Carson: Is the Minister aware that the Forthriver and Glencairn estates are in my constituency? The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has tried to impress on the House that only Roman Catholics have been murdered in that area. There have been quite a few Protestants murdered in that area. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the IRA
    1644
    has stepped up its assassination attempts on the RUC? Is he also aware that the reinforced vehicles, much publicised in the Press in Northern Ireland, have not been delivered to the RUC?
    Mr. Dunn: I am sure that the House will have taken note of what has been said by representatives from the two parts of the community and will appreciate the difficulties which we continually face. I repeat, the death of anybody diminishes us all. If we cannot join together in a serious attempt to stop these crimes without too much labouring of the point, we shall fail everybody.

    Political Parties (Talks)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about his latest conversations with representatives of political parties.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to call a conference of all or any existing groupings involved presently in the Northern Ireland problem; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the political situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to devolving some measure of the administration of the Province to a committee made up of politicians drawn from the Northern Ireland parties.
    Mr. Budgenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his proposals for the political future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mason: At their request I met representatives of the Social Democratic and Labour Party on 31st January and the Official Unionist Party on 1st February. At both meetings I emphasised that the first requirement for political or constitutional progress was for the parties to demonstrate a willingness to seek agreement with each other.

    1645
    The Government wish to see the establishment of a system of devolved government that commands widespread acceptance throughout both parts of the community in Northern Ireland and provides for participation and partnership by representatives of both communities. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland share that wish and that they are looking to their political leaders to rise above narrow party interests and to work together in the greater interest of Northern Ireland. Given the willingness to work together, I shall play my part and I am sure that the constitutional questions can then be resolved.
    The first step is for the parties to talk together. The idea of administrative non-legislative devolution may not satisfy all the aspirations of the parties, but it could provide a subject for discussion to see what could grow from it. I do not exclude interim arrangements for partial devolution, provided that they involve some real power and responsibility and are not merely advisory.
    If the parties show willingness to work together, they will not find me slow to respond.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that reply mean that, pending an agreement between the different elements in the political life of the Province, the Secretary of State would be willing to advance some proposals to keep democracy alive in what is now a yawning gap between district councils in Northern Ireland and this House?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a gap between local councils and parliamentary representation. During the course of direct rule, with five Ministers present in the Province, we are doing our utmost to bridge the gap, but it is not satisfactory. It would be better to have a devolved Government run by Northern Ireland politicians who are nearer to the people and more representative than five Westminster Ministers operating in the Province. I do not think that the time is opportune for ministerial intervention. I am going through another round of discussions with the political parties. I have just made arrangements to meet delegations from the Alliance Party and the Democratic Unionist Party next week.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the four hon. Members whose Questions are being answered with this one. Mr. Martin Flannery.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, though I am grateful for the answer which he has given to this group of questions, it is unfortunate that he has lumped Question 12 with the other Questions? Does he also accept that Northern Ireland Question Time is unfortunately characterised by a lack of political questions, and that I try on every occasion to get to the politics, because the solution is not security, but political? Therefore, will he attempt to answer my question which asks him whether he has any plans to get together with the other interested parties in order to seek a political solution so that, no matter what their viewpoints may be, they can discuss that solution across the table? There is no other way. The killing will be going on 10 years from now unless that kind of conference takes place.
    Mr. Mason: I agree that there is no military solution to the problem in Northern Ireland. It has to be a political solution. If there is to be a political solution, it will be necessary to have a partnership in a devolved Government. The political parties must be willing to talk to each other in order to frame an idea for an administrative or executive devolved Government. I am now going through a round of political talks with those parties. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising the political question on the Floor of the House. Of course we discuss security a great deal, but that is evident from the situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Watkinson: As a result of his talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland, is my right hon. Friend able to say whether he sees any movement or development on the power-sharing front or, indeed, whether he finds any acceptability across the broad spectrum of political parties on administrative devolution?
    Mr. Mason: From the meetings that I have so far held with the SDLP and the OUP, the answer is "No". There has been no willingness to move by the OUP leadership. They told me frankly that at this stage they still stand by the majority convention report. I recognised that,

    1647
    flowing from a proposal that was floated on the Floor of the House some weeks ago, they would like to see a little movement in local government. That proposal could be discussed if the other parties were prepared to talk about it.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Why does the Secretary of State take it upon himself to impose conditions about when democracy should be returned to Northern Ireland? Does he agree that Ulster people are denied the right to say how their money and local affairs should be administered? Will he give a more satisfactory and positive answer about the initiative that he intends to take to see that that happens?
    Mr. Mason: How does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government can try to impose solutions upon the people of Northern Ireland when the people themselves and the political parties concerned are not even prepared or willing to talk about solutions? Imposition would be folly.
    Mr. Budgen: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unjust that Northern Ireland should continue to be so unrepresented at Westminster for so many years after the abolition of Stormont? Will he bring forward immediate proposals to remedy that serious injustice?
    Mr. Mason: That is not a matter primarily for me. On many occasions I have explained to the members of the political parties in Northern Ireland and in this House that the course that I should prefer would be a satisfactory devolved Government, which would pave the way for increased parliamentary representation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend will be aware that what he has said will be welcomed by most of those who have the interests of Ireland at heart, that, in the view of most of us, the previous Tory Government made a valiant effort to create a system of power sharing, and that this Labour Government have tried to follow it through. Therefore, what is the future when some Opposition Members openly declare that they will never agree to power sharing of any kind? What hope is there?
    Mr. Mason: If political parties, or any one political party, especially one of those that play a major role in Northern Ire-
    1648
    land, stand back in that way, they will be imposing a veto on political development in Northern Ireland. They therefore have some responsibility on their shoulders. Because of that, I expect them to rise above these narrow party differences and be prepared to talk to other parties, and to be willing to discuss ways and means of finding a form of devolved government.
    Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and others that the IRA and the other terrorist organisations do not care a fig whether there is devolved government or political agreement in Northern Ireland, and that indeed they would rather that there were not? Second, does he agree that all the political parties in Northern Ireland that have a substantial electoral support are represented in this House and that representatives in this House stand ready both to advise and to co-operate with him?
    Mr. Mason: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I believe his latter point to be valid. He has just made an honest approach to the matter. I know that he and some of his hon. Friends are prepared to try to find ways and means at least of getting a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. These ideas have already been floated. Because they are ideas, they are worth talking about before they jell into proposals that may be a fait accompli to the others. There are the ideas. Why cannot the parties discuss them?
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only the IRA who do not care a fig about the idea of devolved government? Is he also aware that the House will both welcome his decision in holding these discussions and also stress the need for caution about any undue optimism? Would he agree that it would be foolish to try to fill the Macrory gap in local government if that were to be used as an excuse to stop any form of proper devolved government?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend speaks with knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs. Filling the Macrory gap would be a form of enhanced local government in the Province, but if the parties are prepared to talk about that form of regional

    1649
    council of administration, it may grow into a more executive form of devolved government in time. At this stage, however, I have no evidence of political parties wishing to discuss even that.

    Police (Community Relations Branch)
    Mr. John Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Community Relations Branch of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Mr. Dunn: I know from the Chief Constable that the branch is engaged in a wide and varied programme of activity designed to advance understanding between the police and the public and to promote reconciliation in the community. The weekend sessions attended by people from both sides of the community have established a most useful dialogue, and I draw particular encouragement from the branch's work in organising youth clubs and other productive pursuits. For young people the branch makes a very valuable contribution to the establishment of trust and understanding across the sectarian divide. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the dedication of the Community Relations Branch officers and to express my appreciation to them.
    Mr. Ellis: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, and I appreciate the work of all concerned. Is the work of the Community Relations Branch directed at any particular section of the community?
    Mr. Dunn: No. The branch directs its efforts to the whole community. Its aim is to break down sectarian barriers and to promote mutual understanding. Particular emphasis is always placed on the work with young people. I cannot speak too highly of the success already achieved.
    Mr. Miscampbeil: I appreciate the Minister's optimistic reply, but will he encourage all parties in Northern Ireland to support the RUC and recruitment to it?
    Mr. Dunn: I do so, I will always continue to do so and I have already done so.
    Mr. McCusker: Does not the Minister agree that, at a time when police man-
    1650
    power is at a premium, this work could be passed on to someone else to undertake and the police released to get on with defeating terrorism?
    Mr. Dunn: There are two points of view on this matter. I believe that, for the time being, the police are the best people to undertake this work. What we are trying to do is create a relationship between the police and the community. I hope that at a later stage further developments will be possible.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister and his colleagues frequently refer to "the two parts of Northern Ireland". Will he make it clear that the only division in Northern Ireland among the people is between those who are terrorists and those who are law-abiding?
    Mr. Dunn: I wish that that were the only distinction—it would be much easier to work—but the hon. Gentleman will know that that is not absolutely true.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to wait until the end of Prime Minister's Question Time?
    Mr. Paisley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

    FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a person with practical experience of property development to the Committee on the Functioning of Financial Institutions under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): No. The Committee is not intended to be representative of particular interests. The property development industry is, however, free to submit evidence and I am sure that this would be welcomed by the Committee.
    Mr. Latham: In the interests of increasing invisible earnings, could the Committee investigate the dismal trading

    1651
    performance of that unique branch of social enterprise, Labour Party Properties Limited?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that if the Committee would find it interesting, it would be open to it to do so. The hon. Gentleman may not understand that Labour Party Properties Limited is a non-profit-making venture—[Interruption]—but, unlike the rest of the property companies in Britain, it is deliberately non-profit-making. In other words, it was set up so that no one who was associated with it should draw any funds or fees from it but that it should assist local parties with their activities and their property. It has been very successful in doing so.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend ask our right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), when the Committee is established, to look into the City's response to the National Enter-price Board, the finance for equity organisation, which, after having been in existence for eight months, has made no investment at all in manufacturing industry? We are told that the chairman is being cautious. Is this not being a bit too cautious, especially as plenty of money is sitting around in the City instead of being used for manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, the National Enterprise Board has in my judgment made a very good start in the work that it is required to do and is rapidly gaining in prestige and authority over the whole field. As regards the funds available, it is the purpose of the Committee on Financial Institutions—its exact purpose—to examine the reasons why finance from the City has not flowed more easily into industry and, if there are any obstacles, to see that they are removed.
    Mr. Baker: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the present policy of the Bank of England, which seems to be to intervene to keep interest rates high? How can that be in the interest of the economy, since it attracts hot money which we do not want and deters capital investment which we do want? The net result of a high interest rate policy is to ensure that in nine months unemployment will be higher than it would otherwise have been.
    The Prime Minister: The level of sterling must clearly depend to some extent on the rate of inflation in this country, although that, of course, can be offset for a period of months or indeed, on occasions, a year or more. Therefore, our first task is to ensure that the rate of inflation does not increase and, indeed, that it substantially diminishes. For that purpose, I hope that we shall manage to get through the economic policies that are needed, especially in relation to investment and regeneration, and more especially to another round this year of wage agreements, which will enable us to ensure that inflation will come down.
    I should like to emphasise one further point. I believe that if the people of this country, despite the forecasts which were made, want to throw away the gains of the last couple of years—[HON. MEMBERS: "What gains?"]—for example, the gains by reducing the absurd rate of money increase bequeathed to us by the previous Government, which has now been brought under control, and various other gains including the halving of the rate of inflation. I would say to the House, and through it to the country, that if we can accept another year of continued restraint there is little doubt that the rate of inflation will be substantially lower. If that is now thrown away as a result of impatience, I believe that we shall be heading for a vastly increased rate of inflation.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (BROADCAST)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if the television broadcast by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 17th January 1977 on "Panorama" on economic policy represented Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on 8th February.
    Mr. Ridley: Is it not now clear that the Labour Party is the party that believes that a high rate of unemployment is the way to keep wages down? Does the Prime Minister not think that he is actually overdoing it? If he brought down interest rates a little and encouraged

    1653
    a little bit of expansion he might be able to provide a few more jobs and prosperity for our people.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know that interest rates have come down from 15 per cent. to 12 per cent. If we manage to keep on top of the rate of inflation, even without the hon. Gentleman's support, I trust that interest rates will be able to continue to come down. But to some extent they, like the rate of sterling, will reflect the rate of inflation, and inflation is still our major enemy. If we do not conquer that, unemployment will go even higher than it is today. The suggestion that unemployment is used as an instrument is completely and utterly false.
    Mr. Ridley: That is what the Government are doing.
    Mr. David Steel: In considering the next stage of discussions on income controls will the Prime Minister consider exempting from restraint new profit-sharing schemes in industry, on the ground that they are more likely to introduce harmony, partnership and productivity than anything contained in the Bullock Report?
    The Prime Minister: I shall bring that to the notice of the Chancellor. The discussions that he is now having will take place with both sides of industry. All these matters can be considered. I have frequently referred to the fact that this third year will be the most difficult of all. People are inevitably impatient with the situation. That I understand. But there is no better way. No one has been able to point one out, certainly not the Opposition.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that wage restraint in itself it not sufficient to keep down the rate of price inflation? There needs to be something else by way of price control in order to make sure that the country and trade unionists derive benefit from the sacrifices that they are being asked to make. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that trade unionists are feeling somewhat sick that it is they who are continually being asked to make sacrifices and that their living standards are about to go down still further? Will the Prime Minister give confidence to the discussions now taking place by announcing shortly that the
    1654
    Government intend to bring in price controls? That is the only way in which trade unionists will now consider phase 3 of the wages policy.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the trade union leaders will have an extremely difficult time this year trying to convince their members of the benefit of this inevitable policy. It is a policy that must succeed, and we must all work to that end. I shall certainly do all I can to make it succeed.
    My hon. Friend is right about prices. Inevitably these two things are compared, but he will know, as we all know, that to a large extent commodity prices and the price of imported raw materials are not under our control. For example, the quintupling of oil prices led to a great deal of unemployment not only in this country but throughout the world. When we are considering what can be done to control prices we must take these factors into account. But we shall take every step that we can to make sure that profit margins are not excessive and that prices are kept under control.
    Sir G. Howe: May I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) about exchange rate policy? Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that one other factor that would keep up prices would be any attempt to hold down the exchange rate? That would also have the effect of keeping up interest rates. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the authorities are deliberately intervening to hold down the exchange rate, and, if so, with what objective and for how long?
    The Prime Minister: It is not the custom to discuss exchange rate policy in that kind of detail. I do not propose to do so this afternoon. Whatever the Opposition may feel about giving signals to people in the City, it is not my desire to do so.

    EUROPEAN COUNCIL
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Prime Minister what will be on the agenda of the Rome meeting of the European Council at the end of March.
    The Prime Minister: The European Council does not have a formal agenda. It is still too early to say exactly what

    1655
    the Council will wish to discuss, but, in addition to Community matters, there will clearly be a range of important issues arising from the world economic situation.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the problem of unemployment is put well to the forefront of the agenda? Does he agree that unemployment is a global problem and that concerted action is needed to deal with it? Will he ensure that the Council considers the bold and imaginative proposals that President Carter has made? It is time that we had some positive response to those proposals.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I shall certainly ensure that that is so. There is no doubt that between 1968 and 1974 world production grew at the rate of 8 per cent. a year. But the fact that world production fell by 8 per cent. in 1975–76 has led to a dramatic increase in unemployment throughout the whole of the industrialised world. The steps that have been taken by President Carter have been valuable. Other countries, too, should take such steps. These matters will be discussed at the European Council.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister consider making this meeting really meaningful by insisting on the ratification of the European convention against terrorism? It is a proper subject for discussion at that meeting. Will he also firmly raise with the Government of the Irish Republic their ratification of this convention, because at the moment they are not prepared to ratify? Will he point out to them that if they wish to pursue a course of civilised behaviour but are not prepared to ratify the convention, Europe and this country will have to consider various actions against them?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is a proper person to raise the question of the ratification of this agreement. I can certainly assure him that I shall discuss it with the other Heads of Government. Everyone needs to ratify it. It is Britain's desire that they should do so, and we shall place the maximum possible pressure on them to do so within the limits of our power.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to allay the considerable anxiety in Europe about
    1656
    the Government's integrity on direct elections to the European Parliament? Will he give his colleagues in Europe a categorical assurance that the legislation will be on the statute book by the end of this session? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: Does my hon. Friend really believe that after his expeditions over the last few weeks I would give any guarantee about any legislation being on the statute book? I am not caught that way. What the Government have said is that they will continue to use their best endeavours in this matter.
    Mr. Marten: At the meeting of the European Council, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to explain to it why it is that, when it comes to devolution, the Government are settling the powers of the Assemblies before they have the direct elections, but that, when it comes to the European Parliament, they want to have direct elections before settling the powers of the new Assembly? Is it not putting the cart before the horse to have direct elections before agreeing to any extension of powers that the Assembly may have? After all, ultimately, they might be vetoed by the French.
    The Prime Minister: I would not discuss devolution with the European Council, in any event. As for direct elections, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is unusually wrong. The powers of the European Assembly are settled. They are there. They are known. Of course, proposals might always be put forward for changes, but that does not necessarily mean that they would take place. This is an entirely different position.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Prime Minister press for the inclusion on the agenda for the Council meeting in March of a debate on the European common fisheries policy? Is he aware that the February Council meeting was a disaster for the United Kingdom's inshore fleet, 80 per cent. of which is in Scotland? Will he press, and ask his Ministers to press, for a 50-mile limit, or does he intend to give up that demand?
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the hon. Lady boycott the place?
    The Prime Minister: The agenda is a matter for agreement between the Heads

    1657
    of Government. However, there is no formal agenda, in that we try to settle issues that are the subject of negotiations. The hon. Lady's version of what took place at the February Council is totally inaccurate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will continue to negotiate this matter in the Foreign Ministers' Council, as will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the Agricultural Ministers' Council.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall take pleasure in raising this matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Job Release Bill.
Remaining stages of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
TUESDAY 15TH FEBRUARY and WEDNESDAY 16TH FEBRUARY—Progress On the Scotland and Wales Bill.
THURSDAY 17TH FEBRUARY—Supply [7th Allotted Day]: until about 7 o'clock, a debate on standards in education, and afterwards a debate on unemployment in the South-West. Both will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the British Railways Board (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order.
FRIDAY 18TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 21ST FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Covent Garden Market (Financial Provisions) Bill.
Debate on EEC Documents S/1882/76 and S/12/77 on textiles. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, other relevant textile documents are being listed in the Official Report.
Mrs. Thatcher: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. May I put three matters to him?
With regard to the business for Monday 21st February, I notice that the textile orders are the second item of business of the day. Will he say how long he expects the Covent Garden Market Bill to last? It is important to have time for a very long debate on textiles.
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot promise that we shall have the Second Reading of a Bill on direct elections soon, will he use his best endeavours to have the Bill published so that we know what it contains?
Thirdly, may we have a debate on foreign affairs before Easter?
Mr. Foot: On the right hon. Lady's first question about the business for Monday 21st February, it was our understanding that the debate on the Covent Garden Market Bill would be a very brief one and, therefore, that there would be an opportunity for an extended debate on textiles. But, if it suits the convenience of the House, we can reverse the order of the proposed arrangements and take the Covent Garden Market Bill at the end. I am quite prepared to discuss that. As for any proposals on direct elections, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on the subject a minute or two ago.
I am afraid that I have nothing to add, either, in response to the right hon. Lady's third question about a debate on foreign affairs.
Mrs. Hart: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Early-Day Motion, signed by a very large number of hon. Members representing several parties, calling for the immediate appointment of a Select Committee to look at those provisions of the 1971 Immigration Act which relate to deportation?
[That this House, is seriously concerned about the effect in practice of those provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 which relate to deportation on grounds of national security; concerned that these have involved a denial of natural justice, in that accused persons have not been informed of the charges against them and hive been denied the normal procedures of judicial hearings; is of the opinion that the relevant section of the

1659
Act should be referred for consideration to a Select Committee of the House.]
In view of the urgency of the matter, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that a Select Committee is set up very quickly?
Mr. Foot: I understand from the numbers who have signed the motion that on this matter there is considerable concern in the House. On the other hand, we have to be very careful about setting up more Select Committees. There are at the moment more than 300 hon. Members sitting on Select Committees. That is a factor which has to be taken into account. If my right hon. Friend wishes to make representations to me on the subject generally, I shall be prepared to receive them.
Mr. Beith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the merit in having a debate next week on Early-Day Motion No. 143, concerning the desirability of a North of England Development Agency?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government immediately to establish a Northern Regional Development Agency.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in office has written to hon. Members representing northern constituencies expressing the fear that there will be disparity in industrial promotion between Scotland and the North of England after devolution? Does not he think that a debate on the subject might make some of his hon. Friends more sympathetic to devolution?
Mr. Foot: I am not opposed to a debate on this important subject, but I am afraid that we cannot have it next week. In any event, I do not accept any suggestion that what the Government propose in any measure involves a disparity of treatment between the different regions. There is no prejudice against the North-East Region in anything that we are doing.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend consider the urgent need for a debate on unemployment generally, so that we may tackle the real problems facing us? Is he aware, for instance, that the so-called switch from the service industries to manufacturing is not working, even within the Government's own
1660
terms of reference? Does he appreciate that pipe-makers and moulders are being thrown out of work because of the Government's moratorium on public utilities such as housing and regional water authorities? Those are the matters that we want to talk about in this House, and not such subjects as devolution and direct elections.
Mr. Foot: Whatever may be the view reflected by my hon. Friend's remarks about devolution and about any proposals for direct elections, I am sure that everyone in the House and in the country agrees with the emphasis and importance that he attaches to the very serious unemployment problem throughout the country. Certainly there will be opportunities for varied debates on the subject in the coming weeks. There are certain subjects on which debates are due to take place. A debate is to take place on Thursday on one aspect of the matter. But there will be discussions on this during the whole of the forthcoming debates on the Budget and other matters. I quite agree that we must provide time for a constant discussion of this subject.
Mr. John Davies: Does the Leader of the House realise that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about a debate on foreign affairs filled the House with dismay? We have been waiting for this for months. Surely a discussion on Rhodesia, for example, is essential in the near future.
Mr. Foot: I understand that the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and others in all parts of the House want debates on various aspects of foreign affairs and on foreign affairs generally. But I have nothing fresh to add about the possibility of an immediate debate. There is always the opportunity for the Opposition to select Supply Days for this subject.
Mr. Sillars: When we come to further proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill next week, will my right hon. Friend be confirming what he told me a moment or two ago in a letter, that the Government will decisively reject the idea of having a question concerning independence on the referendum ballot paper?
Mr. Foot: No doubt there will be references to that matter in today's

1661
debate. There will be further discussions about it then. I would prefer the Government's view to be stated in the context of this debate. But I agree with my hon. Friend that this matter will figure in our debates next week.
Mr. Rippon: Is the Leader of the House aware of Early-Day Motion No. 108, in my name and the names of a majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House, urging Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in the Council of Ministers to mark the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome on 25th March by launching a European foundation on the basis suggested in the Tindermans Report?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in the Council of Ministers of the European Community with a view to marking the twentieth anniversary on 25th March of the signing of the Treaty of Rome by launching a European Foundation on the lines recommended in Mr. Tindemans' Report, to be financed partly by grants from the member states and partly from private funds, with the aim of promoting, either directly or by assisting existing bodies, any measures which will help towards greater understanding of European aims but placing the emphasis on human contacts such as youth activities, university exchanges and town twinnings.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, take appropriate steps to see that the wishes of the House are carried out?
Mr. Foot: I will pass on what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Whether I am the appropriate Minister to lead this fanfare, I am not sure
Mr. Kinnock: Has my right hon. Friend seen the amendment to his motion on the referendum standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), and has he noticed also that my name is attached to it in unholy alliance? May I put again the proposition that the Government should follow my hon. Friend's suggestion and thereby save £3 million of the taxpayers' money by stopping the Assembly in Cardiff now?
Mr. Foot: It never escapes my attention when my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) strays into dubious company. I have noticed the amendment. It is a matter which will arise in the debates which we shall be having later. Whether the amendment is called, I am sure that the matter is obviously one for debate in the general referendum debates that we shall be having.
Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is wholly unsatisfactory that a decision of such significance as the establishment of National Shipbuilders and Repairers Limited should be vouchsafed to the House by way on an Answer to a Written Question? Can he, therefore, assure us that if the Standing Orders Committee of another place concludes its consideration of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill next week, it will result in an oral statement being made in this House so that we may learn of the Government's intended reaction?
Mr. Foot: I think that we had better first see how various people behave in another place before we start making statements about it here.
Mr. Crawford: In view of the delaying tactics adopted by some hon. Members, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he intends to bring forward a timetable motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill?
Mr. Foot: I have nothing to say to the hon. Gentleman or to anyone else on that subject for the moment, but it occasionally crosses our minds.
Mr. Loyden: In supporting the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), may I urge the Leader of the House to take seriously into account the need for a debate on unemployment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the telecommunications industry workers are expressing great concern because of the Post Office cutback? I think that it is appreciated in the House generally that unemployment is the most important subject facing the working class, and therefore it is improper that the House does not debate the matter.
Mr. Foot: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool,

1663
Garston (Mr. Loyden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), as, I am sure, do all my right hon. and hon. Friends, that this is the No. 1 question facing the country. There is a whole variety of ways in which it can be and will be debated in the House over the coming weeks.
Mr. Thorpe: Whilst accepting that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to maintain a Trappist silence on the question of the guillotine, will he not have the same modesty on the question of Early-Day Motion No. 108? We do not require him to shelter behind the Foreign Secretary, as we regard him as being as good a European as anyone sitting on the Government Front Bench because we know that he would have resigned from the Government long ago if he had been in disagreement with their European policy. As he is the servant of the House, and since the motion has the names of more than half the membership of the House behind it, surely it must follow automatically that he is bound to find time for a debate on it. Can the right hon. Gentleman just tell us when?
Mr. Foot: There is not always that amount of time available for debates. I have already answered the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on the subject, and I will convey what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has said as accurately as I can to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, leaving out, of course, the preliminary terms of flattery which the right hon. Gentleman addressed to me.
Mr. Heffer: In looking at the timetable, will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us could be forgiven for thinking that the Government are not making unemployment the highest priority? Therefore, will he reconsider his answers, particularly as there are 80,000 unemployed on Merseyside alone, 25,000 of whom have been unemployed for well over a year? Is it not time that we made this question of unemployment the real priority and began to tackle it?
Mr. Foot: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no difference between us on the subject of the seriousness of the unemployment problem. He has a very
1664
serious unemployment problem on Merseyside, and I have serious unemployment in my constituency. I assure the House that the Government persistently give their attention to the subject and to the measures we propose over a whole range of matters designed to assist in overcoming the problem. The fact that other matters are discussed in the House, and must necessarily be discussed in the House, does not mean that members of the Government do not understand as well as my hon. Friend—if I may put it that way—the seriousness and inhumanity involved in the present unemployment figures.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal to close teacher-training colleges in Scotland has created turmoil among teachers and others involved in education, yet only one day has been put aside for the Scottish Grand Committtee to discuss this very serious matter next week? Will he take immediate steps to try to extend that debate to two days so that we can discuss the matter thoroughly?
Mr. Foot: I will convey that message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I cannot promise that he can supply extra days for the debate.
Mr. Jay: As, on Monday, the Government withdrew the EEC directive relating to lorry taxation, can my right hon. Friend assure us that they will not agree to any decision on it in Brussels until the House has had a further opportunity of debating it?
Mr. Foot: I agree, particularly in view of what was said by Ministers on Monday, that the matter must be brought before the House again. I give my right hon. Friend the undertaking for which he asks. I think that there was a misunderstanding in the House to some extent because there is a misunderstanding about the nature of the documents which are available to the House from the Council of Ministers. The Government were not suppressing any documents. But that does not detract from what I have said about the necessity for a further debate on that subject.
Mr. Tebbit: Again I ask the right hon. Gentleman when we may expect a statement of the Government's intentions in

1665
consequence of the fact that their aviation policy, on which they are renegotiating the Bermuda Agreement, was declared unlawful twice last year. When will the Attorney-General have time to decide what the Government should do?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman not accept the suggestion that, if the Government are using their best endeavours in the matter of producing a Bill for direct elections to the European Parliament, presumably they at least have the Bill drafted, and would it not be a good idea to put it on the Table for discussion outside the House, or introduce it in another place? After all, the other place might be busy later this year on devolution.
Mr. Foot: A statement will be made on the question of the Laker decision at a fairly early date. I have nothing to add on the question of direct elections to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago.
Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, because of the genuine and widespread concern about unemployment, and because the House has not yet had much time to debate this very grave social issue, many of us would find it an indecent affront if he were to find time to discuss direct elections to Europe before we had dealt with the great social problem of unemployment?
Mr. Foot: There is to be a debate on unemployment in one part of the country next Thursday, and there was a debate on unemployment in the North-West last week. Other opportunities will arise. I repeat that the Government are as concerned as anyone else in the House to do all in their power to deal with the unemployment problem and to see that opportunities shall be provided for it to be debated properly.
Mr. Montgomery: Next week we are to have a half-day debate on standards in education, taken in Opposition time. Would the Government be prepared to add some of their own time so that we could discuss at greater length the statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science announcing the drastic cutback in teacher training in England and Wales?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise any further time to add to what has been announced already. The fact that the Opposition provide time for many of these debates is part of the arrangements for the proper debating of matters in the House to which both parties have contributed in Opposition. Because we have a debate in Opposition time does not necessarily mean that we have to add some further Government time.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Should not the House have an opportunity to discuss the matter dealt with by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a Written Answer this week—namely, loans by building societies to councils—as some of us feel that the sum being offered is inadequate, being only one-fortieth of their total advances, to help the poorer half of the population? As that information was given in a Written Answer we have no opportunity to debate the matter, and I ask my right hon. Friend to find a time for us to debate it in the House.
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise time next week, but there are various opportunities when important matters such as that can be raised in the House.
Mr. Grylls: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his cavalier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) about a State holding company for the shipbuilding industry? As this is a major change of policy by the Government in the method of organising the shipbuilding industry, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made? Will he give a proper answer now and say that a statement will he made?
Mr. Foot: If I gave a cavalier answer to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), I shall try to give a Roundhead answer instead. I did not intend to dismiss what was said by the hon. Member for Oswestry. I thought that he was asking especially about what might be a decision in the House of Lords about the Examiners' Report on the shipbuilding Bill. I think that what I said before was sensible, namely, that we should wait to see what befalls before making a general statement about it. If, at a later stage, a further statement is required on shipbuilding policy generally, I shall make

1667
representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 3rd November 1975 the Government gave an undertaking to lay amendments to Standing Order No. 73A? Those were laid in November of last year but are still heading the remaining Orders of the Day. When my right hon. Friend continually says that we are finding our way in Committee over EEC legislation, does not that cast some doubt on the speed at which the Government wish to proceed? Will he now find time to debate these matters?
Mr. Foot: The date of 3rd November is imprinted on my heart because my hon. Friend has reminded me of it so frequently. We should be able to conclude the matter with a debate but, as my hon. Friend knows better than anybody, there are still some differences between us as to how we might settle the matter, and we can consider that only in a debate. We have to find a time to do that. To digest the large number of proposals, directives, legislation and other items that come from the European Community involves a great deal of the time of the House. We shall not solve all that by what my hon. Friend has so far proposed.
Mr. Biffen: The point which I raised earlier, and which was followed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), is one of substance and it turns on this: should the Standing Orders Committee of another place find that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is hybrid, surely it will be reasonable for a statement to be made in this House by the Secretary of State. It is a question not of being cavalier or Roundhead but of the Leader of the House not treating it as Cromwell did.
Mr. Foot: Cromwell had various different views. He was very good in his earlier days on this matter, but not so good in his later ones—[Horn. MEMBERS: "So were you."] It is for that very reason that I have always taken not Oliver Cromwell but John Lilburne as my hero. He had much better ideas about it altogether. I hope that that puts the hon. Gentleman back on the right side.
1668
It is a sensible idea for the House of Commons to wait before it decides to pronounce on the matter. I think that we should wait to hear what is said. I hope that the other place will accept the decision of the House of Commons and let that Bill go forward. I am sure that all those who supported Oliver Cromwell in his youth or old age will agree with that proposition.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I appeal to hon. Members, in the few minutes that we have left for business questions, to make their questions as brief as possible.
Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the chief causes of the present state of the British economy is unemployment? As many of us would prefer to debate unemployment on a general basis rather than the Scotland and Wales Bill, will my right hon. Friend change the business for next week and let us have a full debate on unemployment?
Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what I said before. I understand the feelings of my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends about the seriousness of the unemployment situation, but I cannot promise a general debate next week. I have no doubt that opportunities for debates on all the various aspects of economic policy will arise during the coming weeks.
Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Oliver Cromwell put the Levellers and Republicans in their place? Will he endeavour to do the same next week and always.
Mr. Foot: I do not think that anybody should be encouraged to follow the example of Oliver Cromwell at Burford or Ireland. We should see how, in this matter, we can sustain the supremacy of the House of Commons, and that arises on the point raised by the hon. Member for Oswestry.
Mr. Canavan: May we have the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill as soon as possible, to bring about much-needed investment in the industry and to improve the employment prospects of the workers in it, including the 600 miners at Polmaise Colliery in my constituency which the NCB is threatening to close

1669
despite the fact that there is work for at least 15 to 20 years because of the coal reserves there?
Mr. Foot: I shall consider the details of that case, but no Government in this century have done more than this Labour Government to sustain this industry.
Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strength of feeling among Scottish Members over the handling of business in the Scottish Grand Committee next week by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Many Members want to express their view about the closing of colleges of education, and one day in the Scottish Grand Committee is not enough. As the Committee is not meeting on Thursday, can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why it cannot do so?
Mr. Foot: I promised before that I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Lee: Does my right hon. Friend agree that apart from a general debate on foreign affairs there is a need for one before long on Rhodesia?
Has my right hon. Friend any indication when the Select Committee's Report on Members who were involved in the Poulson affair is likely to be available to the House, because we should like that matter to be settled?
Mr. Foot: I cannot give a date for that report being available to the House.
On my hon. Friend's first point, I acknowledge that events in Rhodesia are a proper matter for debate in this House, but we shall have to see what the possibilities are.
Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the fear of unemployment is not confined to the North-West? We in the South-East have the highest unemployment since the war. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can find time to debate this matter next week, instead of all the nonsense that he is putting through the House.
Mr. Foot: I repeat what I have said on many occasions. The Government fully understand the seriousness of the unemployment situation throughout the country. We have had many debates on
1670
this matter, and no doubt in the coming weeks there will be further debates on it.
Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the best way of sustaining the supremacy of this House is to give it time to debate the most serious social and economic problem today, which is unemployment? I accept that the Government are concerned about this matter. They should display before the House their proposals to solve the problem and listen to the advice of the House on the subject.
Mr. Foot: I do not dissent from my hon. Friend's general proposition. I add only that if the whole devolution Bill were placed on the statute book more time would be liberated for many other debates in this House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call three more hon. Members. We have been on business questions for 25 minutes.
Mr. Younger: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks to the Secretary of State for Scotland about next Tuesday's debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, will he impress upon him that it would be scandalous if those hon. Members with constituency interests could not take part in the debate? It is physically impossible for them all to speak if the debate is confined to Tuesday morning.
Mr. Foot: The number of questions put to me on that subject are further instances of the case for devolution.
Mr. Fairbairn: In view of recent revelations, some of which hon. Gentlemen opposite regard as trivial, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on the proper method of preparing the Honours List and the conduct of central Government at the highest level?
Mr. Foot: We shall not have a debate on that next week and not even write a poem about it.
Mr. Crouch: All this talk about Oliver Cromwell prompts me to ask the Leader of the House whether he can give an assurance that he is still a member of the Cromwell Association and that the building outside this place which is barricaded in blue does not contain a statute of John Lilburne.
Mr. Foot: I have written to the hon. this House has agreed that Northern Member on this subject, and I am very Ireland affairs do not get enough time, happy that he should publish the correspondence to enlighten the world generally.
Following are the EEC documents:
Reference Number and Subject

S/334/76: EEC/Macao agreement on trade in textiles.

S/383/76: EEC/Korea agreement on trade in textiles.

S/384/76: EEC/Singapore agreement on trade in textiles.

S/504/ 76: EEC/ Malaysia agreement on trade in textiles.

S/644/76: EEC/Japan agreement on trade in textiles.

S/1203/76: EEC/Portugal interim agreement.

R/1928/76: Origin rules—Mauritian textiles.

R/1879/76: Tariff quota for certain handwoven fabrics.

S/4318/76: EEC/Brazil agreement on trade in textiles.

S/1325/76: EEC/Colombia agreement on trade in textiles.

S/1479/76: Tariff quotas on cotton yarn, man-made fibres, outer garments etc. from Malta.

S/1601/76: Import arrangements for certain textiles originating in Singapore.

S/1602/76: Import arrangements for certain textiles originating in Malaysia.

S/1633/76: Tariff quota for certain textile products from Turkey.

S/1757/76: Imports of certain textile products originating in Macao.

S/1882/76: EEC/Bangladesh agreement on trade in jute products.

S/1984/76: EEC/Egypt agreement on trade in textiles.

S/12/77: EEC/India agreement on trade in jute productes.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise the point that I sought to raise at Question Time, It is the habit of Ministers to link together identical or near identical Questions. There were a number of Questions on the Order Paper today, on a particular subject, which were asked by hon. Members from Great Britain. There was one in my name, also, about the same subject. The Minister linked all the Questions by hon. Members from Great Britain but he did not include mine. As
1672
this House has agreed that Northern Ireland affairs do not get enough time, may I draw the attention of the Minister to this fact?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that the grouping of Questions is not a matter for me, but I am quite sure that his words will have been noted.
Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have listened to the business questions, and you will have noticed that about five or six were concerned with Oliver Cromwell. He has nothing to do with the business for next week or the following week. Would you allow another five or six replacement questions, because this is the only opportunity that Back Benchers have for influencing the business for the following weeks? Therefore, could we have a few more questions?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must realise the difficulty with which I am faced. If business questions are regarded as timeless, they will go on and on and on. There is other business to be dealt with today. It is my recollection—ever since I have been in the House—that it has not been the custom to go on quite as long as I allow for business questions.
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Ashley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I appreciate the answer that you gave to the first point of order raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Paisley) that grouping of Questions is not your responsibility, and I accept your ruling, nevertheless I am concerned about this. I have tabled 50 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services on vaccine-damaged children, and in the grouping of these questions the secretary of state has evaded some of them. I submit that, despite your reply to the point of order, it is your job to protect hon. Members' rights in the House, and that if Ministers are allowed to evade Questions by grouping the Answers, hon. Members rights are not being protected. Does this not conflict with your rôle?
Mr. Speaker: Strictly speaking, I should not have allowed that point of order because I had called upon the

1673
Orders of the Day to be read. I allowed it because of the special circumstances of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who may not have been able to follow the procedure at that moment. With regard to the grouping of Questions, I reiterate that this is a matter for Ministers and not for me.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress. 2nd February].
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The point of order that I wish to raise concerns both the motion in the name of the Leader of the House amending the order of this Committee, which we made on 13th January, and the New Clause 40 on the referendum in Scotland and Wales.
  With respect, I submit that in selecting both the motion and the new clause the Chair is departing from the precedents very firmly set by past rulings established in strictly comparable circumstances. I believe that in so doing, we are now establishing a new precedent and setting out beyond all doubt that amendments to any Bill before the House may make the Act which that Bill is designed to become operative solely ad referendum to the people. This applies as much to Finance Bills as to every other kind of Bill. This is the consequence which inevitably flows from the selection of the new clause in this way.
  I am not concerned for the moment with the merits or demerits of the referendum, or the method by which it is proposed that that referendum should be held. I am concerned simply with the propriety or otherwise of the procedure being used to have the new clause considered now. I quote from Chapter 21, page 523, of "Erskine May" in support of my contention:
  "Amendments to a Bill proposing that the provisions of a Bill should he subject to a referendum have been ruled out of order as proposing changes in legislative procedure which will be contrary to constitutional practice."
  In making that proposition, "Erskine May cites two precedents, one from the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill 1920 and the other from the Representation of the People Bill 1917. "Erskine May" does have a partial example in the opposite direction which is set out in footnote (g) on page

  1675
  523 which is appended to the main comment which I have just quoted. That footnote is concerned with an amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to the European Communities Bill. That amendment said that the Act should come into force on a day to be appointed by Statutory Instrument to be passed by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, but that date should not be until after a consultative and advisory referendum—I commend those words to you, Mr. Murton, "consultative advisory referendum"—having no binding effect on the Government had first been held, thereby enabling an assessment to be made of the extent to which the Treaty of Accession had the full-hearted consent of the British people.
  The main contention in "Erskine May" is that a referendum is not permissible for the reasons given. It is not permissible because it proposes changes in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice. In setting out this footnote it is quite clear that the main proposition is not affected by it, because the footnote is concerned only with a consultative referendum and not with a mandatory referendum and not with trying to constrain this House and Parliament generally by such a referendum. The wording of the clause makes clear that a consultative and advisory referendum would have no binding affect on the Government. The New Clause 40 is different.
  As "Erskine May" points out, the amendment proposed was expressly for such a consultative referendum, and it was not the lead amendment of a group, although it was voted on separately. In making that original statement, about a mandatory referendum which I have quoted, "Erskine May" turned, first, on the ruling given in 1920 on the Government of Ireland Bill. The Chairman ruled then that the amendment standing on the paper in the name of the then hon. Member for Leyton, which read:
  "Nothing in this Act shall take effect in Ireland until the proposals therein have been submitted with other alternatives to a referendum of the Irish people",
  was outside the scope of the Bill. That ruling was perfectly clear. The proposal to make the Bill subject to a referendum
  1676
  of the Irish people was ruled out of order.
  The second ruling was that earlier, in 1917, when the Representation of the People Bill was before the House. The Chairman said:
  "With regard to the Amendment standing first on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Watford Division of Hertfordshire (Mr. Arnold Ward) and other hon. Members, proposing that the whole of this clause should be subject to certain provisions for a referendum, I have to say that in my opinion that amendment is not admissible. I found myself on Mr. Speaker's ruling given on the 11th June, 1912''—
  that. of course, was Mr. Speaker Lowther—
  "when an Instruction was proposed to the Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill, giving power to the Committee on that Bill to make the whole of the provisions of the Bill subject to a referendum, and in giving that ruling the present Mr. Speaker quoted a similar ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel given on the 5th May, 1893, with which he declared his agreement, and clearly if it is not competent to propose an Instruction to the Committee giving power to produce a sort of Bill within a Bill establishing a new constitutional principle of referendum, it must be less in order to bring forward a proposal of that kind in Committee."
  The Chairman went on:
  "In addition to that, I am bound to say, having prevision of what might happen in the future, I cannot see my way to depart from a ruling of that kind."—[Official Report, 19th June 1917; Vol. XCIV, c. 1634.]
  How right he was and how correct was his prevision!
  4.15 p.m.
  These deal with the question—and I think decisively—of introducing a referendum on an Act of Parliament by an amendment, a new clause, or a new schedule to the Bill concerned. I do not believe that the difficulty could have been overcome or can now be overcome by making a new Instruction to the Committee. First, Mr. Speaker has already ruled out of order an Instruction to the Committee, moved by myself, enlarging the scope of the Bill to include the Government of the United Kingdom. Yet a mandatory referendum of this kind obviously alters the government of the whole United Kingdom, because it introduces for the first time the principle that an Act of Parliament contains within it provisions for making that Act conditional upon a referendum.
  There is no question of a consultative referendum for, say, a part of Wales or

  1677
  a part of Scotland. It is strictly comparable with the circumstances which obtained under Mr. Speaker Lowther's ruling in 1912 and again in 1917. Any question of an Instruction was equally ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker Lowther's quotation of Mr. Speaker Peel. "Erskine May" makes the point in page 112 that an Instruction of this kind is inadmissible if its objects are inconsistent with the decision of the House taken on Second Reading, or if they seek to traverse that decision by an alternative scheme or postponement. "Erskine May" goes on to give an example.
  Instructions were put down that the Government of Ireland Bill in 1912 should not come into force until it had been approved by a majority of the electors of the United Kingdom, as was an Instruction on similar lines on the Government of Ireland Bill in 1893. These were disallowed on similar grounds on the principle that a decision of a referendum to override a decision of Parliament was of too great importance to be brought within the scope of the Bill by Instruction. Mr. Speaker Lowther's ruling on 11th June 1912 quoted Mr. Speaker Peel. A ruling was given on an Instruction proposed by Mr. Parker Smith. Mr. Speaker Peel said of the Instructions:
  "The second deals with the ad referendum principle, and this, I need not say, is the Instruction which has given me the most anxiety; but I have come to the conclusion that an ad referendum is a matter of such transcendent importance that it could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Instruction to the Committee. I know that the ad referendum has been included in the provisions of some Private Bill enabling the ratepayers to decide by a vote whether or not they should adopt a particular Act which imposed a charge upon them. But this Instruction is a proposal to enable the electors to override the decision of this House; to go over the heads of the elected representatives of the people, and to submit to the electors generally whether a Bill of this great magnitude should come into force or not. That, I think, is quite beyond the scope of the Bill, and could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Instruction."
  Mr. Speaker Lowther concluded this quotation by saying:
  "Those are the words of Mr. Speaker Peel, and I confine myself in ruling to quoting them."—[Official Report, 11th June 1912; Vol. XXXIX, c. 743.]
  It was on Mr. Speaker Peel's ruling that Mr. Speaker Lowther's ruling was
  1678
  founded, and it was on this ruling that the Chairman's decision was founded in the Representation of the People Act 1917 and the Government of Ireland Act 1917. I draw the attention of the Committee again to these two rulings.
  In 1912 Mr. Speaker Lowther ruled that such a thing was not possible. In 1917 the Chairman backed up that ruling. Very recently Mr. Speaker ruled on an Instruction about this Bill that nothing could be brought in pertaining to the government of the United Kingdom as a whole. Yet for the first time we have a proposal of an amendment to a Bill to make that Bill ad referendum before it is effected as an Act of Parliament.
  I submit that this is an alteration of the government of the United Kingdom as a whole, and I think that the precedent affects the whole of the United Kingdom. I therefore think that the proposals by the Leader of the House are outside the scope of the Bill and are contrary to precedent, and I think that in selecting them for debate, Mr. Murton, you are creating a precedent altering the whole status of Acts of Parliament and one I fear the House will come to regret in future.
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of the point which he wished to raise. I need hardly tell him that I am fully aware of the precedents which he has quoted, and I would not have considered going against a long-standing rule without what seemed to me to be very good reason.
  It is clear to me that the Referendum Act 1975 has largely destroyed the basis upon which the previous rulings were given. It certainly cannot now be held that a referendum represents a change in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice, and I do not think that this is fundamentally affected by the fact that the 1975 referendum, dealing as it did with a matter of the highest national and constitutional importance, was consultative rather than effective.
  Parliament having made clear that there are circumstances in which it can regard a referendum as a necessary consequence of a measure which has affected its legislative competence, I believe that where the main purpose of a Bill is to create other authorities which will enjoy

  1679
  a concurrent competence, an additional provision to authorise a referendum must now be held germane to its scope.
  I recognise the force of the right hon. Gentleman's apprehensions that this change on our procedure might be opening the door to the offering of amendments of this nature to all manner of Bills and for trivial reasons. I would, nevertheless, remind him and the Committee that the Chair has the power of selection of amendments, which I personally would not hesitate to use in appropriate cases.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. The obvious importance of the point raised by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) need not be underlined. However, I rise to take issue with you, with respect, on the point you have just made, and to relate the implications if we were to accept your interpretation.
  The main fault of this interpretation is that there would be no limit to these matters once we accepted as a matter of course that such a provision could be built into a law which had the qualifications that you ascribe to it, because those qualifications would be subject to arbitrary interpretation. The fact that the interpretation would be in the hands of someone of good judgment would make no difference to whether people wanted it, or whether hon. Members wanted to embark on this change.
  The Committee, acting for the House, ought to know what it is about. I submit in all seriousness that we should be changing our constitution into a Swiss constitution if we adopted this course.
  No less grave a decision is facing us. We should be arguing that in the middle of a Bill it would be possible at any time for the Executive—obviously under our constitutional proceedings the Executive has the decisive initiative in new legislation—to introduce, for reasons which may be of their counsel, another authority to overpower resistance within the House. I need not labour the historic significance, proved over decades and centuries, of the House and its Committees always being especially watchful against allowing the Executive, be it King or Government, to call in
  1680
  outside forces to overpower resistance within the House. By its own lassitude and carelessness a major Committee of the whole House would be opening the door to this dangerous precedent.
  We ought to decide here and now that this matter be submitted to Mr. Speaker, that no further progress be made in debating these proposals, and that we unite on this question, whether we be supporters or opponents of the proposals. In constitutional importance this matters transcends any of the matters to be discussed over the next two or three days. We ought—by agreement and with your acceptance, Mr. Murton—to ask Mr. Speaker to consider the matter and, after due consideration on another day, the matter ought to be reopened and a further ruling given. I submit this course to the Committee.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I have, I hope, assured the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I have given the matter extremely careful thought before I came to a decision in the ruling which I have given. But I must stand by my ruling. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the reasoned arguments which he has put forward are arguments which could well be used in speaking on the question of the Lord President's procedural motion.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. You are plainly aware of the great importance of your ruling, as indeed is underlined by your emphasis upon the attention you have given to it, but I trust that you will not regard it is disrespectful if a further submission is made to you about the force and argument of your ruling.
  As I understand it, your reason for deliberately setting aside precedent—as you plainly stated you were doing earlier—was the fact of the 1975 Referendum Act. I submit to you that this is to be distinguished in a crucial respect from the proposition which, if it be in order, may presently be submitted to the House.
  The 1975 Act did not place any delay upon the coming into force, nor any condition upon the coming into force,

  1681
  of an Act of Parliament. The relevant Act of Parliament had already been on the statute book for almost three years. The 1975 Act created for the first time a new and separate piece of machinery which allowed for an expression of public opinion on a certain matter, and that matter was not that which was decided even three years earlier by the 1972 European Communities Act. The 1972 Act made it possible for the Treaty of Accession to be ratified on behalf of this country. The question which was placed before the electorate in the 1975 referendum was whether it was the popular feeling—if I may so summarise the matter—that we should seek to depart from the European Community into which we had entered.
  These matters are so different in their constitutional nature and content that the one cannot fairly be regarded as bearing upon the other. I should like to make a proposition to you in the sense, though not in precisely the terms, of that of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson).
  The proposition is that being seized, as you are, Mr. Murton, of the great constitutional importance of this ruling, you might be willing to hear any submissions that might be put to you by members of the Committee upon it, and that then, without in any way infringing the right of the Chair to rule upon a point of order, even one so fundamental as this, you might decide that you could reserve this issue for further consideration in the light of what might be submitted to you in the Committee.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I do not in any way wish to impugn your ruling, Mr. Murton, but as this matter is of such extreme importance, the Commitee should be clear about that ruling and its effects. Is it not possible for the matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) to be debated? The basic matter he raised was whether this proposal was outside the scope of the Bill and whether it is a proper matter for debate.
  As I understood from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), an important distinction has been drawn between mandatory
  1682
  and consultative referendums. Am I right in thinking that you take the view that such a distinction is not vital?
  The procedure adopted in 1975 involved separate Act of Parliament. Are we now setting a precedent that a referendum may be included in any Act of Parliament, that it does not require a separate Act, that it may be mandatory and not consultative, and that this House feels that, if this rule is accepted, it will be a precedent which will leave us free to take such a course on any Act at any time?
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. We are raising these points of order on the basis of having heard your statement, but of course we have not been able to refer to it in writing. My impression was that just before you turned over the page you had a sentence to the effect that you were proposing to accept this proposition because it involved a transfer of power from this House, since the devolution Bill involves such a transfer. Could you clarify whether the fact that the Bill would involve such a transfer of power was an essential part of the background for you in reaching your decision? If that is so, are we to understand that the Chair in future will take the view that an amendment to try to provide for a referendum on a Bill, where a Bill transferring powers away from the Commons was involved, would not be accepted—until somebody managed to get a separate Bill passed providing for a referendum on such an issue? Are we also to understand that it would then be in order to take an amendment in the middle of a Bill on a matter where no transfer of power was involved?
  I realise that the British, being fearful of taking decisions, always want to find some appearance of precedence before making up their minds, instead of having the guts to do without precedent in going ahead and making a decision. But will you understand the dangers involved in the present course? Are we saying that something is totally out of order in the middle of a Bill, but when somebody manages to pass a separate Bill saying that that can be done, are we saying that in future such a thing can be done without having a separate Bill? I suggest that if we take this course today, in future

  1683
  anybody will be free to table an amendment to provide for referendums on any point in a Bill. I suggest, with great respect, that in the end the Chairman will not manage to resist such amendments.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Perhaps I may add my view to those which have already been expressed on this issue—an issue which could turn out to be far more important than the Scotland and Wales Bill itself because in many ways this procedure may undermine the authority of this House.
  May I ask you, Mr. Murton, to give the precedents for a Chairman of Ways and Means overruling precedents set by Mr. Speaker in previous Administrations? It would be helpful to the House to have your view on that point.
  It has already been pointed out that the precedent that you seek to pray in aid on the Referendum Act on the Common Market is in no way on all fours with this Bill. On that occasion there was a separate Bill, and it in no way opened the flood gates to amendments which hon. Members in all parts of the House may find necessary to table. In addition, that referendum was not mandatory and, furthermore, whatever the Government's commitment, if this House did not like the result, it could have exerted its power to overrule it. Therefore, that precedent is not relevant to the present situation.
  There is a further point that is even more important. The referendum on the Common Market was submitted to the people of the country as a whole. What is proposed in the motion which you seek to select is one that will extend the referendum to part of the community only. Where does one draw the line? If you accept that view, why should it apply only to the people of Scotland and to the people of Wales? Why not apply it only to the inhabitants of No. 10 Downing Street? Surely we should not seek to create precedents by which the authority of this House could be usurped on any matter, large or small.
  I submit that these are matters that are vastly different from those that were in our minds at the time of the Common Market referendum—and may I say in
  1684
  passing that I was opposed to that referendum, too. What we are now doing is infinitely more dangerous than anything that was done then. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said, such a process could be extended to Finance Bills. Therefore, we must consider these matters very carefully.
  Following the points made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), may I ask you whether there is some way in which we can seek to express our view on this subject—for example on a motion "That the amendment be not now considered"? The general feeling of the Committee appears to be that such a matter should not come up for consideration at short notice. I hope that we may have your guidance whether you will accept a motion that will enable hon. Members to express their view on this subject.
  Mr. Reg Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I submit that the anxiety which has been expressed in all parts of the House is based on the fear that accidentally we might be diminishing the sovereignty of this House as a by-product of the fact that the Government Whips are scared that they will not have a majority on the guillotine motion. This matter deserves much more serious consideration.
  I wish to underline the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others that your reference to the Referendum Act 1975 is not a precedent at all. In that case provision was made for a referendum, and if that had resulted in a "No" vote, it would still have been open to this House to decide whether to repeal the European Communities Act. That would have been a decision open to hon. Members whether or not each and every one of us decided to be bound by the results of that referendum.
  In this case we are being asked to slip into the Committee proceedings provision for referenda—or I believe they should now be called "referendums"—the effect of which would be that we shall have spent months of debate on this issue in both Houses of Parliament on the assumption that when the Bill becomes law there will be referendums in Scotland and Wales. The result of a

  1685
  "No" vote in one country or other would be activated by the decision of Ministers—and of Ministers alone—not to implement Clause 114 of the Bill. The matter would not come back to the House for a separate decision. The constitutional implications of that are unique and dangerous. Therefore we should not proceed with the debate and the matter should be considered by Mr. Speaker who should give a separate, considered, ruling in a few days.
  Mr. Edward Heath: Would it be in order if I supported your ruling Mr. Murton, because it is right? My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has expounded the existing position with clarity and lucidity. You, Mr. Murton, have given the ruling that it lies within your power to give. I understand that you said that if the Committee so decided, it could go ahead and consider the motion put forward by the Leader of the House. If the Committee agreed with that motion, it could then go ahead to consider the various motions on the paper, the new clause and amendments dealing with the referendum. I see nothing wrong with this procedure because it will still lie within the power of the House to take a decision on every aspect.
  All the points of order that I have heard so far—particularly that made by the right hon. Member for Newham North-East (Mr. Prentice)—have dealt with the aspects of the substance of the matter that it is still in the power of the Committee to decide in future. Whether the referendum is to be mandatory or consultative, or whatever form it will take, lies entirely in the hands of the Committee, and later it will be for the House to decide during further stages of the Bill. I hope, Mr. Murton, that you will adhere to your ruling.
  What concerns me more than anything is that we, as an institution, are becoming ossified. The House has long prided itself on having greater flexibility than other institutions because it has no written constitution and that gives us greater flexibility in dealing with new situations. This is a new situation. You, Mr. Murton, have attempted to deal with it, and I hope that you will adhere to your ruling. We could then debate the motion put down by the Leader of the House. If we do not want to bring forward clauses
  1686
  we do not need to do so. If we do not want new clauses we can throw them out or we can amend them, but we can take our decisions only as a result of your ruling.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I find myself, for the first time in a long time, in agreement with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The House has already transferred authority to override its decisions to an outside body—the European Economic Community. The question that we are debating is whether it may or may not be wise, in this case, to take the decision that the Leader of the House has asked us to take. The issue before us is whether the Committee is right to do that if it wishes to do so. I always understood that the strength of Parliament and of our unwritten constitution was that Parliament can do anything that it wishes to do advisedly, even if that means altering precedent. The old saying is that Parliament can do anything except turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) that this would be creating a new precedent and that it would be doing something different from what was done in the EEC referendum. But we have the right to create precedent if we wish. There have been many other such cases. I could quote one precedent of that: the origin of the closure. Mr. Speaker suddenly introduced the closure procedure on the spur of the moment. The House approved that procedure and it has now become recognised. Therefore, whether it is wise to do this or not, there is this much to be said in respect of the ruling—that if Parliament advisedly chooses this, then it is entitled to do so.
  4.45 p.m.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that Parliament could do anything, but surely Parliament can do only that which it is in order to do. A ruling has been made by you, Mr. Murton, which we appreciate and which we are now discussing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) seemed to think that we could deal with the motion put down by the Leader of the House, but that motion is solely concerned with the order in which we should take the various clauses

  1687
  and says that New Clause 40 should be taken now.
  You indicated, Mr. Murton, that you had the advantage of having been given notice by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) that he intended to raise his point of order, but you gave your ruling without having been able to consider all the submissions that have now been made to you. Having regard to the obvious importance of the matter and the seriousness of it in relation to the debate and the Bill, may I reinforce the submissions already put that you should consider what the House has had to say during these points of order, and that the matter should be reflected upon, and that Parliament should itself decide whether such a procedure will be acceptable to the House in future. Therefore, I urge you to consider the matter with great care—as, of course, you have done hitherto—in the light of the representations that have now been made.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) asserted that the Committee would, by deciding on the procedural motion put down by the Leader of the House, be able to decide all the points before it, but that is not the case. The Committee will decide by its vote whether to change the order of procedure and will therefore be able to decide whether it wishes to consider the matter of the referendum now or later. The key issue that is bothering the Committee will not be open to decision by vote. That issue is whether the referendum should, at this stage, be the matter of a separate Bill or spatchcocked into an existing Bill. That cannot be decided by this debate or by the vote that may take place at the end of it.
  Many hon. Members are in favour of a referendum, but object to this method of bringing it forward. You, Mr. Murton, were kind enough to say in your ruling that while you appreciated the seriousness of the issue, you proposed to follow the 1975 precedent and not earlier ones, but you said that you would consider the matter in your selection of amendments. Will you consider again your refusal to select the amendment to the procedural motion that stands in my name and in the names of the leader of the Liberal
  1688
  Party and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)? That motion asks that the Committee should be allowed to debate this issue. Our amendment to the procedural motion asks that the question of a referendum should be considered in a separate Bill, to be taken in its own right, and that it should be consultative and not mandatory. A solution to the dilemma that is now gravely disturbing the Committee would be for this amendment to be selected—it has the support of a large number of hon. Members—and for it to be allowed to be debated. By excluding it, Mr. Murton, you restrict the Committee from discussing a matter that is disturbing it.
  The Chairman: I will reply at this stage because the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has referred to his own amendment. I gave very careful thought to the matter before deciding not to select the hon. Member's amendment, as I am sure he will understand. I am well aware of the considerations that he has advanced, but the Chairman's discretion on selection is absolute, nor am I required to give reasons. In this case, however, my decision was not discretionary but was made on the grounds of order, since the terms of the amendment purported to commit the House to taking a particular course of action which no Committee is competent to do.
  Mr. Graham Page: With reference to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the House could consider the substance of the clause at some later date and not as part of the Bill. It is clear that you are altering the ruling of previous Speakers, Mr. Murton. The 1893 ruling, which dealt with an Instruction exactly similar to the one which we are discussing, said that it was a
  "proposal to enable the electors to override the decision of this House, to go over the heads of the elected Representatives of the People, and to submit to the electors generally whether a Bill of this great magnitude should come into force or not. That, I think, is quite beyond the scope of the Bill".
  That is the point. The only exception quoted in "Erskine May" is the European Communities Act, because that referendum was not binding on the House in any way. The amendment, which was

  1689
  accepted as being in order on that occasion, provided:
  "This Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed by Statutory Instrument passed by Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament but no such date shall be appointed until after a consultative advisory referendum, having no binding effect upon the government, has first been held, thereby enabling the government to assess the extent to which the Treaty of Accession has the full-hearted support of the British people."
  This is entirely different from the proposal that there should be a binding referendum, which is the object of the clause which we are asked to discuss.
  You are changing the rulings of previous Speakers, Mr. Murton, and I join with those who have suggested that you should have time to reconsider your ruling.
  Mr. Leo Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. This is a matter which must inevitably create a considerable dilemma for those of us, such as myself, who have constantly urged that there should be a referendum. In making my submission, I cannot consider only the question of my wishes without considering my position as a Member of this House and a parliamentarian. I do not think that any of us, however passionately we may desire to have a referendum, would willingly wish that there could come into existence a position in which the sovereignty of this House could be subverted for ever more.
  I hope that, with the same seriousness with which you are evidently applying your mind to all our submissions, Mr. Murton, the Leader of the House, who is the jealous guardian of the sovereignty of Parliament, will also be directing his attention to seeing that we shall not get into a position in which, because the Government may desire, for transitory tactical reasons, to have this motion approved, we in any way yield to the moment and create what in the long run could be a major disaster for the rights of Parliament.
  It is clear that in every case where the suggestion has been made that there should be a mandatory referendum it has been ruled out of order. The only instance in which it was not ruled out of order was when the referendum was only permissive. Underlining what has been put to you already about mandatory referen-
  1690
  dums, I hope that in any further consideration which you may give the Leader of the House will also be involved and will consider whether he can maintain the sovereignty of the House by having a permissive referendum, which would have the same effect but which would not impose on us a rigid framework by which we should all be bound in future.
  I am not attracted by the proposition of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who claimed that it was within the power of the House to make a decision now on whether we wanted a referendum. I want a referendum and so do many other people, but we should be placed in the impossible dilemma of voting against the principle of a referendum in order to be able to assert our position as parliamentarians who believe that we should not subvert our sovereignty. That is not an acceptable proposition for parliamentarians.
  Given the opinions being expressed, we should not move forward on this matter, which has such far-reaching implications, without further thought being given by the Leader of the House, who should be making a statement. He surely cannot be silent on an issue which is raising so much anxiety among so many hon. Members and which affects the fundamental rights of Parliament. He has a duty to make a statement and to be involved in this issue.
  I hope that we shall be able to work out a formula which gives us a new clause in a permissive form on which we could get general agreement and which, although it would bring about the desired objective, would not subvert our sovereignty.
  The Lord President of the Council and Lender of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Perhaps I may intervene now to comment on the difficulty in which we are obviously placed by some of the questions raised and anxieties expressed by hon. Members in various parts of the House, and particularly in response to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). If I do not say all that I have to say in one sentence, I hope that the House will understand. I shall seek to deal with questions raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  I submit that the House has a duty to accept the ruling of the Chair, and in that

  1691
  sense I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I believe that this is the way that we should proceed and what I have to say will, I hope, assist hon. Members.
  It is my belief—and this has come out in many comments—that most of the questions which have been raised in the submissions to the Chair would be open for debate either on the procedural motion or on the general question. [Interruption.] I hope that the House will permit me to conclude because what I have to say will be of assistance in dealing with this matter. My views accord with the ruling given by the Chair. It would be disrespectful for any Leader of the House to try to deal with a situation of this character without taking account of a ruling from the Chair.
  I understand from what you have ruled, Mr. Murton, that a whole series of questions, including whether referendums are to be favoured and whether there should be a departure from the previous practice of the House on referendums, would be in order on the general debate and would be matters on which the House could take a view.
  The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool about the merit or principle of referendums and whether they are in order attaches exactly to footnote (g) to which the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) referred originally—that is the distinction between mandatory and permissive or consultative referendums. Our proposal is for a mandatory referendum.
  5.0 p.m.
  It is also true that the precedent that has been quoted was that of a consultative referendum. I agree that that matter certainly should be debated. Speaking for the Government, I can say that we would certainly be very eager to take into account any representations that were made by right hon. and hon. Members, or any amendment that would make the proposed referendum consultative rather than mandatory. In that case we should have removed at least one obstacle—
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: No.
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman will have his chance to make a submission in a moment. What I have suggested
  1692
  would deal with the footnote (g) that he mentioned and would further strengthen the reasons for acceptance of your ruling, Mr. Murton.
  Returning to my original point, I believe that the proper way for the Committee to proceed is to accept your ruling, Mr. Murton, and to proceed on the basis of that ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] It is not such an outrageous proposition to suggest that we should accept a ruling from the Chair and proceed to the debate. Certainly it will be the Government's wish to facilitate any later debate on a referendum when we may discuss on an amendment whether the referendum should be consultative or mandatory. I hope that the Committee will be willing to proceed on that basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] All that I am submitting is that we should accept the ruling from the Chair.
  I acknowledge—as anyone who has listened to all the points of order must—that there are genuine anxieties in all parts of the Chamber. It is in response to them that I have made my suggestions. I believe that the right course is for the Committee to accept the ruling of the Chair and to proceed to debate on that basis.
  Mr. Francis Pym: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I was wondering at what stage I might rise to speak on this grave difficulty in which we find ourselves. I entirely agree with the Leader of the House that it is one's instinctive and natural desire to support rulings from the Chair, but it cannot be denied that a difficulty has arisen and that a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members have expressed grievous doubts. The time has come for us to take stock. I speak as someone who remembers with great clarity one occasion when we had points of order continuing from the start of business right through the night. I should not like to see a repetition of that, whichever side of the Chamber I was sitting at the time. I am moved to intervene partly by what the Leader of the House has said. We have had to cope with the Bill as presented by the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Committee to cope with his new clause on a referendum as presented to the House.

  1693
  There was no intention to have a referendum at all before the Second Reading debate began. The referendum possibility was announced during the last day of that debate. Since today's points of order began the Leader of the House has already indicated the possibility of a degree of flexibility about the status of the referendum, about whether it should be consultative or mandatory, but it does not accord with the flexibility he has shown—or has not shown—during the Committee's debates so far.
  The question is not whether the referendum should be consultative or mandatory. The question now is whether the difference in form of the referendum justifies a change in the rules of order. That is the issue which is worrying hon. Members.
  There are arguments on both sides. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) indicated that they thought your ruling was correct, Mr. Murton. No doubt other Members hold that view, but there are clearly many hon. Members who are extremely doubtful about it. The ruling was quite long. It is not before us in writing, and we have not been able to study it. We accept that the ruling was well considered beforehand, and that you feel it is correct, Mr. Murton. It is not for me to challenge that, nor do I seek to do so. But with the utmost respect, and without in any sense challenging what you say, I suggest that the Committee clearly desires to consider your ruling in greater detail so that all the issues involved may be looked at closely.
  If the House of Commons wants to change our previous practice, it is open to it to do so. I would do anything I can to prevent our having a long period of wrangling on points of order about your ruling, Mr. Murton. It is our natural desire to support the Chair, but many hon. Members would wish to consider in greater depth what you said and the implications of your ruling. I say that with
  no disrespect whatever. But, since I am conscious that there is something of an argumentative period ahead which should be avoided if possible, I suggest that you should consider adjourning the proceedings at this stage so that you may consider the representations that have been made, and, if you think it appropriate, consult Mr. Speaker. The House may then perhaps find a way to return to the matter and satisfy ourselves that what you propose is entirely right in all the circumstances.
  I say that not to cause undue delay but because I do not want the Committee to continue to wrangle when we do not know exactly what your ruling was, or its implications.
  The Chairman: Is the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) moving to report Progress?
  Mr. Pym: If that—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—
  Mr. Pym: I am speaking on a point of order.
  The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is on a point of order.
  Mr. Skinner: I want to support the Chair.
  Mr. Pym: If that is the necessary procedure—
  Mr. Skinner: The motion should be on paper—that is what they tell me.
  Mr. Pym: If that is the necessary procedure to delay proceedings so that we may have the further consideration for which I have argued, I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 248.

  Division No. 65.]

  AYES

  [5.7 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Bell, Ronald

  Bottomley, Peter

  Adley, Robert

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Alison, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Brittan, Leon

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Biffen, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Awdry, Daniel

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Baker, Kenneth

  Blaker, Peter

  Buck, Antony

  Banks, Robert

  Body, Richard

  Budgen, Nick

  Beith, A. J.

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Raison, Timothy

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Cope, John

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

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cordle, John H.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Crouch, David

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Dalyell, Tam

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rooker, J. W.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lawson, Nigel

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Ian

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Emery, Peter

  MacGregor, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Farr, John

  Madel, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Fell Anthony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Silvester, Fred

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Marten, Neil

  Sims, Roger

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mates, Michael

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Forman, Nigel

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mendelson, John

  Speed, Keith

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, lain

  Freud, Clement

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fry, Peter

  Mills, Peter

  Stanley, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Molyneaux, James

  Stokes, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gray Hamish

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Neubert, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Grimond Rt Hon J.

  Newton, Tony

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Grist, Ian

  Nott, John

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Hall, Sir John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Wakeham, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Wall, Patrick

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Pardoe, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Hannam, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  TELLER FOR THE AYES:

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Sir George Young and

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. Peter Morrison.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Archer, Peter

  Campbell, Ian

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ashley, Jack

  Cant, R. B.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Ashton, Joe

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Cartwright, John

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Atkinson, Norman

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dempsey, James

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Doig, Peter

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bates, Alf

  Cohen, Stanley

  Duffy. A. E. P.

  Bean, R. E.

  Coleman, Donald

  Dunn, James A.

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cook, Robi F. (Edin C)

  Edge, Geoff

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Corbett, Robin

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  English, Michael

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Crawford, Douglas

  Ennals, David

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cronin, John

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Buchan, Norman

  Cryer, Bob

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Faulds, Andrew

  1696

  1697

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sillars, James

  Flannery, Martin

  MacCormick, lain

  Silverman, Julius

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Small, William

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Forrester, John

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Snape, Peter

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Madden, Max

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  George, Bruce

  Magee, Bryan

  Stoddart, David

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Mahon, Simon

  Stott, Roger

  Ginsburg, David

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Strang, Gavin

  Golding, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Gould, Bryan

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Gourlay, Harry

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Moonman, Eric

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Thompson, George

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Hart Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Moyle, Roland

  Tomlinson, John

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Torney, Tom

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Tuck, Raphael

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stanley

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hooley, Frank

  Noble, Mike

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Horam, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Huckfield, Les

  Ovenden, John

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Ward, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Padley, Walter

  Watkins, David

  Hunter, Adam

  park, George

  Watkinson, John

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Parker, John

  Watt, Hamish

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Parry, Robert

  Weitzman, David

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Pavitt Laurie

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Perry, Ernest

  Welsh Andrew

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Price, William (Rugby)

  white, James (Pollok)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Radice, Giles

  Whitlock, William

  John, Brynmor

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Reid, George

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley Hertford)

  Judd, Frank

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Kaufman Gerald

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Kilroy Silk, Robert

  ROSS, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Lambie, David

  Ryman, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sandelson, Neville

  Woof, Robert

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Luard, Evan

  Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Naturally I am disappointed that the Committee should have made the decision that it has just made, because it prevents us from having time, which we would otherwise have had, for further consultation. May I ask whether you would consider some method by which the operation of this very important ruling could be suspended for a period, in order to give time for further consultation and consideration, perhaps between the parties, and perhaps with
  1698
  Mr. Speaker involved? This is a very major constitutional issue.
  If I needed any further argument, that was given by the Leader of the House when he pointed out that it was perfectly possible to discuss at some stage during our debates whether a referendum should be mandatory or consultative. However, that does not alter the argument as to whether the citing of a consultative referendum is enough to overturn rulings and precedents from the past, ment to a Bill, of a mandatory referendum—as we are today.

  1699
  Your ruling, Mr. Murton, with respect, was that it was the existence in the 1970s of a consultative referendum which allowed the consideration, on an amendment to a Bill, of a mandatory referendum. With great respect, I suggest that this is extending a new precedent into the processes of the House of Commons, rather than a convenient way, as was the Referendum Act of getting a new practice into our democratic procedures.
  I am not at present arguing whether a referendum is a good thing or a bad thing, and I am certainly not arguing about whether we should have a referendum on this issue. What I am suggesting is that by the sort of slippery slope process which one of your predecessors feared in giving a contrary ruling we have introduced a new procedure into the House of Commons when what we are seeking to do is to validate a new practice in the operation of our parliamentary democracy. That, I suggest, requires a separate Bill. If we are to alter our procedures in this case, it should be done by resolution of the House of Commons and after time has been had for considering your ruling.
  Finally, Mr. Murton, your ruling was a fairly long one. I think that it might be helpful if we could hear it again, because after this period it has been somewhat forgotten, I think, and some hon. Members may not have been present when it was given.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Further to that point of order I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Skinner: I have been in the Chamber during this debate—so-called—for the past hour, Mr. Murton. I have been listening to the elder statesmen, with their plummy voices, putting across a challenge to the ruling of the Chair. [Laughter.] Have hon. Members all done?
  During the past six and a half years I have been engaged in some such challenges—very short and very minor—and they have been brought abruptly to a close by the Chair, usually occupied by Mr. Speaker. On some occasions that has happened because I have had the temerity, perhaps, only to question the
  1700
  Chair's ruling. But today there has been an hour's debate in which many hon. Members have taken part—some of them without even mentioning the phrase "With due respect, Mr. Murton" or "With due deference to your ruling, Mr. Murton"; they have even omitted that—and many have gone on to challenge the ruling.
  What I have to say to you, Mr. Murton, is this—"with all due deference and respect". If Mr. Speaker and the Chairman can say to me on occasions that if I want to challenge the Chair I must put down a motion, I expect some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to be told the same thing. Notwithstanding the fact that I cannot stand the sight of the Bill, and forgetting all that, I think that it is time that everyone in the House was treated alike. That has not happened today.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I would reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover. He has in some respects taken the words out of my mouth.
  I should like to say to the Committee that I have listened very carefully to everything that has been said, both against and in support of my ruling. Once again, I assure the Committee that I have thought deeply about the course that I have taken. I realise that this is a new precedent of great importance. Nevertheless, I must adhere to my ruling. If any Member is dissatisfied—and I would entirely understand such dissatisfaction—it is of course open to him or to her to take the customary course and put down a motion.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: The Lord President.
  Mr. Foot Mr. Foot rose
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a totally different point of order, Mr. Murton. It will be within your recollection that I have occasionally ventured to speak on the subject of Money Resolutions of Bills, and that on many occasions I have been prevented from putting down amendments to Bills because they have been outwith the Money Resolution. Perhaps I may remind you, Mr. Murton, of the Money Resolution on the Scotland and Wales

  1701
  Bill—with all due respect. It runs as follows:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment of any sums out of moneys provided by Parliament; and

  (2) any charge on or payment out of or into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund."

  There is no mention in that Money Resolution of the cost of holding referendums—if my grammar is right. Referendums cost money. They are nothing to do with the government of Scotland or Wales. To hold a referendum seems to me to be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund which the House has not authorised to be included in the Bill.
  Therefore, with all due respect, Mr. Murton, I would ask you to consider whether the new clause is out of order on the ground that it is outwith the Money Resolution. If that is so, may we ask whether a Money Resolution that would quite simply put the matter back into order has been tabled by the Government? Without such a Money Resolution, I cannot see how the Committee could proceed to discuss the new clause.
  The Chairman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the new clause, if it became part of the Bill by the will of the Committee, would be covered by the Money Resolution.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: The Lord President.
  Mr. Foot: I beg to move—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—
  Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—
  Mr. William Small: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—
  The Chairman: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) in a moment. I call first the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir Bernard Braine: You will recall, Mr. Murton, that you called me earlier and that I was pre-empted. I do not rise to challenge your ruling, Mr. Murton. I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  I believe that the Committee wants time to reflect. Many of those who voted in the Division were not present in the Chamber to hear—[Interruption.] I submit that this is not a normal procedural matter as the Leader of the House seemed to suggest. This is a matter that touches upon the constitutional rights of Parliament and the people—
  The Chairman: Order. The Committee has decided not to report Progress.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I wish to advance the argument that I would have advanced before the Division took place. This is not a trivial matter. It is not even a procedural matter. It is a matter that touches deeply upon the rights of Parliament and the people for reasons that many of us will seek to argue at greater length at a later stage.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made a plea for greater flexibility and made an argument against what he called ossification. I submit that at present the Committee is marching down a road to chaos. That is precisely what the Government's proposals mean. It is for that reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I will not be silent!
  The Chairman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be full opportunity to debate these aspects when we get on to the motion. Mr. William Small.
  Mr. Small: I believe in common sense, Mr. Murton. Surely the Committee articulated its view in the Lobbies five minutes ago. As I witness what is now taking place, I believe that the Opposition are usurping the rule that the Chair shall call the speakers. I regret what I see taking place, which is a cheap style of scoring points.
  Mr. Emery: As this is so important as a matter of order, Mr. Murton, may I ask you a direct question on your ruling? Are we to understand from your ruling—this is a point that has been posed by others—that in future amendments on

  1703
  referendum matters will be in order? I am not asking whether they will be selected but whether it will be in order to table such amendments on any major Bill.
  If that is the case, the alteration that we shall see in this instance is of such a magnitude in terms of a change in procedure that the Committee would normally have asked that it be considered by the Procedure Committee for a decision to be made before allowing matters to proceed. If the Procedure Committee will deal with a top hat, surely something as important as this question of procedure—
  The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is in accordance with my ruling in regard to this specific measure but that I cannot rule on future hypothetical questions. The Lord President.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I seek your guidance, Mr. Murton. It has been indicated quite properly that any further action should be taken by means of a substantive motion. In fact, I have a substantive motion with all-party support. I should like to have your guidance on whether it can be debated now. The terms of the motion will be very different depending on whether we are dealing with something that has happened or is about to happen.
  The Chairman: Such a motion cannot be debated now but it can be placed upon the Order Paper and debated in due course by the House of Commons.
  Mr. Graham Page: On a new point of order, Mr. Murton. Shall we be permitted to raise similar points to those that have been raised already when debating the procedure motion? There are one or two Members who have some fresh points to make although they are rather similar to previous points of order. We are debating the procedure motion, are we not?
  The Chairman: Yes, most certainly.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: With some difficulty I have remained silent up to date, Mr. Murton, but in view of your ruling, which you have just repeated. I draw the attention
  1704
  of the Committee—I am sure that it has this matter already in its mind—to the fact that your ruling, which alters precedent, will create a difficult position for those who occupy your position in future. I hope that that will not be forgotten when consideration is given to this debate.
  I say that with some experience, as you have had, Mr. Murton, of the admirable advice that is available to the Chair and the consideration that is given to these matters. However, if I recall correctly your rather lengthy ruling, which you have recently re-emphasised, it included reference to the responsibility that will fall upon Chairmen of Ways and Means in future when selection has to be made. I think that today we are making that selection just that much more difficult. Those who have had close concern with selection know that it is already one of the most responsible tasks in the House of Commons. I ask you, Mr. Murton, to bear that especially in mind.
  The Chairman: Yes, I shall do so.
  Mr. Higgins: With the greatest respect, Mr. Murton, I raise a question which I put to you earlier—namely, whether there is precedent for a Chairman of Ways and Means to overrule precedent set by Mr. Speaker over many, many years. Secondly, I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on the Money Resolution. The resolution refers to changes in the government of Scotland and Wales but I think that we all understand that New Clause 40 implies considerable changes in the governmental procedures in England as well, which would seem to be outside the resolution. I do not expect you, Mr. Murton, to give a ruling on this point immediately but perhaps it is a matter that might be considered.
  The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I do not take the same position as the hon. Gentleman on his second point. As for his first point, and with all due deference to him, he is challenging my ruling.
  Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton, to which the Lord President may find it convenient to respond when he addresses the Committee. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was within the contemplation of the

  1705
  Government that the referendum proposed might, in the event of amendments or as a result of them, become a consultative and not a binding referendum.
  If I have understood your ruling correctly, Mr. Murton, and the preceding submission of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), if the new clause were proposing a consultative referendum your ruling and our proceedings would be covered by the 1972 precedent. I wonder, therefore, whether it would he helpful to the Committee and to future occupiers of your position if the Lord President at this early stage were able firmly to indicate that that was indeed the form of the new clause in which the Government would intend to see it passed.
  The consequence of his doing that might well be that our proceedings would effectively be covered by existing precedents. Many of the anxieties that have been deeply felt this afternoon would then be at any rate partly met.
  Mr. Foot: I beg to move—
  Mr. Graham Page: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I suggest that if you, Mr. Murton, were to invite the Leader of the House to ask leave to amend New Clause 40 before moving it, it would be a very simple matter. The amendment to New Clause 40 would be to leave out lines 9 to 21 and insert
  "(3) The decision upon the referendum shall have no binding effect upon Parliament or the Government."
  It would then be fully within precedent.
  Mr. Foot: I beg to move,
  That the Order of the Committee [13th January] be amended and that the new Clause (Referendums in Scotland and Wales) in the name of Mr. Michael Foot and the new Schedule (Referendums in Scotland and Wales) in the name of Mr. Michael Foot be considered before Clause 4.
  I shall refer to what the right hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Page) and Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. However, I think that both points more strictly come within the later discussion on the new clause.
  Acceptance of this motion will enable us to deal with the referendum without waiting until the end of the Committee stage, which would be the normal pro-
  1706
  cedure if we had not taken the step of putting down the motion for today. I should explain that nothing has been done speedily or without any consultation or indication of what we intended.
  Those who recall the beginning of our proceedings will remember that many questions were raised about the timing of the clauses which we suggested would be introduced to deal with the referendum. During those first days, in response to points of order which were raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I stated that we would consider the procedure that we are now adopting of interrupting the normal operation of the Committee stage to put down a motion of this character. There is nothing out of order or normality in interrupting a Committee stage in order that a clause may be considered at an earlier stage in the proceedings on the Bill for the convenience of the Committee generally.
  When I made this proposal a week ago and indicated the timing, I thought that I was responding to desires which had been expressed on both sides. I shall not weary the Committee by going through all the quotations. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee pressed me to do exactly what we are doing in this respect. I assure the Committee that the evidence is there.
  On two or three occasions—for example, on 20th January during business questions in response to questions by the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members opposite—I indicated that we would be adopting the kind of procedure that we are now adopting of moving this procedure motion. I thought that was the best way for the Committee to discuss the question of the referendum, which many hon. Members on both sides said that we should discuss, and to decide its form before proceeding with the rest of the Bill. I do not say that it was a unanimous view, but it was a view expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
  Perhaps I may now deal with the particular points which have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. As I said, the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South arises more on the second part of the discussion when we come to the new clauses. But I repeat that I certainly understand the anxieties

  1707
  expressed by hon. Members during the points of order that were raised.
  I appreciate that, whatever differences of opinion we may hold about this matter, genuine anxiety has been expressed by some hon. Members. Indeed, they were able to underline their anxiety by referring to the consultative nature of the previous referendum which has been cited by the Chair as the precedent. There is obviously an argument on that ground. There may be different arguments on different grounds, but there is obviously an argument on that ground for considering the possibility of making the referendum consultative.
  I agree that the Government must be prepared to consider what the House of Commons may say on that matter. What advice the Government will give on that question I reserve until we reach that point later in the proceedings. The Government will certainly consider the matter.
  We had previously thought that it would be better if the referendums were mandatory. If there are other reasons why they should be consultative, and if there were the further reason that the House of Commons thought that they should be consultative in order to protect the position of the House, as has been described, that factor would also have to be taken into account, first, in the way that the Government might reach their view and, secondly, in the way that the House of Commons might reach its view on the matter. I suggest that is a question to be settled not on this procedural motion, but when we come to discuss the new clause and what obviously must be considered in the light of the discussion by way of amendment.
  I think that deals with the point made by the right hon. Member for Crosby. If not, I apologise, and give way to him now. I hope that I have dealt with his point.
  Mr. Graham Page: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation. I think that the matter arises when we are considering the procedure motion, because we are considering admitting into our debate a clause which, according to previous rulings, would not have been in order. I accept entirely that it is now in order.
  1708
  Therefore, it is important to try to put that clause right before we reach it.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Foot: I understand that, but it seems to me that it arises more on the subsequent debate than on this one. The adoption of this procedural motion will enable discussion on the referendum to be taken now instead of waiting until the end of the Committee stage. I believe that that accords with the representations which have been made from both sides of the Committee. Indeed, I did not hear a dissenting voice on that subject. I had not heard a single voice raised against it in the House of Commons—neither the Leader of the Opposition, nor the right hon. Member for Crosby—until last week when I mentioned that we were proposing to proceed in this way. Prior to that there were numerous references to the procedure that we intended to follow, and there was no dissent to it. Therefore, I genuinely thought that I was responding to the interests and representations of hon. Members in bringing forward the motion. Certainly my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) pressed this point. I accepted their pressure as well as pressure by other hon. Members.
  There is a commonsense reason why this is the right way to proceed—namely, the way in which the referendum may be taken and its possible effects and ramifications. I understand that there are several points that hon. Members will wish to discuss. This matter may have some bearing on the way in which the rest of the Bill should be considered and the judgments which hon. Members may make on other matters. Therefore, I believe that this is an entirely commonsense procedure.
  What I am proposing—to interrupt the proceedings on the Bill to discuss a clause at an earlier stage—is hallowed and grizzled with precedents. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept the motion without lengthy discussion and will then go on to discuss the new clause, which will enable these matters of merit and principle to be discussed properly. We can then proceed next week to discuss the individual amendments which I believe can properly deal with all the questions which have been put by hon. Members on both sides.

  1709
  With the utmost diffidence, Mr. Murton, I believe that, at the end of the discussion, your ruling will be found to have enabled the Committee to have a proper debate on all these matters. If your ruling had been of a different character, the Committee would have been deprived of discussion on many of these matters. I hope that factor will be taken into account by the Committee. That is a matter on which different opinions may be held. But different opinions may not be spoken, because everyone is agreed that the decision of the Chair must be upheld unless a substantive resolution is passed by the House of Commons overturning such a ruling.
  On that basis, I urge the Committee to accept the motion fairly speedily so that we may proceed to discuss the major issues of principle which I agree are involved in the Government's proposal.
  Mr. Pym: Although this looks a normal, innocent motion, there is no doubt that in many respects it is unusual and extraordinary. It has given rise at the outset to a rather weighty challenge on the question whether the new clause is in order. Your ruling on that, Mr. Murton, after some argument, has been in effect, upheld, in the sense that it has not been formally challenged at this stage. But you yourself said that in giving that ruling you were setting a precedent of importance.
  The motion has given rise also to an intervention by the Lord President to the effect that his mind was open to the possibility of amending the new clause and schedule even before they have been debated. He said that because of the questions which have been raised as to the validity of taking the new clause now, in view of the fact that the proposed referendum is to be mandatory rather than consultative. So it has given rise to all these issues being debated and it is in that sense, I am certain, an extraordinary motion.
  However, apart from that, the purpose and intention of the motion is transparent for all to see. It is and is widely believed to be an attempt by the Government to reach a position in which they might be able to impose a t imetable on the Bill. It represents a confession by the Government of an impasse and it is embarrassing to them. It is true that some hon. Members have asked for an early debate
  1710
  on any new clauses when they were tabled, but what the Leader of the House proposed last Thursday—that is to say, a sudden announcement of this debate today—was, to say the least, precipitate in the extreme, a runaway panic reaction.
  What is more, the right hon. Gentleman gave no notice at all to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or to the Opposition Chief Whip that he intended to make that announcement. That is rather like a national emergency, when the House, at a few days' notice, is prepared to set aside its business for a very good reason. What degree of chaos and confusion in Government business is necessary to petrify the usual channels to that extent is difficult to see. But my answer would be that it is when the Government find that they are trying to pass a Bill for which they do not have a House of Commons majority.
  I should like to thank the Lord President for having arranged that, after this motion, we should have what might be desccribed as a Second Reading debate. I am certain that that is an excellent arrangement before we come to the amendments, many of which would otherwise be starred.
  But the awful truth—awful for the Government—has been revealed by this motion: that the Bill, this particular form of devolution, has been subject to such devastating criticism, has aroused such alarm and concern for the United Kingdom in all parts of the Committee and has been revealed as containing such a potentially lethal danger to the unity of the United Kingdom that there can be no further progress unless and until some device is inserted into the parliamentary proceedings, presumably in the hope of achieving a larger measure of support.
  I can think of no other explanation which fits the facts of the precipitate way in which the motion has been produced. After all, we could have devoted yesterday and the day before to continuing with the Committee stage; then, next week, we coulid have taken the new clause on the referendum. But apparently that was not practicable. It had to be done instantly and immediately, before any further progress could he made. That is a weak position, which suggests a diversion to bring some respite to the beleaguered Treasry Bench.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have not been the most orthodox Government loyalist, but I would say that to attack the Government on these grounds is a little disingenuous. The truth is that those of us who have sat through every speech have heard it said time and again that this proposal should be brought forward as a matter of urgency. I would therefore acquit my right hon. Friends of deviousness in this matter.
  Mr. Pym: The whole House wanted the new clause on the referendum brought forward urgently. It was not thought of when the Bill was first produced. It was a commitment on Second Reading. Everyone wanted that, but the precipitate haste in arranging for it to be debated seems illogical. There seems no logic in taking it after Clause 3 and before Clause 4. I see no natural place for it there. If one looks at lines 81 and 82 of the new Schedule—
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the preciptate way in which this was raised. If he looks at the questions on my Business Statement on 20th January, he will see that his hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) complained to me about our dilatoriness in not producing this clause. We made a response then and said that we would produce it as soon as we could. So the right hon. Gentleman is utterly mistaken in thinking that we have been precipitate in producing it just in the last few days.
  Mr. Pym: I do not think so. There is a difference between tabling and debating. If there were a case for debating the clause early—perhaps there was—all I am saying is that such precipitate notice seemed to be unnecessary. We could have got on with debating the Bill this week and then taken the new clause next week or the week after, and I do not think that between debates on Clauses 3 and 4, as the motion suggests, is a particularly sensible place for the new clause to be debated.
  The preamble to the Government's suggested question for the Scottish referendum says:
  "Scotland would remain part of the United Kingdom. The new Assembly and Executive would exercise substantial powers devolved by Parliament."
  1712
  We have not yet debated the Executive, which will come up under Clause 21. There is merit in the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that we should take this referendum clause, if we are to take it early, at the end of our discussion of Part II.
  I think that it would be better and perfectly in order, now that the new clause has been tabled, to take the new clause at the end of the discussion on the existing clauses. But the Government have decided not to do that. The only case which can be made for the motion is that the Government are bogged down in a jungle of their own creation and are frantically trying to find a way out, some route by which they can make further progress with the Bill. I do not think that this is a way out. In many respects, it will add to the complications. It has already added to complications this afternoon in the way in which it has happened.
  The Leader of the House—I am sorry to say this—has got Government business into an unnecessary mess for the second Session running. It is his own fault. The Government have made a major error of judgment by informing their proposals with such a partisan and party political bias. In trying to preserve their majority at Westminster, the Government launched into an ill-considered and hastily prepared constitutional Bill. I say that advisedly. Although they spent two years thinking about it very hard, I still think that it was ill-considered, because our debates so far in Committee, hour after hour, over three or four weeks, have shown the nature and the magnitude of the issues raised, which the Government do not seem to have thought through.
  As the Committee knows, it is my opinion, and has been for a long time, that we have taken altogether the wrong approach in trying to deal with a most important matter—the government of the United Kingdom as it affects Scotland and Wales and all the other constituent parts of the Kingdom. Our debates so far have shown that this form of devolution is full of flaws, that it has wide implications for the United Kingdom and that it is a very expensive scheme.
  No one who has been present to hear these debates can doubt the intensity of feeling and the sincerity with which hon.

  1713
  Members in all parties have expressed their views. Even this Government must be thinking again about their own proposals and the future of this Bill. After all that has been said already, I cannot think that it is right to continue with this Bill, with this form of the devolution.
  Perhaps the Government do have in mind a guillotine motion. The Lord President said that the thought occasionally crossed his mind, but he went no further. If it crosses his mind again, I can only say that not only would such a motion be totally unjustified: it would also be a travesty of our proceedings in a matter involving constitutional reform, to which the House has not previously given more than a very little time. I have to say that because every commentator and many hon. Members believe that there is a direct relationship between this motion and the Government's desire to achieve a timetable motion.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman's logic when he argues that the bringing forward of the referendum new clause at this stage has something to do with the guillotine.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt he able to argue that there are other reasons for bringing the new clause forward now. But the hon. Gentleman will agree that it has been done in an extraordinary precipitate way. It could be done perfectly well next week. I do not know what the argument is for suggesting that there should be absolutely no progress beyond Clause 3 unless and until we debate a new clause which was not even thought of when the Bill was introduced and when we have been told by the Lord President that it will probably be amended. That argument does not stand up to any very acute or deep analysis.
  Mr. Abse: Is the right hon. Gentleman really being fair? Almost everyone has been pressing for a referendum to be brought forward and for the new clause to be debated. If the new clause came forward later, the right hon. Gentleman would be arguing that the Government were being dilatory and that the Leader of the House was not responding to the will of the House. Surely we have enough about which to criticise the Leader of the House and the Government without
  1714
  the Opposition going along such a spurious path on a mere precedural motion.
  Mr. Pym: I predicted that bringing the new clause forward now would lead to complications, and it has. I always try to be fair. One of my problems is that I try to be too fair. I do not think that the comments I have made are unreasonable.
  Although we should be justified in raising a substantial objection to this motion, it is not and never has been my intention to waste time or to obstruct progress. Nor have I done that. The arguments and the issues arising out of the Bill and the new clause speak for themselves. Deep new issues are raised by the referendum new clause. They are additional to those that have already been raised in Committee.
  If there is a vote on this motion, however tempting it may be to vote against it, I myself do not intend to vote. Let us get on with the arguments until the Government in their new found wisdom decide to withdraw the Bill and this form of devolution and to handle the matter in a different way.
  Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I wonder whether you would consider the matter of Clause 21 if this motion is passed. Clause 21 deals with the creation of an Executive for Scotland. It states that there will be an Executive for Scotland. If that is debated after the new schedule in the name of the Leader of the House, which sets out the wording in the referendum—
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a valid point, but it does not arise out of the matter that we are now discussing.
  Mr. Emery: On a new point of order—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have a further point of order arising from a point of order that is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye, he will be able to raise the point that he wants to put.
  Mr. Emery: This is an entirely new point of order, Mr Godman Irvine. You mentioned that I had a valid point. Would you consider a manuscript amendment so that Clause 21 can be inserted in line 2

  1715
  of the procedural motion? That would get the House out of the problem that I was raising. In other words, after the debate had taken place on the new clause and on the wording of the referendum, we could take Clause 21 so that we could decide whether there is to be an Executive. We should then be able to come to a decision on the wording of the new schedule and we should not be placing the Committee in a particular difficulty. If you were willing to accept a manuscript amendment, I would be prepared to submit it.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I should not be willing to accept it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the advice that I offered him a few moments ago.
  Mr. Mackintosh: Seldom have I seen the House or the Government in quite such a mess or in such difficulties as we are in over this Bill.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: It will get worse.
  Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend says that it will get worse. I have no doubt that is the case. I take little comfort from the fact that we started down the slippery slope when the House first agreed to hold a referendum on our membership of the EEC. I was one of the few hon. Members who voted against the referendum, not because I wanted any particular result but because I felt that it was a fundamental derogation from the principle of parliamentary government to tell the electors that there was a category of issues so important that this House was not fit to decide them. We handed that responsibility to the people and this House ducked the issue.
  Many hon. Members who talked about the independence, prestige and sovereignty of this House were so anxious to get a particular result in that referendum that they voted for it and did serious damage to our position as a representative body. Many of us said that if a referendum were held, it was likely to be repeated again and again. We felt that each time this House got into a jam, or the Government got into difficulties, it would ask the public to get the House and the Government out of the
  1716
  mess. By voting for this referendum we are only making matters worse.
  In the end we shall find that there are other issues that will be handed to the electorate, such as a referendum on PR, because there will be divisions on one side of the House and divisions on the other side and hon. Members will say that there is only one way of getting out of it. We have embarked on a disastrous course, and I am deeply unhappy about it.
  There is no getting around this. Every hon. Member knows the damage that will be done by having a referendum on this issue. What has happened is that this House does not contain a majority for this Bill. I say that although I support the Bill. As a person who has supported devolution for 20 years, I would rather see this House have the courage of its convictions and reject the Bill. It should be thrown out, and the electorate should make their views known at a General Election so that the Government can come back with a better Bill at a later stage. The issue will not disappear because of one rejection by this House. Many important constitutional steps have had to be brought back every five years until they are thrashed out and proper, sensible proposals produced.
  Mr. Abse: Is my hon. Friend not identifying the problem? The Government have falsely stated that they have a mandate to put this Bill through. The reason why we have got the referendum is that they claim to have a mandate. That is spurious. If the Government do that, this may be the only check.
  Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend is illustrating my point perfectly, because he dislikes what the Government have put forward. My hon. Friend has made some passionate speeches against the Bill, but did not vote against it. If my hon. Friend believed that this was a bad Bill his moral obligation was to go into the Lobby against it. It makes a laughing stock of this House for my hon. Friend and his colleagues to do what they have done and to fail to vote according to their convictions.
  My hon. Friend is apparently against the whole principle of the Bill. He speaks for the people of Wales because he thinks that they still back him. But he is handing the responsibility to them rather than

  1717
  taking the responsibility himself as a Member of this House.
  Mr. Dalyell: Not all others.
  Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has interrupted every speech that I have heard, including mine, but I give him credit this time. He is right. I should in due course have made the point, on his behalf, that he voted against the Bill. As I say, I would have preferred it to be defeated rather than come to this kind of expedient.
  Mr. Kinnock: Could it not be that we want the responsibility for making a conclusive decision about this matter to rest with the people of Wales and Scotland because it is their responsibility? They will have to pay the price or draw the benefit. It was only in the vaguest fashion that any party could have said that it had secured a mandate for an irreversible constitutional change. Does my hon. Friend not think that it is a sensible approach to democratic representation not to impede a Bill that permits a referendum, so that we can achieve the conclusive result that he and I both want?
  Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is wriggling away from the point because he, too, did not vote against the Bill. He wants to hand on the responsibility to the electorate. It is no good saying that the problem is an alleged spurious mandate. No mandate is binding on the votes of Members of this House. Members of Parliament come here, having stood in their constituencies and made their positions clear. I do not hold it against my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, as some do, that his conduct contradicts what he said in past speeches. The fact is that he supported devolution to a mild extent at the last General Election. But I do not hold that against him now. He is entitled to say that he has thought about it again, taking into account the interests of his constituents, and has taken a decision in the opposite sense. That is the essence of representative democracy—not being bound by some words in a manifesto, or handing back the issue to the electorate and refusing to take a decision on the Floor of this House.
  1718
  I come to another serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty. He said that the consequences would have to be lived with by the people of Wales and Scotland and that, therefore, they should take the decision. Does he realise what may happen? We are to have a referendum clause. We shall then consider the Committee stage of the Bill. But, instead of this being a proper Committee stage in which we consider the workability of the Bill clause by clause, in the minds of many hon. Members there will be the thought that the decision in principle is still to come at the end of the process and, therefore, there is every incentive to put rubbish into the Bill.
  Mr. Kinnock: We cannot put in any more rubbish.
  Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty is wrong. There are many amendments which could improve the Bill. But there will be every motive on the part of those who are deeply opposed to it not to make it a workable Bill. Then what is left to the people of Scotland and Wales in a referendum is a "take it or leave it" vote on a bad Bill or no Bill. What, then, shall we do, other than saddle the people possibly with a total sense of defeat if they are denied any measure of devolution by the referendum vote and with an unworkable, unsatisfactory Bill if the majority vote is in favour of devolution?
  That was why I tabled my amendment to the Lord President's motion. I am sorry that it was considered by the Chair to be out of order, because it was seriously intended. The only way to unscramble the mess and to resolve the fears that I have as a devolutionist is to hold the referendum right away. I do not like referenda, but at least that would take the decision in principle. We would be doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty wants. We would be asking the people to do the job which we should have done on Second Reading; that is, deciding whether or not to have a devolution Bill.
  At least when we then returned to the Committee stage, whether we disagreed with the Bill or not or disliked the principle or not, we could, as a House, give our minds to the crucial question—given a "Yes" vote in the referendum—of

  1719
  devising a workable scheme of Government. But, with the procedure now proposed, the House will continue for the rest of this Committee stage, while many Members whose disagreement with the Bill is so passionate and whose objection is so fundamental, and who are then presented with sensible mechanistic reforms for improving it, cannot but have in their minds the possibility that to accept these amendments will be to make the whole proposition more acceptable to the people of Wales and Scotland.
  6.15 p.m.
  I fear that sensible schemes for revenue allocation to an independent Assembly, sensible schemes for representation, and sensible schemes for easing the relationship between Edinburgh and Westminster and Cardiff and Westminster will be debated with the overhanging thought in people's minds "Will this help us to defeat or to carry this proposal at the referendum?" I think that this is most unsatisfactory.
  I have had many discussions in my constituency, as I am sure have other hon. Members in theirs, throughout the country. From them, I find that the dilemma that I am putting to the Committee is a very real one. Many people in Scotland say to me "We do not want devolution. If there is a referendum, we shall vote against it. But if the decision is in favour of having devolution in principle, for heaven's sake do it properly and make the machinery workable. Reduce conflict between Scotland and London to the minimum." I am sure that that would be the position of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian if the decision in principle had been taken. But, if the decision in principle to which he objects so much, is to be taken after all the detail has been worked out, how can we, as a House, devote ourselves properly to the Committee stage of the Bill?
  That is why, Mr. Godman Irvine, I had hoped very much that you and your predecessor in the Chair would be willing to accept my motion. Whether one is an opponent or a supporter of devolution, if the referendum decision goes against devolution, why waste three months of the time of this House and two or three months of the time of the upper House coming to a conclusion that will be put into operation? On the
  1720
  other hand, if the decision is in favour, at least we shall have got out of the way all these endless Second Reading speeches that we have been hearing and we shall be able to get down to the detail. However deeply opposed hon. Members may be, they could then apply their minds to producing a Bill which at the very least would not make the situation worse from their point of view.
  I hope that my speech has not cut across the views either of those who are in favour or of those who are against devolution. I have tried to put the case for attempting to rescue the Government from their appalling difficulties which could, in the end, if the Bill was carried and the referendum decision was "Yes", endanger the unity of the country. I say that as a devolutionist.
  In the circumstances, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider my suggestion to him not merely about having these clauses now but about having a separate Bill. Let us have the referendum, and then let us, in the light of the result, get down to our responsibilities as a House and produce a workable devolution Bill.
  Mr. John Pardoe: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said. He was especially right to stress that we should have this device again and again. He said that we would be asking for it on proportional representation. That is precisely what the Liberal Party is asking, and I look forward to hearing the case that the Leader of the House or his Minister of State will then adduce to knock down the arguments, which seem to me to be inevitable now that it is accepted that proportional representation is a constitutional matter, that changing the electoral system is a constitutional matter and that of course, we should ask the people what kind of electoral system they want.
  I am perplexed by the Government's attitude, because there are people who believe in the extension of the referendum principle. They argue it in the following way. They say that the electorate is now very much larger than in the days of Burke's speech to the electorate of Bristol. Electors are more educated. They are more involved. They watch television, and they join in the discussion.

  1721
  A referendum is thought to be an extension of democratic participation.
  A constituent of mine wrote to me a closely argued and well-thought-out letter expressing this view. He said:
  "I would like to see a new system of Government which allows the whole community to shape its future by a majority vote in an annual referendum on the major issues."
  I wrote back saying that I did not agree. I put forward all the arguments about the supremacy of Parliament and about the need for Parliament to consider these matters and to make decisions in the light of that consideration. But I thought that it would be a good idea to get the views of the Ministers responsible for this Bill. Accordingly, I wrote to the Leader of the House. I did not get a reply from him, but I received a letter from the Minister of State saying:
  "What your constituent proposes would of course very seriously undermine the whole principle of representative Government at the heart of our parliamentary system."
  That was written on 17th January by the Minister of State. If there is a vote tonight on this issue, I wonder which way he will vote.
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Gentleman is not making the distinction between a proposition for a pre-Bill referendum and the post-decision referendum that is now proposed.
  Mr. Pardoe: I am sure that we shall have plenty of time to discuss that definition. Various hon. Members are endeavouring to do so. But I do not see that it affects the Minister of State's point. He is arguing a constitutional point. He does not make a distinction between a referendum at one stage of the Bill and a referendum at another stage of the Bill, either before or after the Bill. I remind him of what he wrote:
  "What your constituent proposes would of course very seriously undermine the whole principle of representative Government at the heart of our parliamentary system."
  I agree entirely with those words. I sent the hon. Gentleman a copy of my letter to my constituent, in which I said so. The hon. Gentleman agreed with what I had written.
  The argument against a referendum is one that I have always accepted, along with the basic argument of Burke that there is no point in sending all of us to
  1722
  Westminster to debate issues, hammer them out, and so on, if someone else, after all that process, has to take the decision. But that is what the Government are proposing. We shall waste 30 days and 30 nights, or whatever it may be, discussing the minutiae of the Bill, and we may well succeed in making it worse than it is at the moment. Then we will face the people of Scotland and Wales with having to pick up the mess we have deposited on their doorsteps.
  I had always assumed that one of the rôles of the politician was to make judgments about political opinion, about the views of constituents, which Burke enjoined us to take gravely to heart even though they did not override our judgment. We seem to have surrendered that in accepting the principle of referendums. In compounding that acceptance today, we seem to have accepted that political judgment is no longer part of the apparel of the politician in British politics.
  Is Parliament inadequate? The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has argued that it was inadequate to take the decision about Wales. Somehow, there is something about Wales, according to the hon. Genleman, that this Parliament ought not to decide. If that is so, it makes the case for devolution—for a federal system. The hon. Member may well be right that this Parliament is not a suitable place in which to make decisions of this kind about what happens in Wales. If so, it means that this Parliament is no longer capable of making many decisions at all.
  Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps "admired" would be the wrong word, but I have long had the chance to observe the hon. Gentleman's capacity for convulsions and political gymnastics. I would be obliged if he would keep them to himself and not attribute them to me, or attribute to me words that I never used.
  Mr. Pardoe rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) deals with that point, I remind the Committee that we are dealing with a procedural motion as to whether we shall consider a new clause or not. There will be ample opportunity in due course to discuss whether a referendum is a good or a bad thing.
  Mr. Pardoe: I wholeheartedly accept your ruling, Mr. Godman Irvine, but, with deference, I would point out that other hon. Members have strayed a little wide of the motion. Of course, basically we are discussing whether it is good to have the motion, so that we can push this clause into the Bill at a particular point. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian argued whether this was the right time to have a referendum. I understood his case to be that it is legitimate to argue whether we want a referendum now, whether we should have a separate Bill, or whether it would have been better to have had a consultative referendum before the Bill started.
  Why is the Leader of the House bringing this motion forward today? Why is it so necessary to interpolate such a device at this stage? It has nothing to do with his belief in democracy. It has nothing to do with any extension of the participatory process—he long ago forgot anything about that. The fact is that it is introduced at this stage and in this way in order to try to get Labour Members to vote for the guillotine. That is why we are having to debate the motion now. It has nothing to do with anything about democracy.
  The right hon. Gentleman has posed throughout his political career as a defender of the higher principles of democracy. The trouble with him is that he is forgetting the very first principles of democracy, and he is not in the least concerned with them today. He is concerned with trying to persuade a few Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bedwellity and his friends, to vote for the guillotine so that the Bill can go through. I do not believe that it will persuade Labour Members from outside Wales to do it—certainly not those from the North of England. The right hon. Gentleman still needs a few more votes in order to get the guillotine. He will not get mine, whatever he does with the motion. I hope that he will not get the votes of a very large number of his hon. Friends.
  Mr. John Mendelson: I shall stay strictly within the rules of order established this afternoon, remaining mindful that they will allow me to carry with me the good will of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), which I otherwise might quickly lose. Even more important, I shall remain
  1724
  within the instructions of the Chair and the agreement reached with the Minister that we would be able to discuss everything that some hon. Members wanted to discuss under the points of order once the main debate started. I was gravely doubtful as to whether we would be able to do so, but that was the agreement reached before the vote on the motion to report Progress was taken. I dare say that some hon. Members may have been influenced in their vote by that assurance. So I intend to say everything that I had intended to say on a point of order in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Hon. Members, when the points of order were being raised, were not given an opportunity to reply to him. That was no fault of theirs.
  My right hon. Friend advanced a very shaky argument. First, he made great play, time and again, of the argument that he had only responded to the many requests that had been made to him. What did he respond with? He made it appear as though he had fulfilled the wishes of, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who is not here now but who is almost invariably present for these debates. I want to put on record that my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet have far from fulfilled my hon. Friend's wishes for a referendum.
  The whole burden of the debate and its background represents an avenue of despair, as I will try to show. I am convinced that the reasons for this motion have not yet been revealed by the Government. It is essential that the Committee should be aware of them before we pass it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West—and I think that I can carry my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with me in this, if in nothing else—can be called the father of the idea of having a referendum on this matter. Due credit has been given to him for it. But what did he want? He and others associated with him wanted a referendum because they shared with many of us the great fear that some people would use the Bill only as a first step on the slippery slope towards separatism and the disintegration of the United Kingdom. Such people are not

  1725
  the least bit interested in Assemblies or in having devolution. All they want is to use an Assembly in Edinburgh as a first step towards the destruction of the United Kingdom as we know it.
  6.30 p.m.
  In order to meet that danger my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West demanded a two-pronged referendum. He was only interested in a referendum that would be two-pronged. That is no secret. He has said so publicly in Scotland and in this Committee. He wanted to ask the people of Scotland a second question, one which he regarded as most important. He wanted them to declare, as he hoped they would by a large majority, that they want nothing to do with separatism and that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. That was his purpose and intention, and the Government have turned him down.
  They have not introduced that kind of referendum. The Lord President has no moral or political right to imply that he has yielded to the wishes of his hon. Friends. He has done nothing of the kind. In fact he has done something quite different. He has used the idea of a referendum to introduce an additional component to find the reasons for the overpowering resistance to the Scotland and Wales Bill. That is the basis of my objection, and that is the fear I have about this matter of procedure.
  If we allow the Executive suddenly to introduce, in the middle of a debate on a Bill, an amendment to hold a referendum, any Administration might decide to do just that when there was resistance to a Bill in the House of Commons. This resistance could be on any matter. There could be a group of MPs from every part of the House—cutting across party lines—opposed to some particular Bill. Instead of using the democratic process, giving the country time to think again, and putting the matter to the electorate, the Government have decided to have a referendum. They are saying that there is another arbiter to override the House of Commons. That is not the British way of doing things. It may be the way things are done under other constitutions, but it is not in our constitution. That is a point of capital importance.
  I give notice that while I do not challenge the ruling now, the last has not been
  1726
  heard of this matter. The argument that the Government are merely responding to a number of requests falls to the ground without substance. The Government have done this, as Governments usually do, for their own reasons, and they should admit it to the Committee. There is no virtue in their decision. They wanted to make their position more powerful.
  There is another equally serious reason for my feelings on this matter. I said a minute ago that the reason why the debate is so important and why it must go on for a long time is that the country needs time to consider the implications of this piece of legislation. The traditional function of the House of Commons is to give time to consider and to reconsider.
  Along with many other hon. Members today I attended the annual luncheon of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. I sat beside someone from Aberdeen whom I had never met before. We got talking, and naturally our conversation centred on today's business. He told me that his organisation was holding a debate back in Aberdeen, and that there was growing opposition in that city to this Bill. I do not believe that Aberdeen is an isolated example. That means that doubts about the Bill are growing throughout the United Kingdom and particularly in the parts most directly affected by it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is not feeling against this Bill now surfacing across the political horizon from Lord Home of Hirsel to the Divisional Committee of the AUEW covering Edinburgh, the Borders, Dundee and Falkirk?
  Mr. Mendelson: I am sure that many hon. Members will be able to make other reports. That is why no one wants to interfere with the freedom of the House or the Committee to debate the Bill properly and at length. Any such interference would be against the spirit and the letter of democracy.
  I am implacably opposed to the introduction of a guillotine motion. It is the consensus of all political observers and correspondents and others who are in contact with Ministers that this bringing forward of a referendum is designed to pave the way for a guillotine motion a week or two later. We shall see whether I am right or not. If, in the next six

  1727
  weeks there is no guillotine motion, I shall have been proved wrong.
  The Scottish National Party is, of course, demanding an end to the debate. I see that one of its members made a speech over the weekend in which he said that the Labour Party must be taught a lesson for opposing the legislation. I do not charge the Government with being inspired by the SNP's demands, but whatever their reasons for taking this step the fact remains that all political correspondents agree that this timing is designed to pave the way for a guillotine motion. That is a very bad reason for such timing. It has not been admitted to the Committee, but if it is true it should be admitted.
  Another reason why I am unhappy about this matter concerns Wales. It is quite obvious that, although there is a consensus of opinion on what is assumed of Scotland, both the Government and hon. Members on both sides agree that it is unlikely that there will be a majority for an Assembly in a referendum in Wales. I know that that is the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and many others who are qualified observers. A referendum should ask the people of Wales whether they are in favour of devolution. If one asks Government supporters and some propagandists for the Welsh nationalists what they intend to do in the referendum campaign they do not reply that they are asking people to support devolution. They say that they intend to organise a big Government campaign, which they hope the Prime Minister will open, to appeal to Welsh people to support the Government, not devolution. The Government have no right to make such an appeal to the people of Wales. It is not a Government referendum. The only authority the Government have is to ask the Welsh people whether they are in favour of devolution. They know that such a referendum would not be carried.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is not the timing absolutely crucial? What happens if the Government were to give full backing, and then find that it was the week of another Marcia and Joe show?
  Mr. Mendelson: Whatever other comments my hon. Friend has in mind, I
  1728
  hope he will not put them during my speech. He must not disappoint me too often, or I might not give way to him again.
  It is very important to realise that if there were a defeat for the referendum in Wales that would not amount to a Government defeat. By the same token, the Government have no right to run this as a campaign demanding confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and that is particularly important to Government supporters. If the Government care for the unity of their supporters they will keep that point well in mind.
  I have no confidence in any of the reasons given for bringing forward this measure at this point. I have no confidence in the way in which the referendum has been framed. I do not accept the Government's statement that it has been done in response to demands from Government supporters, because the main demand of the Government's supporters has not been fulfilled. The Government will, therefore, not have my support for the way in which they have chosen to move towards this referendum.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The late Lord Beaverbrook used often to refer to the Lord President as Robespierre, that sea-green incorruptible. As we know, however, Robespierre, who began by thinking of the guillotine as a means, finished by thinking of it as the end, and to secure the guillotine was the one thing that mattered to him. That is what the Lord President and the Government are affronting the House with today. It is an affront. They have presented the House with an intolerable dilemma, which was best expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). He wanted a referendum in Wales for entirely acceptable reasons. He wanted the Welsh people to be given the chance to express their view, which, in his judgment, would be against the devolution Bill.
  But the hon. Gentleman is also well known as a strong upholder of Parliamentary sovereignty and of the pre-eminence of this House. By introducing this procedural motion and the clause in the way that he has, the Lord President is mixing two things together. He seeks to give the hon. Member for Pontypool what he wants up to a point, in the matter of

  1729
  a referendum for Wales, but he seeks to do it in a way that the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members resent bitterly. He is doing it in a way that opens an enormous passage for a revolutionary change in our constitution.
  I do not think that this matter can be allowed to rest where it is today. There I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). This is a matter so serious and revolutionary, in terms of our constitution, that it cannot be brought in by a back door—which is what is happening this afternoon. It must be discussed either by the Select Committee on Procedure or by the whole House, after due reflection both by Mr. Speaker and the Chair generally, and by all of us. The trouble is that the Government have been stumbling from one expedient to another. We saw it in an almost farcical form a few days ago. We know that the Bill was brought in originally in an attempt to try to stem the drift from the Labour Party in Scotland to the Scottish National Party, yet we found ourselves at one moment—if the rumour be correct—with the Lord President seriously considering proposing a reduction in the number of Scottish Members, in the hope of cobbling together a majority for the guillotine.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: With respect to my right hon. Friend, may I suggest that it was brought in not to stem the drift from the Labour Party but to stem the anticipated drift from the Labour Party to the Nats?
  Mr. Amery: My hon. and learned Friend represents a Scottish constituency and he therefore can judge the matter better than I. He would know whether it was a prospective drift, or whether the drift was in progress. Nevertheless, the Government have been stumbling from one expedient to the other. The Bill has been brought in not for the benefit of Scotland and Wales but for party political reasons, but it will do more than anything I can imagine to break up the unity of the governing party, and I predict that the House of Commons will live to see that in their attempt to cobble together a majority for the guillotine the Lord President and his colleagues are doing more than anythting else to bring about the collapse not of the Government but of the Bill.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dalyell: First, I must disagree with some of those with whom I have agreed on a great many matters, because, in candour, I would have made a long, eloquent tirade against the Lord President had he not done precisely what he has done in bringing forward the clause. It was not very realistic to talk about this subject at all without that provision in front of us. Therefore, I must say to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that I may be a simple soul, but I do not quite see the matter in the light in which they have put it forward. I accept that the proposal was made because of the clamour from all sides of the House, and it was done for perfectly honourable reasons. It would have been totally wrong had it not been so done.
  Again, I may be simple and naive about it, but I am not sure that I agree, for all that the Press may say about it, that there is any direct connection between this proposal and the guillotine. That connection would have to be explained to me in words of one syllable.
  I never cease to marvel at what I hear in this House. I never expected to be given a lecture by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on the question of flexibility. I had hoped that he would be here, because it would have been better to say that in his presence. However, I think there is an issue that arises out of what he said. It is a question of pot and kettle in a peculiar way when he tells us that we have to be flexible, that we must not ossify, and that we have to change the rules.
  This subject has been bedevilled with the question of changing the rules. Much has been said about changing the rules in the middle of the match. There may have been good or bad reasons for doing that. With this kind of judgment from the Chair, would it not be possible, somehow, if the Chair has notice of points such as those raised by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), to have the ruling circulated? A fortnight ago I raised a similar request and I was given by the ever-helpful Clerk's Department a copy of the ruling. If copies are to be distributed, they should not be confined to one Member, least of all the hon. Member for West Lothian.

  1731
  Is there not a serious argument here, that because of the unique nature of the Bill these statements from the Chairman should at least be circulated?
  Furthermore—and this is more a question to the Chair than to my right hon. Friend the Lord President—to what extent is the EEC referendum to be taken as a precedent? There are a great many difficulties. None was more eloquently put than the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who said that the EEC referendum was quite different, because at that time there was no dedicated anti-Marketeer party, as such. We know that both major parties contained anti-Marketeers, but that is not quite the point. The point is that there is a party that is dedicated to altering the decision of the referendum and will not be satisfied until that is done.
  One can imagine the situation at the end of the referendum. It is doubtful whether SNP Members will vote "Yes" or "N". I was told over the weekend that many SNP branches will vote "No". That would be the honourable answer for the SNP. Some SNP Members say that they do not want this kind of Assembly; others have told me that they will vote "Yes". These things can he interpreted according to one's position. Scottish National Party Members will say that a few years ago they were nothing, that in 1974 they received a quarter of the vote, and that in 1976 they got about 33 per cent. of the vote. They now want to make it more. That is a natural argument.
  Any idea that this referendum has the finality that was attributed to the EEC referendum does not make sense. If we are not careful, we may just be helping the process by adding to the momentum of the SNP. So much depends on how things are phrased, and in what context.
  Mr. Higgins: If we were to accept as a precedent what has happened this afternoon, presumably when and if the Bill goes through and there are arrangements each year for an allocation of money to Scotland, any hon. Member may table an amendment to the effect "Let us have a referendum on how much money will go to Scotland". That would involve the people of Scotland, but the people of England would
  1732
  have nothing to do with it. That is the kind of precedent that it is suggested we should follow or create today.
  Mr. Dalyell: I listened to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) earlier, and I shall read what he said in Hansard tomorrow. My antennae suggest that he was on to a point of considerable substance and importance. I do not want to prolong the debate, and I am sure that the House will forgive me for not going into the hon. Gentleman's point now, other than to say that I suspect that it is important.
  I asked the Lord President whether the referendum was to be consultative. Some of us assumed that if there were to be a referendum it would be mandatory.
  Mr. Foot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as I indicated before, this is a matter that will arise not on this motion but in later discussion on the main Question.
  Mr. Dalyell: If we tell our constituents that this consultative referendum will cost £3 million plus, at a time when training colleges are being closed, ratepayers are more angry than ever, and considerable financial problems face local authorities, the Committee can picture the kind of comments that will be made.
  People are saying "What on earth do we pay Members of Parliament for?". This is being said more and more, and there will be more force in that argument if the referendum is consultative and not mandatory. There is a difference between a consultative referendum and a mandatory referendum. A consultative referendum would give rise to even more criticism about the use of taxpayers' money.
  All of us have a vested interest in the amendments that are selected. There was earlier reference to the criteria on which amendments would be selected. It would be useful if, at the beginning of business on Tuesday, some indication could be given about the basis for the criteria on which the amendments are selected. We all plead our special cases.
  The question should be, "At a time when the Prime Minister rightly emphasises, that priority should be given to the productive and manufacturing industries, do you, as a matter of priority, want to go ahead with an expensive

  1733
  shake-up in the form of government?" That might not be immediately seen to be the kind of neutral question to be asked in the referendum but—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not discussing the procedural motion.
  Mr. Dalyell: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Chairman, but may we have a statement at the beginning of business on Tuesday about the criteria on which these questions will be selected?
  Mr. Graham Page: I shall stick strictly to the motion, which is that we should take New Clause 40 and the new schedule and insert them now or postpone them until later in the Bill. There are six reasons why we should postpone them.
  First, we have had a new ruling on our procedure which seriously affects our consideration of the new clause and the schedule. We ought to have time to ponder on that and to consider how much it may affect our debates.
  Secondly, we have been told by the Lord President that he will think again about New Clause 40—that it may be mandatory, permissive, or consultative. Well, let us give him time to think again about it and to table a new New Clause 40, which we may consider at leisure so that we are not rushed into it today.
  Thirdly, we have had a warning that a substantive motion may be tabled questioning the ruling that has been made. If that is so, and if that is to be debated, it may be that the ruling will be upset by the House in a further debate. That is another reason why we should postpone discussing the new clause and the new schedule now.
  Fourthly, the new clause and the new schedule pre-empt later debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said earlier that the schedule mentions an Executive for Scotland but leaves out the Executive for Wales We may wish to debate later whether there should he an Executive for Scotland and whether these should be an Executive for Wales. If we decide that these words are to go into a referendum now, how can we debate the subject later on? When we deal with amendments in Committee, we often find that we have already decided some of the matters, inadver-
  1734
  tently, by having discussed the same subject earlier.
  Fifthly, we ought to have a chance to consider a new Money Resolution dealing with the expense that a referendum is bound to incur. I am not certain whether the expense will be borne by Scotland or by Wales, from their Consolidated Funds or by our Consolidated Fund, or whether it will come out of the money already allocated to the Secretary of State. We should have an opportunity to debate this before such a clause is written into the Bill. Whenever, in Committee, I have tried to introduce a new clause that involves spending money, I have always been told that I could not do that unless there were a Money Resolution, or I have had to wait until Report.
  Sixthly, this motion is a condition precedent to a motion for a guillotine. Every hon. Member realises that. The longer it remains a condition precedent, the happier I shall be.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: We have had a wide-ranging debate on a thoroughly narrow procedural motion. I do not want to stray too far in my remarks, but we should be concerned about the constitutional principle that it involves.
  Just as on the Referendum Bill in regard to the Common Market, the Prime Minister said that was a one-off matter and that there would never be another, so we have seen this principle gradually extended so that we now face yet another referendum.
  Several hon. Members have given examples of how it would be possible on other Bills for a Government to get themselves off the hook by inserting at any stage in the course of a Bill a clause providing for a referendum. If we take the example of the block grant, which I assume could be covered by the legislative process, a provision could be inserted by the Scottish nationalists, by the Tories or by Labour asking "Do you think that this block grant is enough? Answer "Yes" or "No". Certainly the Scottish people would reply every time "No". Indeed it would be strange if they did not so reply. It is an important principle, which one needs to enunciate.

  1735
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that although he might be thought to be simple or naive he did not accept that the reason the Government had introduced this motion was that they wanted to win a guillotine motion. I did not think that he was quite so simple and naģve as those remarks prove him to be. I do not know where he has been in the past few weeks—
  Mr. Dalyell: In Europe.
  Mr. Hamilton: I have been there too, but the message about what the Government were up to got across to me. I was waylaid by a Whip in the Tea Room and he asked "How will you vote on a guillotine, Willie?" I said "I am damned well going to vote against it." He said "But you will be out of the country. I shall see that the aeroplane schedules fit in with the vote." Every corridor in this place has been swarming with Whips. I have never been accosted by these wretched people more often than in the past fortnight.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Whips have given me up as a bad job.
  Mr. Hamilton: If my hon. Friend makes utterances of the type we heard a little earlier this afternoon, I am sure that they will leave him alone. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was partly right when he said that he was sensitive to the wishes expressed on all sides of the House and thought that the new clause and the schedule introducing the principle of the referendum should be introduced at an early stage. But that is no reason for its being introduced now. Surely the reason is obvious, namely, that the arithmetic was going the wrong way for the Government.
  My right hon. Friend will recall that a short time ago he was criticised on this matter at a party meeting. I must not leak too much about party meetings, because some day someone may write a book about it. My right hon. Friend was asked at that meeting what negotiations he had had with the Liberal Party, because he was out to get their votes on a guillotine. The Leader of the Liberal Party had made a speech the previous weekend, laying down five conditions that had to be met if he were to be expected
  1736
  to deliver the Liberal vote on a guillotine motion. My right hon. Friend—I hope that I am not being unfair to him—said "There have been no negotiations. I have simply gone to the Leader of the Liberal Party and discussed these five points with him, and have told him what to do with them". It would be unparliamentary if I were to explain in full what that proposition was, but it was simply that the five points were rejected. Therefore, we were not to get the Liberal vote.
  We had read in the Press about the proposition to reduce the number of Welsh and Scottish seats in this House, and that point was put to my right hon. Friend at the same party meeting. He was asked by three of his colleagues whether the Government intended to accept Conservative amendments to reduce the number of such members in this Chamber. Three times, as in the biblical story, my right hon. Friend refused to answer—which was untypical of him.
  It was clear that bargains were being attempted by the official Opposition. Members of the Labour Party who were favourably disposed to the Bill said that if any bargains were struck with the Conservatives or the Liberals, those Labour Members would turn against the Bill. That was the dilemma. If the Government had made concessions to the Liberals on their five propositions, or to the Tories on the numbers of Scottish and Welsh Members in this House, they would have alienated Labour votes.
  Mr. Foot: So that there is no misunderstanding on this matter, I must inform the Committee that no bargains were sought or agreed with the Liberals or with the official Opposition, or, indeed, with anybody else on any of these matters. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to give circulation to false rumours.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am not; I am putting the facts as I know them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will acquit me of distortion about what took place at our party meeting. I do not think I am giving any leak, since these matters have appeared in the newspapers.
  Mr. Foot: I am not complaining about what my hon. Friend is saying about reporting. However, he suggested that there was some attempt by me to make an agreement with the official Opposition on this matter. I am sure that they

  1737
  would agree that that is not the case. The Leader of the Liberal Party, in debate the other night, agreed that no such thing had occurred. I am saying that my hon. Friend should not get excited about this matter, because no attempt at bargains was made.
  Mr. Hamilton: I accept my right hon. Friend's assurances. That makes it more difficult to understand the exact implications that lie behind the bringing forward of this premature proposition that there should be a clause dealing with the referendum. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would deny that our Whips have been most active in the past week or fortnight in adding up their sums, because they know that if they do not obtain a guillotine motion soon the Bill will run into the sands. They want a guillotine at the earliest possible moment. All kinds of carrots, incentives, inducements and bribes—call them what one will—were dangled in front of those of us who said that we would not support a guillotine motion. This is part of the saga.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It was known that some of us had decided to dig in our toes. That was why the Whips were so active.
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has underlined the point that I was making.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: What was the carrot?
  Mr. Hamilton: Everything except a life peerage. Every Labour Member knows what has been happening in the corridors of power. That is what has been happening in the House during the last fortnight. What I find deeply discouraging is the element of dishonesty that has run through all these debates. There is hardly a Minister or Back Bencher who can put his hand on his heart and say that he supports the Bill because he is convinced that it is right. Members of the Scottish National Party do not want the Bill for its merits, either; they are engaged in a form of dishonesty, as is every other hon. Member.
  Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that we have all been offered bribes of one kind or another. Will he tell us what he has been offered. I do not believe it.
  Mr. Hamilton: I wish that my hon. Friend would not be so trite and trivial in these matters. He is not normally so trivial. During the last fortnight the Government have tried every stratagem.
  Mr. Buchan: What were the carrots?
  Mr. Hamilton: I wish that my hon. Friend would keep his mouth shut or else get to his feet and intervene properly.
  Mr. Buchan: I thought that I had. I do not believe the story.
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is entitled to say that, but I am entitled to give my interpretation of what has been going on during the last fortnight. The Government have exerted all kinds of pressures and stratagems to persuade those of us who have stated our intention to vote against the guillotine to change our minds. My hon. Friend must know that, as does every other hon. Member on this side.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Would the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) comment on the rumour that things have even got to the stage where the Prime Minister is threatening to interview those of his supporters who might wish to vote against the guillotine.
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot comment on rumours, but the Prime Minister has been seen dining with one or two of them. Whether that is the kind of bribe that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) had in mind, I do not know.
  Mr. Buchan: I was just wondering whether that was a stick or a carrot.
  Mr. Hamilton: It does not matter, but it underlines the assertion that I have made that all kinds of stratagems have been attempted by the Government to persuade people into the Lobby for a guillotine motion, because that is the only way they will be able to get the Bill through. I say to the Leader of the House that it is not the only way.
  If the Leader of the House believes now, as he did at the time of the EEC referendum, that no Bill of major constitutional importance should be subject to a guillotine, he should take that view now and agree to extend the term of the parliamentary Session. A former Prime

  1739
  Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said earlier today that the House was flexible. If the Leader of the House wants the Bill, and if he abhors referendums on constitutional matters, he should simply tell the Government and the Prime Minister that they need the Bill, that he objects to the guillotine, and that therefore the parliamentary Session should be extended, if need be, to infinity. Infinity is how long it will take to get the Bill through.
  If the Government are so committed to the Bill, that is the price that they will have to pay. The Government may think that they will get the Bill through by this strategem, but I do not think that this effort will influence any of us in the views that we shall take if and when a guillotine motion is put forward.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) did not let many cats out of the bag. All his statements have been made clear by the Treasury Bench during the last two or three weeks, and it has been obvious to all hon. Members exactly what the Government have been trying to do.
  Possibly the Leader of the House knows that I am basically a pro-devolutionist and that I believe in an Assembly within the United Kingdom. I did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but, by heaven, the Leader of the House has done his best to drive me away, through the proposals that he has made over the last few weeks. I have become totally disheartened at his handling of the Bill. Today's events have drawn me still further away.
  I shall not criticise the decision to go ahead with the motion, but the Leader of the House must know that he initiated the disagreement in the House. He put down the motion and New Clause 40 that will follow it. The Leader of the House knows very well that the minimal progress of the Bill has been entirely due to his party political intentions. He knows perfectly well, from sensing the feeling from all sides of the House today and from listening to the debate on the new constitutional points, that he should have postponed the debate and held it over to another day when the matter could have been clarified. The Leader
  1740
  of the House knows that this motion, which paves the way for a referendum, will lead to a guillotine for purely political reasons.
  Many of us who have grave doubts about the principle of a referendum and who, on principle, opposed a referendum on the EEC, have said today that this is another example of a decision, made by the Prime Minister of the day, being converted into a practice that will soon become commonplace. The responsibilities of the House will be devalued still further.
  Both measures, for the reason that we know them to be for political gain, are thoroughly reprehensible, and have been brought before the House in this motion entirely for the purpose of saving the Government's skin, and certainly not for the one reason that ought to be applied—the promotion of better government for Scotland and Wales.
  I oppose the motion because it places the referendum out of context in the Bill. The motion should have been held back either till Report or till later in the Committee proceedings.
  I was surprised at the simple belief of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), that this was being done for anything other than political reasons. How can hon. Members consider the wording of the referendum or its necessity without knowing the contents of the Bill? The Leader of the House knows that we have not yet reached the central portion of the Bill. Clause 20 and subsequent clauses deal with the powers that will be given to the Assemblies. Who knows what worse measures will be in the Bill by that time, when we reach the end of the Committee—if indeed that is a possibility? Yet hon. Members are being asked to decide, perhaps next week, on the wording of the referendum and on further matters relating to it.
  One of the worst arguments the Leader of the House put forward today and during business questions last week is that a large number of hon. Members wanted the debate on the referendum to be held this week and next week. I have sat through many of the debates on the Bill, but not all of them, and it may be that a proportion of hon. Members were anxious to see the new clause tabled. But nobody has asked the Leader of the

  1741
  House for the debate on it to be held between Clause 3 and Clause 4. We might have been happy to debate it later on, after Clause 114. To deal with it now, before we have dealt with the contents of the Bill, is entirely wrong. The Leader of the House says in support of his miserable decision that 12 or 20 hon. Members, out of more than 600, want to debate it between Clauses 3 and 4. I do not believe that he could produce the names of 20 hon. Members who wish to to be debated now.
  However, using this minimal evidence to suit himself and his party, and not because it suits the House, he puts his party first and not the good of Scotland and Wales. His actions tend to drive those who are in favour of devolution more and more against the Bill and anything in it. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to bring in the recalcitrant Members of his party by offering a referendum which might case their consciences and save their souls is wrong in the context of what is good for Scotland and Wales. His actions will do nothing to help the further progress of the Bill.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is questioning my good faith. Right at the beginning of our proceedings on the Bill we had a series of points of order, and I told the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths):
  "Of course, I understand the interest that the House has in the referendum. Work is proceeding on the new clause that the Government will recommend to the House and I shall take into account the representations that have been made today. I cannot promise when it will be put on the Order Paper. We might consider taking it earlier. That might be a reasonable proposition. If so, the procedures of the House would enable us to do so perfectly well. The motion that we ask the House to pass now would not prohibit it."—[Official Report, 13th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 1714.]
  I gave that clear indication to the House at the beginning of our discussions, and there was no protest from any quarter. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds thanked me for responding to what the House had said. No hon. Member who has studied our discussions on these matters could find a single objection from any hon. Member opposite against the suggestion that we should deal with the question of referendums earlier—as we are doing.
  Mr. Monro: It drives one to despair to see how the Leader of the House is prepared to put his own and what he believes to be his party's interests before what we are discussing as a Committee of the whole House. I was in the House when the right hon. Gentleman made the remarks to which he has just referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is a wise parliamentarian and was entitled to say what he did, but that does not mean that the hundreds of other hon. Members must always agree with everything which he or the Leader of the House says.
  I maintain that it would have been more advantageous if the Lord President had tabled the new clause so that hon. Members had plenty of time to discuss it among themselves or in party groups. There has been no indication of any desire to debate it now. It may be that the Lord President made the statement to which he referred at the beginning of our discussions because he did not believe that we would be in this position in the middle of February. No doubt, he thought that we would be half way through the Bill by now and in a much better position to discuss the new clause.
  It is clear from everything that has happened today that there is considerable, strong and bitter feeling about what the Lord President has done. He should recognise this because he has been involved in many procedural wrangles himself. If we are to make sensible progress in the interests of Scotland and Wales it is time that the right hon. Gentleman came off his high horse and began to discuss these problems with the other parties. If he does not, he will not get progress. Perhaps he has given up, and is now playing out time rather badly, but till he is prepared to be more flexible in his approach to the Bill he will get nowhere at all.
  His motion does not commend itself to me and I will certainly oppose it.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The discussion so far seems to have been largely comprised of analyses of various people's motives, and the last speaker made no exception. As a general rule it is not very helpful to analyse people's motives. It is much better to consider the merits of a proposal. Analysing motives is pretty difficult at the best of times. Motives are generally confused.

  1743
  If one supports the principle of devolution one cannot win when it comes to the analysing of motives. If one favours devolution for Scotland and Wales, one is a populist who is bowing to popular opinion and whose own views should not, therefore be considered. If one favours devolution for the English regions, as I do, one is told that there is no demand for it in those regions and that one is a fool and anti-democratic for proposing things for which there is no demand. One is criticised for being both populist and anti-democratic; so, when it comes to analysing motives, I give up. Perhaps it would be as well for us not to spend too much time considering other people's motives.
  It is patently clear that there is no question of the Bill reaching the statute book unless there is a guillotine at some stage. I find nothing dishonourable or reprehensible in trying to manage the conduct of the Bill in order to see that, at some stage, it will be possible for a guillotine to be introduced.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is my hon. Friend arguing that there is a direct connection between the motion we are discussing and a guillotine motion?
  Mr. Grocott: I am not asking the Government Front Bench to confirm it, but there is a strong feeling that there is such a connection, and I am happy that this should be. It is my judgment that if the procedural motion is passed, it may be marginally more likely that, at some stage in the near future, we shall have a guillotine. People outside will then stop criticising us for the ludicrous hours we sit on occasion, to very little purpose. I favour a guillotine and the procedural motion makes it more likely that it will be possible to get a guillotine motion passed in the near future.
  There is, therefore, no need to analyse my motives; I have stated them clearly for anyone who is interested in listening.
  I listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) with great interest on these matters. He argued today that such topics should be discussed at very great length because the public need time to assimilate the arguments, and possibly change views on the basis
  1744
  of what they hear here and discuss among themselves. Of course, I accept that as a democratic principle, and as a reason for a democratic assembly, but it cannot mean that such discussions are to be without limit. If we committed ourselves to the principle—and here I address myself to my hon. Friends more than to hon. Members opposite—that every constitutional change must be debated till every hon. Member drops from exhaustion—and most of us can talk even if we can do nothing else—that would be likely to take a very long time indeed.
  7.30 p.m.
  We are committing this country to one of the most conservative constitutional arrangements of any democracy. Even in the United States, a country which has changed its constitution only about 30 times in 200 years, people say "We shall change the constitution if two-thirds of Congress agrees with three-quarters of the States." That is a very simple procedure compared with the one sometimes suggested here, that on constitutional matters we debate ad nauseam every clause and every conceivable amendment for as long as any hon. Member has the energy and stamina to do so. That would be a very dangerous precedent indeed.
  I and other Members who would like to see the abolition of that outfit up the road, the House of Lords, dread the prospect of having to discuss that subject ad nauseam. It has already been discussed for 70 years. To think of discussing it without a guillotine would be very worrying.
  We all know that the Bill will not be passed unless there is a guillotine at some stage. This procedural motion is likely to make a guillotine marginally easier—very marginally, judging from some of the remarks that I have heard—and if it does that it is something that we should support.
  I hope that we are all aware of the implications of putting ourselves in a position of such rigidity on constitutional matters. To be over-rigid in such matters is just as dangerous as being over-flexible. It is dangerous to have a constitution that cannot be changed. We should be alive to these dangers before we reject the motion and the implications behind it.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: What we are discussing is of profound importance, not only because of the clause which the Lord President is seeking to introduce, but because the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to introduce it at this stage of the Bill's consideration. Every hon. Member knows perfectly well that a referendum, on whatever subject, is in some way a derogation of the sovereignty of Parliament. A referendum was accepted on the question of our EEC membership and it will be accepted again if this clause becomes part of the Bill.
  Every hon. Member should realise that a referendum represents a decline in the authority of Parliament. It means that the vote of Members, paramount for centuries, will no longer be so important. Decisions will be handed over to the direct vote of the populace. If the clause is accepted, the authority of Parliament will slip away, whether we like it or not. The reputation of Parliament is not what it used to be.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) earlier quoted the words of a former Chairman of Ways and Means, who spoke of his prevision of the effect on Parliament when he denied the right to introduce a referendum clause in a Bill 50 or 60 years ago. Although I have been in the House for 22 years, I never had the prevision that I would ever hear the Leader of the House introduce a motion to insert into a Bill provision for a referendum, substituting for the indirect vote of Members of Parliament the direct vote of the electorate.
  I shall not go into the argument about whether this is manipulation. I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) about motives. The Committee ought to realise what an important thing it is doing. Passing the clause would establish a precedent for referendums. Never again will the demand for a referendum be able to be resisted in any major measure. The demand will come more and more from the country.
  The referendum is being introduced right in the middle of the Bill. I do not know the reasons. I accept that the Government may have good political reasons, but the fact that the Leader of the House is doing it when we have this law-making body dealing with the forms of government—
  Mr. Foot: I was not the person who introduced the referendum in connection with this Bill. On Second Reading a motion was put on the Order Paper signed by about 150 hon. Members from all parts of the House, including some of the hon. Friends of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson). They introduced the question of the referendum.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: Unlike some of my hon. Friends, apparently, I am not suspicious of the right hon. Gentleman's motives or manoeuvres. I have always thought that he believed very much in the sovereignty of Parliament, that he did not want to derogate from its authority, and that the did not want to hand it over to questions asked in a referendum, preceded by a campaign on the issues.
  Today we have had a very important decision from the Chair—I shall not say that it was a surprising decision—which Parliament may wish to reconsider. In the middle of a complex Bill, when we were discussing the election of Members to the Assemblies, suddenly we are asked to make a decision on the new clause.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the Government pamphlet at the time of the EEC referendum, which gave very interesting information about the use of referendums in many countries, including Commonwealth countries? It indicated that where they are a normal part of democracy they are not abused and not over used. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman so fearful about?
  Sir P. Rawlinson: We must realise the importance of what we are doing. If Parliament is doing it with its eyes open, not for party political purposes, and if it is doing it because it believes the decline in the authority of the House of Commons is so great that we must have it, so be it. But let us do it honestly and accept that that is what it means. Let us not pretend that the referendum will be used only every now and then.
  We had a referendum for the EEC, we shall have another with this Bill, and there will certainly be other Bills. Labour Members want to abolish the House of Lords. Will they do that without a referendum? If this House is put up against the reputation of the other place, one wonders which House would be preferred

  1747
  in a referendum. Many of us are frightened about that, because there is no doubt about the decline in the authority of Parliament, for all kinds of reasons. One is the incompetence and inefficiency of the House of Commons as a law-making body. We have had too much law. Far too much legislation is produced.
  Here we have an example, with this manoeuvre. We do not efficiently make law—leave aside policy—but we produce legislation on such a scale and have such an effect that the people have lost confidence in the House of Commons. The Leader of the House should face up to what he is doing. I do not believe that he wants to do it, but he may have caught himself in a political corner, which everyone in politics does from time to time.
  It is customary in an English House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "British."] My chauvinism has revealed itself, but I can go back to before the Act of Union. Change has always taken place here more by accident than on purpose. If the clause is accepted, we shall be making a profound change in the procedures of Parliament.
  Mr. Anderson: I have always had strong feelings about referendums and I have thought that the appropriate way of finalising a major constitutional change of this nature should be by way of a referendum. However, I have no strong views about the appropriate time in the passage of the Bill for a debate on the referendum. I have listened to the arguments and I have tried to ascertain whether my vote will be in favour of holding the debate on the referendum before Clause 4.
  I listened carefully to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) who said, in all honesty, that the path to the guillotine—which is the only way of getting the Bill on to the statute book—lies through a referendum. He said that he would therefore support the motion and he hoped that it would be passed as speedily as possible.
  I am reminded of a story about a friend of mine who went before a judge and argued at length. Eventually, the learned judge said in some exasperation "Mr. Grocott, is that your best point?"
  1748
  My friend was forced to say, "My Lord, that is my only point". I feel that my hon. Friend has fallen to that level. I listened carefully to see whether there would be points additional to that concerning the referendum, but I found that it is simply a question of why the new clause should be considered before Clause 4.
  There is something symbolic in that because many of us have had doubts about the priorities of the Government and the way in which our legislative programme in this Session has been decided. This major Bill is to be discussed and all other Bills, which many hon. Members consider to be of greater importance, are to be crowded out.
  We are told that the Bill represents a massive stride for Socialism, but some of my hon. Friends and I do not see it in that light. We feel that it is more a romantic type of liberalism. It is symbolic that this clause is to be considered before Clause 4. But we are still waiting for the reasons why we should consider the clause on the referendum at this juncture. The Government were right to table their amendments at this time. Perhaps I am heeding what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth said about divining motives and I shall not go into the motives of the Government in yielding to pressure in favour of having a referendum on this measure. The Government properly decided on a referendum and I applaud them for that decision.
  The Government promised that the relevant clause to deal with the referendum would be brought forward at an early stage. I applaud my right hon. Friend for having done that and for having brought forward the clause for a referendum since he promised the House that he would. However, I am not sure that there is a case for debating the clause at this early stage.
  Are there certain technical reasons for that decision? Are there administrative reasons caused by the organisation of a referendum? Is it right that the only substantive reason which can be put forward, when all the other reasons are stripped away, is that which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth? If that is so, it does not appear—
  Mr. Foot: We thought that it would be reasonable to have a debate at an early stage because otherwise hon. Members would frequently be asking about what was going to happen to their amendments. Hon. Members would be asking what effect they would have on the general discussion. Hon. Members on all sides have said to me that they want the debate early. There are good reasons for that. It will enable many amendments to be properly discussed.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend is an honourable man and I commend his assurance that there shall be Government amendments. One knows that the support of the House is such that there will be a referendum in Wales and Scotland before the Bill comes into operation—if, indeed, it ever does.
  I am concerned about whether there is a serious argument, other than it being a sweetener on the road to the guillotine, for the debate at this stage.
  Mr. Grocott: Will my hon. Friend explain what he thinks would be the appropriate time to discuss this important new proposal? There has been a suggestion that it could be considered after Clause 40. Will he give the House an estimate of the stage, between now and Clause 40, at which he thinks it would be reasonable for this to be discussed?
  Mr. Anderson: I have no fixed ideas on the appropriate time to debate the new clause. I am still waiting for an explanation of why it is appropriate to debate it before Clause 4. It is in that state of indecision and doubt that I still await a good answer.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Having listened to the Lord President's arguments about why this major constitutional innovation should be introduced into the Bill at this stage, I find his logic very strange. Apparently he regards it as a sufficient reason for people of the country to be consulted about the Bill that some anonymous hon. Members made representations to him that they thought that they should be consulted. However, the votes of hon. Members upon the Bill are not considered a sufficient justification for passing the Bill itself. On the one hand, a few nudges meaning "What about a referendum Lord President?" are enough
  1750
  to persuade him to make a major constitutional innovation. On the other hand, the votes of hon. Members are, apparently, all of a sudden not sufficient to pass the Bill.
  Mr. Foot: It is not a question of anonymous hon. Members making representations to me. A total of 140 or more hon. Members signed a motion urging that there should be a referendum in connection with the Bill. Indeed, those hon. Members said that they would not give their assent to the Bill unless that was agreed. That was done in the open. Proper representations were made and we took account of them.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I appreciate that, but that is not the point. None of the 140 hon. Members felt strongly enough about the issue to put down a motion or this clause; nor did they suggest that it should be squeezed in now. The Lord President should not pretend that that was his motivation. If it was, let him stand up and say so. He was motivated alone by 140 hon. Members putting down a motion and he responded by saying "As a good democrat, I shall do as they say."
  Mr. Foot: At the time of the Second Reading many lion. Members—many from this side of the House but also those from other parties—asked for a referendum. During the course of the Second Reading the Government accepted those representations. Immediately after we began the Committee stage representations were renewed to me to have discussions. I said that I would seek to do that and to find a convenient opportunity. When at that stage not a single protest had been made about this procedure from any quarter of the House, I think that I was entitled to assume that there was strong support in all quarters of the House of Commons for this procedure, whether or not it was a new procedure, and there were hon. Members in all parts of the House who supported what I was proposing to do.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I listen with great interest to this almost supersensory sensitivity that the Lord President has demonstrated—that these wishes were so much in his mind that that was his sole motive. However, can he say that his sole motive for bringing this proposal forward now was that reason and that alone? If he

  1751
  can say that, can we with confidence wait, as the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) suggested, for the fact that there will be no guillotine at all? Or, if there is the concept of a guillotine, will the Lord President give us any reason why we should not wait until after that matter has been considered before we consider any question of a referendum?
  Mr. Foot: Quite irrespective of any timetable motion, I believe that there were overwhelmingly good reasons, in the light of the whole discussions—and I think that I have heard almost every word uttered about these matters—for bringing forward the motion as we did.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Then I assume that the Lord President will be able to reassure us that there was no other motive in his mind, never has been or never will be, and that it is nothing to do with a timetable motion. If that be the case, I suggest that he can corroborate his veracity by postponing this matter until after the discussion of any guillotine motion. There is nothing wrong with that, because to discuss a referendum motion which has within it some of the arguments and says such things as
  "The new Assembly and Executive would exercise substantial powers devolved by Parliament"
  is to use a form of words to deceive the public, because they are to be used to describe the same things, whatever powers are presently in, will be in, or will not be in the Bill. Therefore, it is a deceit upon the public to say that one is bringing forward a form of referendum with words that describe things that may be utterly different.
  I believe that it is a deceit upon the public because if the Lord President was genuine to introduce it, he would surely go to the people of Scotland in a referendum and say "Do you want a referendum on the Scotland and Wales Bill?" That would be the logic of his argument.
  However, let me take a very typical example of how snide this device is. Let us suppose that a Government in this House of Commons were attempting to bring in capital punishment again. They would know on past form that they were likely to run into difficulties with a vote in the House of Commons. Accordingly,
  1752
  when they realised that they were running into difficulties, if they were utterly cynical and utterly careless of the genuine feelings of Members of Parliament as the representatives of the electors, what would they do? They would hold a referendum of the people and they would get a majority.
  In other words, they would try to cheat the rules. When they realised that they would not win the game, they would change the rules. As we have seen in the Bill, if the Government do not get their way by cheating once, the Lord President is willing to cheat and change and try anything in order to achieve the end results, regardless of the wishes of hon. Members on any side of the House of Commons. That is essentially his purpose and intention. I wish that he could deny it.
  Mr. Abse: How can the hon. and learned Gentleman pursue that argument when, as my right hon. Friend the Lord President has rightly said, 151 Members from both sides of the House of Commons signed the reasoned amendment that put down? In that amendment they were saying that before they would agree to a Second Reading they wanted from the Government the undertaking that there would be a referendum. How can it possibly be put at this stage that it is too early, when there was clearly an overwhelming opinion in Parliament that there was a need, as a precondition to passing the Second Reading, for a declaration by the Government indicating clearly that there would be a referendum?
  Mr. Fairbairn: As the on. Gentleman has said, if that undertaking was satisfactory to persuade a lot of Labour Members who did not believe in the principle of the Bill to vote for the Bill—and God help their consciences—all I can say is why are we bothering to rush it forward now? If it is not in the hope of enticing the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), or whoever else is being paranoically pursued in the Tea Room, into changing his mind about a timetable motion, why have it? Why have it now? Why have this massive undertaking to change the consciences of those who were against the principle on Second Reading? Why the rush? Why have a question which is meaningless because we have not decided

  1753
  the concept of what we are discussing? Why tonight? Why not at the end of the Bill? Why not have just a short referendum Bill? Why tonight if the motive is not specious?
  However, let this be an important warning. The Assembly will take a leaf out of the Lord President's book. When it wants its way and this Parliament does not aeree with it, it will have a referendum in Scotland. That referendum will be based, as one Labour Member has warned us, on the fact that those who believe, and genuinely believe, that Scotland should be an independent country will say when—as the Bill is intended to prevent—so many of the industrial Labour seats, out of protest and through no desire for independence, fall to the nationalists "That referendum was when we had only 11 people; let us have another referendum when we have 40 people." If that referendum does not go their way, they will have another. They will have it on the differences about money, or whether it is fair for Parliament here to have this or that power, or whether it is rotten that the English are dealing with Scottish matters.
  There is no end to this process if it is introduced as a snide cheat in order to get the Government off the hook and to persuade, as the Government did on Second Reading, people who fundamentally oppose the Bill to support it for some public favour or private interest.
  Mr. Abse: I would have hoped that if we were discussing this procedural motion in the light of the ruling that had been given by the Chair, we would focus attention upon the very serious consequences that have flown from that ruling. Some have used the time of this procedural motion largely to impute curious motivations to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. They should realise that he has certainly responded to all the expressed wishes of the House of Commons. He has certainly responded to the wishes that have been indicated on the Order Paper, indicated by representations and indicated in other ways. When he has done all that, it seems to me that there is a certain falsity in the note that was struck when it was suggested that the whole reason why we have a procedural motion at this stage as a preliminary to going on to discussing
  1754
  the main matter is because it is a technique in order to bring nearer the guillotine. I can hardly believe that that was ever in the mind of the Leader of the House.
  It has become clearer that this procedural matter will not be ended except by a vote on a closure motion coming from the Government—and moved before long by any Whip worth his salt—and with an Opposition who will probably be somnambulant, who do not know how to oppose a Bill and will probably not even be here to deal with a closure motion.
  I find myself becoming a little impatient when the Opposition try to lecture the House on how it should approach a procedural motion of this sort. I become especially impatient when they adopt that approach although they are so extraordinarily inept in the manner in which they are mounting their whole opposition.
  Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman should accept that there are genuine objections to the procedural motion as such. I hope that he is not suggesting that those objections should not be raised on such an important issue.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Abse: I am not. I am saying that it would be more relevant and more sensible for the Opposition to direct their attention to the consequences that flow from passing the motion if action is not taken that may mitigate some of the damage, instead of playing games and charades and advancing a synthetic argument.
  Although the Leader of the House has shown elasticity and has indicated that he will listen to the arguments, I am not convinced that that will prevent a fatal precedent being established. I am not convinced that that will be prevented by the present intention of possibly modifying a mandatory referendum and having one that involves consultation. We have to accept the ruling, and I am not convinced that a precedent has not been established for all time. Even if the Leader of the House goes along with the suggestion that it should be a referendum in which there is a form of consultation, a referendum that is not mandatory, I believe that we are still endorsing a definite and firm precedent that could

  1755
  cast its shadow for a very long time ahead.
  Although I bear some responsibility for having brought about a situation in which we have the possibility of a referendum, I have never liked referendums. How could I? When I look back over the past 18 years, I conclude that whatever concept I originally put forward would have been rejected by the country if it had been put to the people. It requires persuasion in the House of Commons before the country, partially, wholly or substantially, will go along with what is later expressed in the House as the view of the House.
  I have no love of referendums. The only reason that I go along with the idea that there should be a referendum is that it will explicitly show to the people of Britain—and Scotland and Wales in particular—that a major constitutional change cannot be passed through the House of Commons by stealth.
  The fact that the Government are introducing a new clause that makes provision for a referendum is a clear acknowledgement that they recognise that they cannot maintain the argument that they have a mandate. They are now abandoning the pretence. They are acknowledging that they need to have corroboration. They are acknowledging that they never obtained it. They recognise that a footnote in a manifesto could never in any circumstances be regarded as an endorsement of a major constitutional change.
  Precisely because that has acted upon a Government who wanted to take a step that would have placed them in danger of cheating the electorate, because the House of Commons has asserted itself, because Members have insisted that they are not prepared to allow to pass through the House of Commons a Bill of such dimension without electoral support and endorsement, that, at least, is some justification for what most of us cannot like as parliamentarians, namely, the derogation of the sovereignty of Parliament that every referendum is bound in some way to effect.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is ingenious, but it is a strange proposition that the will of the elected representatives of Great
  1756
  Britain should be corroborated by having a referendum among only one-eleventh of the electorate. There are plenty of Scots who live in England and there are plenty of English people who live in Scotland and Wales. How do we corroborate the wishes of the representatives of the whole of Great Britain by taking a sample representation only in the parts of the kingdom that are affected?
  Mr. Abse: That is a matter that can be discussed when we deal, as I hope we shall before long, with the clause.
  I return to the point that I started with, namely, that the House of Commons seems to be in danger of not directing its attention sufficiently to the dangers that arise from the Chairman's ruling. I believe that the more perceptive Members will realise that that is the point with which the Committee should be wrestling. Even if it were mitigated, the ruling would remain and the hazard that referendums could be introduced in many other situations would remain very real. If we can prevent unintended difficulties arising in this Bill and other Bills, I think that my right hon. Friend will have to give consideration to and be more explicit in his attitude to the question of being permissive or mandatory.
  I do not believe that any House of Commons could allow a referendum to take place, even if it were a consultaive referendum, and then flagrantly to disobey everything that arose from it. I do not believe that the House of Commons would want to have a confrontation with its own electorate. It would not become the House of Commons to do so.
  The Leader of the House must be aware of the dangers of the ruling, which means that we can have referendum amendments being tabled again and again. I do not believe that he can leave matters in such suspense. If the House of Commons is alarmed by the ruling, surely it can indicate clearly for generations ahead that we only permitted the ruling to go by on the understanding that it was a referendum involving consultation. Unless we do that we are making a rod for our own back.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman said that he could not imagine circumstances in which the outcome of a

  1757
  referendum would not be acted upon by the House of Commons irrespective of whether, in form, the referendum was binding or consultative. But in the proposed schedule a mere majority decides the question. I think that many hon. Members could easily imagine circumstances in which, if there were a fifty-fifty result, more or less, the House might nevertheless persist in the course upon which it was previously determined.
  Mr. Abse: I agree. I do not think that opinion could be ignored. The onus for making a major change such as this must naturally rest upon those who propose it. If there were a 0·1 per cent. difference in Wales and Scotland between those for and against, I should accept it, and I think that the electorate would understand. We can no doubt pay some attention to this matter when we deal with the clause. It is not a matter with which we can really deal in discussing this motion.
  I repeat that the Leader of the House should not be concerned about trying to ward off the trivial baiting of those who are attempting to tease and prod and make him out a Robespierre. That is not the issue and he should not be so deflected.
  My right hon. Friend is concerned—at least, I hope he is—that we do not erode the sovereignty of the House of Commons in a way that could have such serious consequences that it would be possible in future for referendum amendments to be put down to major Bills. I am sure that he understands that he has a duty to protect the House of Commons from that situation. To move on from this procedural motion without the Committee having directed its attention to these serious consequences would be ill-advised.
  Mr. Foot: I fully accept that all the serious issues mentioned by my hon. Friend are raised. But, of course, all those issues were posed when he put down his amendment calling for a referendum. Those issues have been before the Committee for discussion since that event occurred.
  Mr. Abse: The Leader of the House has the benefit of considerable advice. What has emerged from the ruling of
  1758
  the Chair is that there is absolutely no precedent for having in a Bill a binding referendum clause. What we have by way of precedent is that referendums are consultative, leaving Parliament's hands in theory still untied. It is no use my right hon. Friend saying that I should have considered all these consequences. It was because I believed that there was no mandate and because I was being told that I had a mandate—I knew that I had no such mandate from the people of Pontypool and I do not believe that any hon. Member has a mandate from the whole of Wales, Scotland or England—that I put down the original reasoned amendment. If the Government take it upon themselves to meet the view which has been expressed, they are responsible for ensuring that they meet that response in a way which will deal solely with that situation and will not permanently erode the role of legislators in future by the threat of a referendum.
  Mr. Foot: I understand that the Government must accept their responsibilities. The Government have put down a motion in which, as I have indicated, the referendum would be mandatory. However, the Committee also wishes to discuss whether it should be a consultative referendum partly for the constitutional reasons which I explained earlier. Governments and Members of Parliament have responsibilities. When my hon. Friend took the responsibility of recommending that there should be a referendum on this major matter, he was suggesting a major change. I suggest that he should not depart from the recommendation that he made.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Abse: I have not. I thought that I had explained—if not to the Leader of the House, at least to hon. Members—my diffidence about making this move and the reason why I made it. It was because of the Government's totally false claim that they had full authority from the electorate—in particular in Scotland and Wales—for this Bill. My right hon. Friend is now seeking to suggest that I have to bear some responsibility for the morass in which the Government now find themselves, because we are reaching a stage at which the sovereignty of Parliament could be subverted for ever. That is something that I repudiate.
  Mr. Foot: I do not want to intervene later in the debate, because I have said most of what I wanted to say on this matter, I am not asking my hon. Friend to accept responsibility for the whole Bill or anything like that. I fully understand his reasons for what he did. But, having come forward with a motion proposing a referendum, certainly he must take the responsibility for that with all its consequences. All the consequences, some of which he is now questioning, were known when he put down his motion.
  Mr. Abse: I take responsibility for some of the consequences, but not for the clumsiness and ineptitude of those who, with all the advice in the world at their disposal, present a clause for a referendum in a form that could subvert Parliament for ever.
  I do not want to try to shift the responsibility from the Leader of the House to a poor, simple Back Bencher. I certainly do not want to become a scapegoat for the Government. But, as a result of what has taken place, the Committee is in a difficulty. I think that all of us, whatever our respective views and whatever may feel about devolution, must attempt to rescue the Committee from a difficulty to which many hon. Members on both sides have contributed. We must at least create safeguards so that, when we move on, we move on in a way that indicates that we are dealing with a unique, almost rare, Bill and are not creating machinery that could impinge upon a whole range of future legislation.
  It is clear from the responses by the Leader of the House that he is vigilant to the hazards. I hope that, wide as the differences between us are on the issue of devolution, at least we want to mitigate some of the consequences that will come from a referendum, which, I insist, was prompted or caused entirely because the Government claimed to have a mandate that they clearly did not possess.
  Mr. Higgins: I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking immediately after the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we should debate this procedural motion on the important constitutional issues which it raises. I am totally opposed in principle to the
  1760
  idea of a referendum on this or, indeed, on any other subject, and I appreciate that that view is not shared by the hon. Member for Pontypool.
  This is probably the most important and the most dangerous constitutional innovation seen in the House of Commons in our lifetime. Therefore, we cannot allow today's events to remain as they are. The decision to select the new clause creates the most dangerous precedents. We must ensure that the possible consequences do not come to pass, since they would strike at the basis of our democratic system.
  I exonerate the hon. Member for Pontypool from the charge of the Leader of the House that he is responsible for this matter. I understand that he thought it right to advocate a referendum, but the Leader of the House could have put down a separate Bill. He had no need to introduce it in this way. The hon. Member for Pontypool could not do that, and that is why he put down a reasoned amendment on Second Reading.
  The Leader of the House was under no such inhibition. If he had put down a separate Bill, none of these dangerous consequences would be possible. We could have debated the matter on its merits. I would have opposed such a Bill as hard as I could, but it would not have opened the floodgates in the way that this proposal will.
  Why did the Leader of the House decide to take this extraordinary action, putting the Chair, quite unnecessarily, in the most invidious position? It has meant that the Chair had to select the new clause or to take the unusual step of rejecting a Government amendment. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman bring forward a separate Bill?
  Mr. Foot: Right from the beginning, when we have discussed the possibility of a referendum I have always suggested that it was likely to be done by means of a new clause. The objections to that course arose only when I actually did it. There was no objection before.
  Mr. Higgins: That may be so, but the objections are still sound and tremendously important. The fact that they may not have arisen until a late stage does

  1761
  not mean that the right hon. Gentleman did not have a duty to consider the implications of this proposal.
  When I first entered the House, I had great respect for the right hon. Gentleman as a defender of parliamentary liberties. We have not spoken in the same debate for some years now, but we had a number of fascinating exchanges on the first Prices and Incomes Bill, when he was sitting below the Gangway. I would have hoped—but alas I have been disappointed—that whatever the form in which the matter came up, the right hon. Gentleman would at least have had the sense to foresee the consequences if the new clause were accepted.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In all fairness to my right hon. Friend, he made it clear at the beginning of what I consider to be the unfortunate debates that we are having on the Scotland and Wales Bill that there would be a referendum. Why did not the Opposition protest then? That was surely the time to object to the proposal to move new clauses to this effect.
  Mr. Higgins: None the less, the matter is objectionable. It is arguable that the Chair would not have selected the amendments but at all events the consequences are clear. However the matter evolved, the dangers are now clear and we should not carry on along the dangerous path that we have begun to tread today.
  Although they have not been outlined until a late stage, the consequences of this course are so serious that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it is right to proceed in this way or whether he should not withdraw the new clause and proceed by way of a separate Bill now that the full dangers have come to our attention.
  Mr. Emery: Some people have cast doubt upon the claim that the Government were always seen as having the power to introduce a new clause of this sort. It is a respectable argument, and one to which I subscribe, that it would not have been possible for them to do so. That is reinforced by the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means, of which the Table Office has kindly given me a copy. The Chairman said:
  "I recognise the force of the right hon. Gentleman's apprehensions"—
  1762
  that is, the apprehensions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan)—
  "that this change over procedure might be opening the door".
  This new clause has therefore necessitated a change in our procedure. Although the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said many things with which I agree, it is not right to say that there is great significance in the fact that there was no objection to this procedure. Some hon. Members did not object simply because they did not think that it could be done.
  Mr. Higgins: I think that my hon. Friend is right. Most of us were astonished by the views expressed when my right hon. Friend raised his point of order, especially about whether there was a precedent. But I do not wish to challenge that decision. However, it would not be right to suppose that all will be well if the referendum is non-mandatory. As I have said, there are many other respects in which the Common Market precedent is not a true one and should not be observed—certainly not to the extent of overriding all the precedents of previous Speakers.
  Therefore, even if the referendum were made non-mandatory, it would not be right to introduce such a clause at this stage. Certainly, a referendum on capital punishment—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Alan Fitch): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is coming close to criticising the Chair for its selection of these amendments.
  Mr. Higgins: With great respect, Mr. Fitch, I was not seeking to do that. I was saying that even if we accepted that these clauses would provide for a non-mandatory referendum, there are a number of other issues which distinguish this situation from the Common Market issue. I would certainly not seek to challenge the ruling of the Chair, which we have all accepted, although I certainly believe that its consequences are so serious that the House should consider how they can be avoided. That is rather a different point.
  Why should the new clause be introduced at this stage, between Clauses 3 and 4? Why is that so crucial in reaching

  1763
  a decision? We have had no coherent reason why, at this precise moment, between Clauses 3 and 4, this whole issue must be brought before the House of Commons and considered separately.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I would suggest that it has to be taken now because it has to be got through before Valentine's Day in order to keep the whole of the Labour Party together.
  Mr. Higgins: I am not sure what significance Valentine's Day has, other than the well-known massacre. It is suggested that we should consider this matter and reach a decision on the question on the Order Paper which reads:
  "Do you agree that the provisions of the Scotland and Wales Act 1977 should be put into effect in Scotland?"
  There is a similar question for Wales. We are being asked to reach a decision about a referendum that will ask a question about a Bill the contents of which we do not know. We are being asked to agree to the question about what is in the Bill yet we only know what the Bill contains as far as Clause 3 and even that may be changed on Report. We have no idea what will happen after Clause 3. It is a wholly unreasonable procedure.
  The electorate is to be asked a question about a Bill which we ourselves do not understand or know the contents of. Surely that suggests that perhaps this is not the right moment to consider the matter.
  I turn to the question of whether such a referendum is likely to be final with regard to Scotland. I suggested in an intervention that, far from being final, it was likely to occur every time we had a Bill before the House of Commons dealing with a financial allocation for Scotland. Someone could say that he would like a referendum—only for the Scots or the Welsh of course, asking whether they should have more money rather than less. Indeed, it will probably be possible for the Scottish Assembly, if it were ever set up, to carry out referendums itself.
  I assume that the Scottish Assembly could have a referendum in Scotland every year asking "Do you still want to have this arrangement or would you like to be
  1764
  totally independent or go back into the United Kingdom as you were before?" Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us about that and say whether that would be within the powers of the Scottish Assembly. He may say that it would be outside the Assembly's financial limits but the argument about the financial limits and the existing Money Resolution has already been raised. That brings out clearly the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypool about the dangers that we face at present. They are dangers which are greater than any we have faced in the House of Commons for many years if not centuries. The fact is that the whole idea of the referendum and this procedural motion is a device to enable the Government to abdicate their responsibility.
  I have never taken the view that a clear majority vote by one's constituents on a particular issue should determine how one votes in this House. We in this House have the advantage of hearing the debates and studying matters in depth. We can then reach a decision as the representatives of our constituents—not as delegates—and we should do so on the basis of what is good both for our constituents and for the country as a whole. That is not what this referendum would do.
  I hope that on reflection the Leader of the House, who over the years has been a defender of parliamentary liberties and procedures, will not press ahead with the new clause as it stands but will give the House an opportunity of considering a separate Bill which can be drafted in precisely the same form. I hope that we shall not proceed any further with this proposal in view of the disastrous consequences which may follow from the events of this evening if we do not cease our proceedings on it.
  Mr. Leadbitter: My opposition to the Bill has been consistent right from the beginning. But when we consider whether the Leader of the House has been cheating—that is very much the kind of criticism that has come from the Conservative Opposition—I must try to take some stand. It is inevitable for the Leader of the House, or the Government, to decide how best to bring before the House the kind of measures that will

  1765
  somehow mitigate the strengthening opposition that persists. I do not fault the Government's attempt to do that.
  It is no justification to say that the Leader of the House has been dishonourable or, as one hon. Member suggested earlier, that he has been cheating. That cannot be the case. It is the function of Government to try to respond to the climate in the House of Commons in such a way as to deal with mounting criticism against the Bill. It is clear that over past weeks the Whips have decided that that criticism has been growing and that the likelihood of the Bill getting through this Session without a guillotine is remote. Therefore, I do not fault the Government for making what to my mind is a sensible judgment.
  What is pertinent is that, once the Government make that kind of judgment, it is the function of the House of Commons to reassert itself and to see how best to deal with it. There is no call, therefore, for recriminations of the kind that bring to the House of Commons the reputation in the public mind that we are becoming less and less important.
  The standard of our debate here will, in the end, either produce a better Bill or, as I hope, remove the Bill altogether. It is entirely up to right hon. and hon. Members. Although I pay due regard to the good standards of debate here, some right hon. and hon. Members on the official Opposition Benches would do well to note that—
  Mr. Donald Stewart: And some on the Government Benches.
  Mr. Leadbitter: At this stage, I am not dealing with my own side of the Committee. When it comes to doing that, I can do a better job than the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) who is, by the very nature of things, the leader of a permanent minority party.
  As I say, although I pay due regard to the high standards of the contributions of many Opposition Members, some of them ought to put the action where their mouths are. If an hon. Member criticises the Bill, he should go into the Division Lobby and vote accordingly. That is not happening.
  Mr. Budgen: Does not the status or standing of this House, in the estimation of the country as a whole, depend most
  1766
  of all upon the personal responsibility of each Member of it, which he gives when he votes and which is based upon his status as a representative and not a delegate?
  Mr. Leadbitter: There is a good deal of truth in that. But the parliamentary institution is a democratic one, in which there can be no perfection. There are human failings and there are constituency pressures. At the end of the day, we have to understand why hon. Members take certain courses of action.
  On this issue, I argue that this is a matter of vital constitutional importance and, therefore, that there are no pressures other than the judgment of individual Members about what is right for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  When we consider this procedural motion we have to remember that there is no precedent for it in the history of Parliament. There has never been an occasion on which a Bill has had this kind of procedural motion injected into it and on which right hon. and hon. Members have been expected to vote and to carry out its consequences not knowing what the Bill would look like from Clause 4 onwards.
  The Bill has 115 clauses and 16 long schedules. Those of us who have attended the debates in Committee know that only when we discuss the issues in depth can we begin to evaluate the significance of each clause. Thus, we have learned that Clause 1 is in itself a great untruth. Yet it is the pillar on which the whole Bill rests in terms of the consequences for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  This very day, we are all asked to consider the consequences, to ourselves and our consciences, to the House and the country, of passing this motion, knowing that in considering it we are blinkered because we do not know anything of what the Bill as a whole will be like. What kind of reputation will this House have in such circumstances? Are we to tell the people at the end of the day "We have passed an Act placing a law on the statute book, but we have so little confidence in ourselves as legislators that we are coming to you to ask for mandatory referendums in Scotland and Wales"?

  1767
  Worse than that—what happens if the vote goes one way in Scotland and the other way in Wales? We shall then have an Act of Parliament, approved by the legislature but which, by referendum, cannot reflect the proper judgment of the people. Anyone who has read the questions proposed in the new schedule will understand that we shall not be asking the people of Scotland and Wales for a judgment; we shall be asking them to respond to a leading question. We shall be saying to them "We have passed an Act of Parliament. Will you please follow suit?" We shall be doing exactly the same to the people of Scotland and Wales as we did to the people of the whole country on the question of membership of the EEC. That, in itself, was a downright trick. Large sums of money were used to persuade people to accept a preconceived action.
  We shall be behaving improperly unless we oppose the motion successfully, for otherwise we shall be saying to the people that we have decided on a referendum on a limited set of questions, which we shall be considering without knowing what the rest of the Bill will be like. We are asked to pass a motion predetermining the situation.
  I feel exceptionally sorry for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I have the highest regard for him, and I will not be party to the nonsense uttered by hon. Members who claim that they are disappointed because, they say, he has ceased to be a great parliamentarian. He is a great parliamentarian, but he is dealing with a damned rotten Bill. That sort of thing can come to any Member of the House of Commons. One only has to look at the history books, even the more recent ones, to discover that Ministers and Prime Ministers have all had this happen to them in the course of time. It is something that happens in the House of Commons.
  8.45 p.m.
  The Government and not just the Leader of the House should have understood the reasons for the motion on the referendum—the motion that was signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They should have been far more competent in understanding this matter. The fact is that there was a fear of what would happen if the House of Commons
  1768
  pre-empted judgment of the Bill by seeking a climate of opinion in Scotland and Wales. Of course, some of us wanted opinions sought in England as well—in fact in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  For the past three weeks an understandable amount of pressure has been put on people like myself to change their minds about their opposition to the Bill. Therefore, if the questions in the schedule to New Clause 40, which I have noted, actually refer to the asking of a mandatory vote in a referendum after the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, I could make a simple deduction that there is plenty of time for this procedural motion. If there is plenty of time for it, why is it on the Order Paper today? I will not say that the Leader of the House has behaved improperly, but it is within the competence of the House to make its own interpretation.
  I think that the motion has been put on the Order Paper today, to be considered before Clause 4, in the hope that it will appease people like myself and make it easier for the Government to get the guillotine motion next week.
  The manner in which the referendum request was made earlier by 150 Members would have been better reflected in a single and separate Bill—that would have been the commonsense thing to do. I regret very much that with all the advice made available to the Government, the Leader of the House has had to bring this to the House of Commons. It is something for which the country will not thank the House if it makes the same mistake as the Government. If hon. Members want to criticise the procedural motion my advice to them is to put their actions where their mouths are, vote against it, and see what happens.
  Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. This is very serious and is not a criticism of the Chair. In the course of three hours this afternoon, there has been consideration of the procedural motion of the Leader of the House. At the same time, many of us have had to consider the ruling of the Chair, and we are not helped by its implications. Some of us regard this clause, after four weeks' consideration of the Bill, as most important, because it is truly constitutional. This

  1769
  is the moment when we consider the future of parliamentary, democracy. What we are about to do in a matter of minutes or in the next hour or so, if the closure is moved, will establish a precedent for all time in the history of Parliament.
  There is still a great deal to be said on the question of this procedural motion before we even consider the new clause that is being proposed by the Government. I am not seeking to filibuster or to delay our proceedings in any way. I have not spoken against the Bill, because I was not one of those who was prepared to vote it down on Second Reading. However, I believe that we should have adequate time to consider what has taken place in the past three hours. The implications of what the Leader of the House has done could involve many changes.
  Mr. Emery: After that point of order I shall try to return to the motion before the Committee. It is a procedural motion and it is to argue against the acceptance of the procedure that I wish to pose four specific arguments.
  The Leader of the House has just left the Chamber, but I do not condemn him for that. He has sat through the whole of our debate and has listened to almost every speech during our debate so far. I only ask the Committee to consider what sort of speech the Leader of the House would make from this Bench in opposition if a Conservative Government tried to change the rules as the Government seek to change them now. The right hon. Gentleman would be up in arms and there would be the most brilliant oratory defending parliamentary democracy. However, I am afraid that today he is becoming one of the greatest pillagers of the British constitution since the time of Cromwell.
  The first reason for rejecting this procedural motion is that we must give time for the House rather than for the Committee to be able to decide whether the ruling we have had should stand. In saying that I in no way wish to criticise the ruling. It is of considerable constitutional importance. The Chairman of Ways and Means said in his ruling that he recognised the apprehensions that this change in our procedure might be opening the door to the offering of amendments of this nature to all manner of
  1770
  Bills and for trivial reasons—the nature in question being the nature of a referendum.
  If we allow that to happen, or if that is what has happened today, a procedural alteration much greater than most references to the Sessional Committee on Procedure since I have been a member of it is taking place. Yet it is to be allowed to slip by. That is a process that the Committee should stop now.
  I wish to appeal to my own Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that he would not oppose this motion. I believe that this matter is so constitutionally important that we should have time to consider the matter, and I shall therefore appeal to him to reconsider. I urge all my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against the motion for the arguments that I have propounded.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but supposing the procedural motion were defeated, the effect would be that consideration of the proposals would be deferred until a later stage of the Bill. If that were to happen and a guillotine motion were to be passed—I trust that it will not be—the proposals will not have had adequate consideration.
  Mr. Emery: I believe that if time were allowed by the Government, the House of Commons could decide. A referendum on a national issue—rather than local referendums on closing hours—could be introduced by a separate Bill only for that specific purpose and that would allow the House of Commons to make that decision. I believe that that is a view that many hon. Members from both sides will accept.
  The Leader of the House has started another precedent. If 140 hon. Members support a motion, he will immediately have it tabled for discussion. That is the first time II have heard that, but it needs to be recorded. That is one of the factors which he says prompted him to take this action.
  I want to be helpful to the Leader of the House. If he persists in continuing with his procedural motion, we are being asked to make a decision on the question of a referendum before the Bill has

  1771
  been passed. I asked you earlier, Mr. Godman Irvine, whether you would accept a manuscript amendment to include Clause 21 in the procedural motion. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had long enough to consider this points.
  If we decide to take the new schedule at the end of the Bill, nothing would be lost. The referendum would still be accepted. I am against it, but the Leader of the House would be able to achieve that end without making a nonsense of our procedures, and we should not be deciding the wording of the referendum until the Bill had been completed—in other words, until the last schedule had been taken. That would get the Committee out of a number of procedural difficulties.
  Many hon. Members did not oppose the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a referendum because they did not believe that it could be done procedurally within the scope of the Bill. We believe that the Government have been hoist with their own petard. Only by changing the rules of procedure are they able to bring this about. I consider that to be cheating. That is a matter of procedure, not of flexibility, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and it is a matter of constitutional importance. I cannot in any way support the Government's procedural motion.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Foot: I shall try to reply briefly to the debate, and I hope that it will not be thought discourteous of me if I do not go into all the subjects that have been raised. I say with the utmost diffidence, and without in any way criticising the Chair, that some of the points made will be able to be dealt with later when we discuss the referendum proposal and the form of words that is to be settled by the House of Commons. Therefore, I shall seek to confine myself to the procedural motion that is before the Committee.
  It is true that the question of a referendum introduces a new constitutional principle, even though we have had referendums on earlier occasions on subjects such as the opening times in Glasgow or Cardiff. I agree that these proposals involving referendums raise great
  1772
  constitutional issues. They are important matters and the Committee must have proper time to discuss them.
  So little am I enamoured of referendums as such that I feel it would be proper for this Bill to have been put on the statute book without any referendum at all. That was the original view held by the Government. I have always held that view partly because it is the procedural situation and partly because I believe that we had a mandate to come forward with this measure. Certainly we had such a mandate in Wales, and I believe that the same argument applies to Scotland. Therefore, the Government's original attitude was that we should proceed to place this Bill on the statute book without any referendum.
  The question of referendums was introduced by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee when the balance of the parties was tender. At such a time it is right that the Government should take account of representations from all quarters. A motion was tabled on this matter and it was signed by 140 Members.
  I do not know why the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) should sneer at the total of 140. I was not implying that the Government would always take account of the opinions of 140 Members, but the hon. Gentleman was implying that I had yielded to the pressure of several anonymous Members of Parliament. I wish to make it clear that so far from yielding to anonymous pressure I responded to the representations made by 140 Members who had signed that motion and to the continued representations made to me right from the time of the Second Reading and the Committee stage at the begininng of this year.
  I shall not quote references, but there are many of them that I could quote. I know how tedious it is when Ministers quote what they have said on other occasions, especially when those quotations are so apposite that they knock Opposition arguments to one side.
  The main burden of the argument has been concentrated on the question: Why seek to interrupt this Bill with a motion rather than to introduce a special Bill? It is obvious that this could have been done by a special Bill.
  Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that he has changed

  1773
  course and has even changed his mind on the referendum because 140 Members signed a motion on this matter. But he should know that Parliament usually agrees these matters by a majority. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual generosity, has enabled the Committee to discuss these important matters. The question is whether he supports the new clause, because I thought that he said that he did not want it.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. The original view that I and the Government held was that it would have been perfectly proper for the Bill to have been placed on the statute book without reference to a referendum, and I still hold that view. It is part of the duty of the Government and of the Leader of the House, according to the instructions that I am given—although when I yield to pressures for a proposal such as this I am told that I am giving way in a scandalous manner, but if I stand firm I am told that I am inflexible—to take into account representations from all quarters of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has conducted his campaign for a referendum for a longer period than anybody else. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and many other hon. Members signed the motion. The hon. Member for Down, South, like others, is a strong upholder of the sovereignty of Parliament. All these factors were taken into account.
  Nobody can contest that right from the beginning of the Committee stage there have been discussions about how we should proceed. On behalf of the Government I indicated that we were thinking of introducing a new clause. Why was I not informed then that somehow or other I was committing an appalling outrage against the traditions of the House by trying to deal with the matter in that way? Surely, if I were guilty of such an outrage, the protests would have been made earlier when I first advocated this way of dealing with the matter. There have been plenty of opportunities for such protests during debates and points of order.
  I shall come to the point made by the hon. Member for Honiton in a
  1774
  moment. There has been no deception of the House of Commons. Right from the beginning of the proceedings the Government have indicated the way in which they were thinking of proceeding. Any hon. Member who wished to protest has had every opportunity of doing so. Yet not one hon. Member had risen during either public debate or in private up to last week when I made known the Government's proposal on how the matter would be discussed, to make representations to me on the matter. In those circumstances it is unjust—I do not want to use an emotive phrase so I will say instead that it is slightly wrong-headed—for anyone to say that I have misled the Committee in any way.
  I have sought to indicate to the Committee what the Government were doing, and how we were preparing and proceeding with the matter. Of course, when the Government considered whether there should be a separate Bill—and I do not dispute that there are arguments in favour of that—we had to consider what the situation would be if two Bills dealing with the same subject and upon which the same constitutional questions would arise, were running concurrently, although at different stages, through the House. If we had proceeded on that basis, exactly the same kind of protest would have been made by hon. Members who would have been asking me why I was not introducing the separate Bill to deal with the referendum before proceeding with the rest of the Scotland and Wales Bill. If I had introduced the separate Bill, I should have been told that it was too early and that I should have waited. Either way there would have been protests.
  We have dealt with the referendum in the Scotland and Wales Bill because it is simpler to do so. I agree with the hon. Member for Honiton that that raises new and important questions, but it is incorrect to say that the Government have placed the Chair in an invidious position. The Chair makes up its own mind on what is presented to it. It was open to the Chair to rule differently on the matters before us. The Committee must accept the decision of the Chair. If the Committee wishes to alter the decision, it must be done on the basis of a motion on the

  1775
  Chair and we would deal with that separately.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Many of us who believe that it is right that major constitutional changes should be attended by referendums do not believe that it is right that the Bill should be made conditional upon the outcome of a referendum. My right hon. Friend said that no one had made representations to him, but I made representations to him in private before the new clause was put down and urged a consultative referendum before we proceeded.
  Mr. Foot: That is a different matter. I was saying that no one had protested about my proposal to deal with the referendums in a new clause. That has been the main burden of the attack from the Opposition. If I had accepted my hon. Friend's suggestion, we should have needed a new clause anyway to enable the referendum to take place earlier.
  There are arguments for holding the referendums earlier or later, but one of the main arguments for doing it in the way that we propose is that if we wait until the end before the proposition is put to the people of Scotland and Wales the matters on which they will have to decide will be much clearer. One of the dangers of referendums is that they could be blurred and that people might not know what they said at the end. That is why we have suggested proceeding in the way outlined in the new clause.
  I can assure the Committee that the Government gave careful consideration to the new clause and how it should be tabled, both in the best interests of the United Kingdom and in order to ensure that we avoided any blurring of the issues which might have been involved if the referendum had been held much earlier.
  I said that I would be brief and I have been tempted away from the straight and narrow course. I am seeking to deal specifically with the procedural motion because the major question of the referendums and their nature will come later.
  Mr. Higgins: I also wish to concentrate on the procedural side of things. I do not want a referendum, but if we are to have one, there may be a case for providing for it in a separate Bill or at
  1776
  the end of this Bill. Why must we discuss it between Clauses 3 and 4?
  The Leader of the House said that he received no representations but since he decided not to have a referendum before the Bill, it was a reasonable expectation that it would come at the end. It was bounced on us only last Thursday that we should discuss it between Clauses 3 and 4.
  Mr. Foot: I have said on several occasions that there is a procedure for interrupting the Committee stage. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman if he was not here at the time, although I have been present at most of our discussions, but I have said on numerous occasions that we were considering interrupting proceedings on the Bill to debate the new clause long before the end of the normal Committee stage. There was no question of anyone being misled.
  The charge made against me by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was that I had been precipitate, but on 20th January, when representations were being made by the Opposition, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) accused me of being dilatory. The hon. Gentleman wanted the motion tabled. Some other hon. Members asked that it should be debated. The charge against me on 20th January was that I was being dilatory, yet the charge against me in the middle of February is that I am being precipitate. It is possible that Opposition Members cannot be satisfied whatever I do. They say that we have been inflexible, rigid and obstinate in refusing to make any concessions, yet what we are discussing is a concession by the Government on the referendum. What is the use of Opposition Members saying that the Government have refused to listen to what the Committee has said?
  9.15 p.m.
  Other hon. Members say that we have created these difficulties. The new constitutional position is created precisely because we did listen to the House of Commons. We have listened and we shall continue to listen and to take account of representations. I say this in the light of the discussion earlier today. I said what I did in the hope of assisting the Committee in dealing with the immediate situation.

  1777
  The point raised first by the right hon. Member for Down, South, and later by others, as a point of order, as to whether the fact that our proposal was for a mandatory referendum affected the Chair's ruling is one argument. I have already indicated that the question whether it should be a mandatory or consultative referendum is still open to the House of Commons to decide. The Government's view, as I said before, is that there is a strong case for its being mandatory. That is a matter which it is proper for us to debate, and the House will have to make up its mind about it.
  I know what will happen. If we stand firm and say that the referendum should be mandatory, we shall be accused of being inflexible and stubborn, but if we agree with the suggestion of many hon. Members and make it consultative, they will say that we could not make up our minds in the first place and that we changed our mind for scandalous and sinister party reasons.
  What we are doing is to take account of what is said in the Committee and to carry out our pledge to the people of Wales and Scotland, and all the people of Britain, to put this Bill on the statute book. That is what we ask the Committee to support. This motion is part of the process of achieving that.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question on a factual point? When is it likely to be convenient to discuss the question whether the referendum is to be mandatory or consultative?
  Mr. Foot: That will arise on amendments that we shall have at the beginning of next week. I am in a beneficent mood about my hon. Friend. I thought that he had gone back to Scotland. That might have been even better. But I welcome him back with the news that we shall be able to discuss that matter next week. I hope that he will not make any more interruptions till then.
  Mr. Pym: The Leader of the House may persuade himself by his eloquence and passion, but I do not think that he will persuade the rest of us. I do not know what is precipitate if it is not precipitate to bring forward a new clause at an earlier stage than it would otherwise be taken—it would normally be
  1778
  taken with the other new clauses—and to add to the Business Statement last Thursday an addendum, notice of which the right hon. Gentleman had not given to the Opposition, stating that he would take the referendum clause today.
  Anyone who has listened to the debate and all the right hon. Gentleman's interventions must feel some relief at knowing that now we need to have only 140 names on an Early-Day Motion to get the Leader of the House to concede at once what is required. It is in that sense that I have criticised him for being precipitate, and I think that my criticism is justified. Neither in his opening nor concluding remarks did he adduce any arguments for taking this clause after Clause 3 and before Clause 4.
  The debate has raised large issues. The Leader of the House was fair enough to say that the Government had considered the possibility of introducing the referendum by means of a separate Bill. I am sure that the Leader of the House has considered the matter but was his conclusion based on the constitutional and parliamentary proprieties of it, or upon political considerations? During the debate—admittedly from this side and understandably from myself, but perhaps more tellingly from hon. Members on the Government Benches—we have heard that there is infinitely more to the motion than meets the eye.
  I wonder whether the Leader of the House is aware of the report on the tape saying that he intends next Thursday to announce that he will seek to introduce a timetable motion to the Bill during the following week. The right hon. Gentle-may may not be aware of that because he has been in the Chamber throughout the debate. He is not responsible for what appears on the tape, but it has appeared and from some of the remarks from both sides of the House there is reason to believe that that might be on his mind. As the Leader of the House knows, I am passionately opposed to what is suggested on the tapes.
  When he was winding up the debate the Leader of the House said that the new clause raised major matters of constitutional importance and that there must be a proper amount of time to discuss them. In view of what has been said so far, a proper time to discuss them

  1779
  would certainly preclude any idea of a guillotine motion in relation to them. I am sure that the Leader of the House will take that into account.
  Other issues have been raised today, arising particularly out of the points of order initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). The House may be aware that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have tabled a motion which is already in the Table Office. It indicates a certain point of view that hon. Members will wish to consider. I mention that because I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that the Committee does not wish to leave this matter where it rests at the moment. The Committee will wish to return to it. The points of order were raised on the Chairman's ruling. We have made progress with the debate on the procedural motion to take the referendum new clause after Clause 3. But the preamble to all those points of order is critically important and I am sure that the Leader of the House recognises that.
  Mr. Mendelson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have not been able to influence the Government over the treatment of this matter? We have continued with the main debate on the procedural motion but we have exercised no influence on the Government's decision that the procedural motion must be taken now.
  Mr. Pym: I agree. Important issues have come up in the debate. However, the motion is that we take the new referendum clause now. The issues raised in the points of order cannot be dealt with by voting on this motion. The Committee will wish to return to them in some other way.
  There is no case for taking this new clause at this stage in the Bill. But it is not a matter of such critical importance that I wish to press it. All the issues that have surrounded the debate are those to which the Committee must return and decide. However, those are different matters.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the debate has revealed that both Front Benches have been caught out by the procedural motion? Does the
  1780
  agree that neither Front Bench realises the constitutional importance of adopting this procedure? If my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept that proposition, will he recommend to all his right hon. and hon. Friends that they vote against the procedural motion?
  Mr. Pym: As I have indicated, I think that it is quite wrong to take the new clause now, at this stage, but that is a comparatively trivial matter. There are far bigger issues raised by this occasion in relation both to the new clause and all the issues surrounding it, and to the rules of order and all the procedural issues that have arisen, and we cannot solve them or do any good by voting on this procedural motion.
  Mr. Crouch: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we are at an early stage of the consideration of a constitutional measure and have got bogged down in it? The Leader of the House has said, not only to the House of Commons but to the nation, "The House of Commons has got so bogged down that we shall insert a clause that virtually puts an end to the House of Commons making final decisions in matters." This is to be sent out to the people of Scotland and Wales. The wording of the new clause says
  "each question shall be decided…in the referendum."
  That is virtually to say tint from this moment, by going forward with this procedural motion, we are adopting a new procedure for how the House of Commons proceeds with the enactment of legislation! We refer it outside before we are finished.
  Mr. Pym: I agree with the sense of what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that this motion is the Ark of the Covenant on procedure. It is simply about taking a new clause out of order.
  As I have said, I want to get on in due course with the arguments that have been raised. They are infinitely more numerous than they were when the Government started with the Bill today. Not only on the new clause but on the whole Bill we are constantly coming to issues which have clearly not been thought out by the Government. The range of those issues has been greatly extended today. The Government have been caught out. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends think

  1781
  that the Opposition have been caught out too. They may take any view that they like. The Government have been subjected to criticism from every quarter of the Committee, not least from the Opposition.
  However, on the simple proposition that we take the new clause now although it is ridiculous, wrong and unnecessary, it is very important to discuss the larger issues raised by it. Certainly if we proceed on that basis and, after what the Leader of the House calls proper time for discussion, we come to a conclusion, I can visualise that there will be much more debate on Report, if that stage is ever reached, because obviously the Bill will have been altered. Therefore, it is not the end of the matter even if we spend two or three weeks in Committee debating the new clause, and let us have no illusions about that.
  In that context, taking the new clause now, although wrong, is not something that I would regard as absolutely critically important. I do not think, quite honestly, that the Leader of the House has justified it. I think that it has revealed an increased range of weaknesses in the Government's armoury in relation to the Bill and all the issues that are
  raised. It is clear that Parliament will take quite a considerable time to discuss this matter.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will deny absolutely that he has the remotest intention of imposing a guillotine next week. That would be absolutely, totally and completely unjustified. I would regard it as a parliamentary obscenity if he were to move such a motion. If he did so and I were driven to it, I would argue that case as strongly as I could, because such a motion would be a complete parliamentary nonsense.
  When the debate is over and if the motion is passed, let us get on to the major issue, not related to the original Bill, as the Leader of the House has said, but a completely new constitutional issue that will occupy us for several weeks, as the Leader of the House has promised.
  Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 253, Noes 51.

  Division No. 66.]

  AYES

  [9.29 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Crawford, Douglas

  George, Bruce

  Archer, Peter

  Cronin, John

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Golding, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Gould, Bryan

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Cryor, Bob

  Gourlay, Harry

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Graham, Ted

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bean, R. E.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Beith, A. J.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Harper, Joseph

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dempsey, James

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Dunn, James A.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunnett, Jack

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Edge, Geoff

  Henderson, Douglas

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Hooley, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  English, Michael

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Buchanan, Richard

  Ennals, David

  Horam, John

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Campbell, Ian

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Huckfield, Les

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Cartwright, John

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Flannery, Martin

  Hunter, Adam

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fold, Ben

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Forrester, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Corbett, Robin

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Cowans, Harry

  Freeson, Reginald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Freud, Clement

  John, Brynmor

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Newens, Stanley

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Noble, Mike

  Stott, Roger

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ogden, Eric

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Judd, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Ovenden, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Padley, Walter

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lambie, David

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Pardoe, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Park, George

  Thompson, George

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Parker, John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Lee, John

  Parry, Robert

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tinn, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Perry, Ernest

  Tomlinson, John

  Litterick, Tom

  price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Torney, Tom

  Luard, Evan

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Radice, Giles

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Reid, George

  Walker Terry (Kingswood)

  MacCormick, lain

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Ward, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Watkins, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Weetch, Ken

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Weitzman, David

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Wellbeloved, James

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Rooker, J. W.

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  White, James (Pollok)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Whitehead, Phillip

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Magee, Bryan

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Mahon, Simon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Sillars, James

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Silverman, Julius

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woof, Robert

  Mendelson, John

  Small, William

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Moonman, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Spearing, Nigel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  Moyle, Roland

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mr. David Stoddart.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  NOES

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Banks, Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Rhodes James, R.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  Cope, John

  MacGregor, John

  Sproat, lain

  Crouch, David

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stainton, Keith

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Mills, Peter

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Monro, Hector

  Tebbit, Norman

  Farr, John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Wakeham, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wall, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Raison, Timothy

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Rathbone, Tim

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Goodhew, Victor

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Mr. Nick Budgen and

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Mr. Peter Emery.

  Grist, Ian

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: On a point of order—
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Order. No point of order

  Division No. 67.]

  AYES

  [9.42 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Ashton, Joe

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Anderson, Donald

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Archer, Peter

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bates, Alf

  Armstrong, E nest

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Bean, R. E.

  can arise at this moment. The Question must now be put.
  Question put accordingly:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 239, Noes 64.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Parry, Robert

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Perry, Ernest

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Radice, Giles

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Henderson, Douglas

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hooley, Frank

  Reid, George

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Horam, John

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Buchan, Norman

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Huckfield, Les

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hunter, Adam

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cartwright, John

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Janner, Greville

  Shaw, Arnold (ilford South)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  John, Brynmor

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cowans, Harry

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Sillars, James

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Silverman, Julius

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Judd, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Crawford, Douglas

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Small, William

  Cronin, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Kinnock, Neil

  Snape, Peter

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lambie, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamborn, Harry

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lee, John

  Stoddart, David

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stott, Roger

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Strang, Gavin

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Litterick, Tom

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Luard, Evan

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Balton W)

  Dempsey, James

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dolg, Peter

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dormand, J. D.

  MacCormick, lain

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dunn, James A.

  McElhone, Frank

  Thompson, George

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Edge, Geoff

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Tomlinson, John

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Torney, Tom

  English, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ennals, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Madden, Max

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Magee, Bryan

  Ward, Michael

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Mahon, Simon

  Watkins, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Weetch, Ken

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Weitzman, David

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Flannery, Martin

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Welsh, Andrew

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ford, Ben

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Forrester, John

  Moonman, Eric

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  George, Bruce

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Newens, Stanley

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Golding, John

  Noble, Mike

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Gould, Bryan

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Gourlay, Harry

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Graham, Ted

  Orbach, Maurice

  Woof, Robert

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Ovenden, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Padley, Walter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hardy, Peter

  Park, George

  Mr. James Tinn and

  Harper, Joseph

  Parker, John

  Mr. A. W. Stallard.

  NOES

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cope, John

  Farr, John

  Banks, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Beith, A. J.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Emery, Peter

  Freud, Clement

  1786

  1787

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mills, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  Sproat, lain

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Stainton, Keith

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Onslow, Cranley

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pardoe, John

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Raison, Timothy

  Wakeham, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wall, Patrick

  Lamond, James

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rhodes James, R.

  Mr Nicholas Winterton and

  MacGregor, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Mr. Nick Budgen.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Order of the Committee [13th January] be amended and that the new Clause (Referendums in Scotland and Wales) in the name of Mr. Michael Foot and the new Schedule (Referendums in Scotland and Wales) in the name of Mr. Michael Foot be considered before Clause 4.
  The Temporary Chairman: Before calling the Minister of State to move the new clause, I ought perhaps to mention that right hon. and hon. Members will have read in Hansard a point of order which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) raised last Tuesday. I think that I can set the hon Gentleman's mind at rest.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means has asked me to say that, in his view, were the referendum paper to contain what might be described as "the independence question", this would not affect the unity of the United Kingdom unless some specific provision also existed to give practical effect to an affirmative answer. Amendments which involve no such provision are, therefore, not in this respect inconsistent with Clause 1 to which the Committee has agreed.
  Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. Before we go on to the new clause, may I ask you to rule whether it is within the scope of the Bill?
  I submit that this is an appropriate moment to raise this matter, and "Erskine May" suggests that it would be possible to raise it even after a debate on the matter had started.
  You will recall, Sir Stephen, that the Chair was canvassed on the scope of the Bill at an earlier stage in our debates. Then, the Chair was disposed to consider whether the amendments in question were within the scope of the Bill by reference
  1788
  to the Long Title. If that be the test, I draw your attention to the fact that the Long Title is merely
  "A Bill to provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales."
  In the Long Title there is no reference whatever to a referendum. I believe that the Chair was then disposed to modify its position and to say that the scope of the Bill has to be gleaned from the substance of the Bill—in other words, one has to look at the general tenor of the Bill and the clauses contained within it. If one applies that test, one can search the original clauses of the Bill in vain to find any reference to a suggestion that there should be a referendum.
  If it be suggested that a referendum is a normal incident of any Bill, that, of course, opens up some very novel constitutional vistas. It will be possible for an hon. Member to append the new clause to any Bill and make its effect dependent on a referendum to be held either in the United Kingdom as a whole or in a specified part or parts. I cannot believe that that would be for the good conduct of the business of this House.
  Of course, it may well be that you will consider that this is a Bill of some constitutional significance and therefore that a referendum is a natural part of it—[Interruption.]—but I ask you to ponder and again consider the implications of the decision on these grounds. [Interruption.] It would mean, for instance, that if a Bill were introduced to grant independence to Rhodesia, it would be open to any hon. Member to make that Bill dependent on the holding of a referendum—[Interruption.]—in Rhodesia itself or in the United Kingdom.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. There is a great deal of disturbance in the Committee. I am anxious to hear the hon. and learned Member for Dover

  1789
  and Deal (Mr. Rees), but it may save both him and me some time if I tell him now that the Chairman of Ways and Means has previously ruled that the scope of the Bill is related to the government of Scotland and Wales, and he has ruled earlier today that this new clause is within its scope. Therefore, as wiser heads than mine have decided this, I do not see that there is any point in the hon. and learned Gentleman's pursuing the matter.
  Mr. Rees: If I may take a hint from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I am always respectfully deferential to the Chair in such matters, but I respectfully dissent on one point. As I understood the ruling of the Chair, it was in the context of the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), which raised a quite different point. It may well be that, peripherally, the Chair touched on the scope of the Bill, but I do not believe, Sir Stephen—and I assert this with some confidence—that the argument that I am addressing to you on this matter was ever put in quite these terms—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have taken advice, and I am assured that the Chairman of Ways and Means did give a ruling that the new clause was within the scope of the Bill. I do not think that there is much point in pursuing the matter, in view of that ruling. I call the Lord President of the Council.
  Mr. Rees: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. Your ruling was obviously on
  1790
  the basis of a recollection of the Chairman's interpretation of what occurred at an earlier stage this afternoon. But, Sir Stephen, you will concede that you were not in the Chair at that moment—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Scotland and Wales Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ashton.]

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Mr. Rees: Of course I would not take issue with you, Sir Stephen, on what was ruled this afternoon by the Chairman of Ways and Means. My recollection was that the Chairman ruled that the clause could be added to the Bill but did not rule on the contents of that clause. Should it turn out, on reading his ruling tomorrow, that my recollection is accurate, I hope that I shall be permitted to raise a point of order on a later occasion and that it will not be held against me that I did not press the matter to a conclusion tonight.

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL
    New Clause 40

      REFERENDUMS IN SCOTLAND AND WALES
      (1) Before an order is made under section 114 of this Act there shall be held—

      (a) a referendum on the question whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act so far as they relate to the government of Scotland, and

      (b) a referendum on the question whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act so far as they relate to the government of Wales;

      and each question shall be decided by a majority of the valid votes cast in the referendum.

      (2) Schedule (Referendums in Scotland and Wales) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the referendums held in pursuance of this section.

      (3) If the decisions on the referendums are that no effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act, this Act (except this section and that Schedule) shall not take effect; and if the decisions are that effect is to be given to those provisions so far only as they relate to the government of Scotland or Wales an order under section 114 of this Act shall not be made so as to give effect to them also so far as they relate to the government of the other of those countries, and Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such amendments to this Act (including amendments to the title and short title) as appear to Her necessary or expedient as the result of the decisions.

      (4) If an Order in Council under this section is made, copies of this Act as amended by the Order shall be printed by her Majesty's printer.

      (5) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. John Smith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Temporary Chairman: With the new clause we are taking Amendment No. 679:

  Schedule

    REFERENDUMS IN SCOTLAND AND WALES
    Interpretation
    1. In this Schedule "referendum" means a referendum held in pursuance of section (Referendums in Scotland and Wales) of this Act; and "the Scottish referendum" and "the Welsh referendum" mean respectively the referendum mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section and that mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection.
    Date of referendums
    2. The referendums shall be held on such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint (the same day being appointed for both referendums).
    Persons eligible to vote
    3. Those entitled to vote in the Scottish referendum shall be—

    (a) the persons who, at the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency in Scotland; and

    (b) peers who at that date would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland.

    4. Those entitled to vote in the Welsh referendum shall be—

    (a) the persons who, at the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency in Wales; and

    (b) peers who at that date would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Wales.

    Questions to be asked and forms of ballot papers
    5. The question to be asked in the Scottish referendum, and the front of the ballot paper to be used for that purpose, shall be in the form set out in Appendix 1 to this Schedule.
    6. The question to be asked in the Weish referendum, and the front of the ballot paper to be used for that purpose, shall be in the form set out in Appendix 2 to this Schedule.
    Conduct of referendums
    7. Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision as to the conduct of each referendum and apply, in relation to it, with such modifications or exceptions as may be specified in the Order, any provision of the Representation of the People Acts, any provision of the enactments relating to returning officers and any provision made under any enactment.
    8. An Order in Council under this Schedule shall not charge any sum on the Consolidated Fund but may provide for the expenses of the returning officers to be defrayed as administrative expenses of the Secretary of State.
    9. The functions which, in relation to a parliamentary election, are conferred on returning officers by any provision applied by an Order in Council under this Schedule shall be discharged—

    (a) in relation to the Scottish referendum, by the persons who, under section 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 are, or may discharge the functions of, returning officers at elections of councillors for regional or islands councils; and

    (b) in relation to the Welsh referendum, by the persons who, under section 41 of the Local Government Act 1972, are, or may discharge the functions of, returning officers at elections of councillors of districts.

    10. The Secretary of State shall appoint a Chief Counting Officer for Scotland and a Chief Counting Officer for Wales and—

    (a) the Chief Counting Officer for Scotland shall appoint a counting officer for each region and islands area; and

    (b) the Chief Counting Officer for Wales shall appoint a counting officer for each county in Wales;

    and each counting officer shall conduct the counting of votes cast in the area for which he is appointed in accordance with any directions given to him by the Chief Counting Officer.
    11. The counting officer for each area shall certify the number of ballot papers counted by him and of the respective answers given by valid votes and—

    (a) the Chief Counting Officer for Scotland shall certify the total of the ballot papers and respective answers for the whole of Scotland; and

    (b) the Chief Counting Officer for Wales shall certify the total of the ballot papers and respective answers for the whole of Wales.

    12. The council of each district in Scotland or Wales shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officers; and if the council of any region in Scotland so requests, the council of any district situated in that region shall place the services of officers employed by it at the disposal of any officer of the council of the region for the purpose of assisting him in the discharge of any functions conferred on him in relation to the Scottish referendum.
    Welsh version
    13. Section 2(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1967 (power to prescribe Welsh version) shall apply in relation to an Order in Council under this Schedule as if the Order were an enactment within the meaning of that Act.
    Exclusion of legal proceedings
    14. No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the numbers, as certified by the Chief Counting Officer or any counting officer, of any ballot papers counted or answers given in either referendum.
    Orders in Council
    15. No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under this Schedule until a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  APPENDIX 1

    FORM OF BALLOT PAPER—SCOTTISH REFERENDUM
    The Scotland and Wales Act 1977 provides for an elected Scottish Assembly and Executive. Scotland would remain part of the United Kingdom. The new Assembly and Executive would exercise substantial powers devolved by Parliament. These provisions will however come into force only if approved in this referendum in Scotland.
    DO YOU AGREE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCOTLAND AND WALES ACT 1977 SHOULD BE PUT INTO EFFECT IN SCOTLAND?
    Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box.
    Yes………
    No……….

  APPENDIX 2

    FORM OF BALLOT PAPER—WELSH REFERENDUM
    The Scotland and Wales Act 1977 provides for an elected Welsh Assembly. Wales would remain part of the United Kingdom. The new Assembly would exercise substantial powers devolved by Parliament. These provisions will however come into force only if approved in this referendum in Wales.
    DO YOU AGREE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCOTLAND AND WALES ACT 1977 SHOULD BE PUT INTO EFFECT IN WALES?
    Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box.
    Yes………
    No………
    Mr. John Smith: I beg to move the new clause and the new schedule—
    Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. Did I understand the Minister to say that he was moving both the clause and the schedule?
    The Temporary Chairman: The Minister is moving New Clause 40, with which we are discussing Amendment No. 679.
    Mr. Higgins: Then he is not moving both. That is what he said.
    The Temporary Chairman: This is a technical point. The Minister is in fact moving the new clause with which we are discussing the amendment.
    Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I should like to begin by recalling briefly the background to these new provisions.
    Constitutionally, there is no doubt that Parliament has full power to pass a Bill such as our present one without reference to any outside source; and against the background of our plain commitments, put before the electors at a General Election, and also of the long period of careful and open consultation, the Government would have been quite ready, and

    1795
    seen ourselves as quite entitled, to go ahead in the orthodox way.
    Nevertheless, it was quite evident, particularly from the number and range of signatories to the Second Reading motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that there was notably wide support in the House, from both sides, for the view that the present enterprise was of a very special character; and that accordingly it merited a very special test of the popular will.
    I was pleased to note that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was reported in the Scotsman as welcoming the referendum in principle. There is quite wide support, not just from my hon. Friends, but from the official Opposition, for the principle of a referendum in connection with the Bill.
    Now I share, as I suspect most members of the House do, a concern that referendums should not become a routine feature of the United Kingdom scene. I am well aware of the threat that their habitual use could pose to the system of representative government, which we all value. For example, I certainly would not accept for one moment any proposition that every change which could be classified as constitutional is apt for a referendum. But the Government recognised the force of the pro-referendum argument in these special circumstances—that is, in relation to a constitutional change of quite exceptional scope and importance about which sincere and deeply-held views conflict, along lines moreover which cut across normal party-political structures.
    Mr. Tim Renton: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Smith: I hope that hon. Members will allow me to complete at least one sentence in my speech before interrupting.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
    Mr. Smith: We have therefore thought it right, as I announced on the last day of the Second Reading debate, to accept this widespread wish. We now bring forward the detailed legislative provisions by which we propose that Parliament should give effect to it.
    Mr. Tim Renton: I thank the Minister for giving way. He referred to this as an issue of unusual and exceptional constitutional importance. May I remind him of an occasion when the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) was Minister of State, Privy Council Office and replied to a motion that I had moved on 22nd November 1974 on the issue of the referendum for EEC membership and said:
    "It is not just that it is more important; it is of a different order. There is, and there can be, no issue that is on all fours with it. That is why we say that this issue"—
    that was the issue of EEC membership—
    "is the sole exception, and there can be no other exception, to the principle that we normally operate through parliamentary democracy". —[Official Report, 22nd November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1743.]
    How many more sole exceptions are we to have?
    Mr. Smith: I have enough to do being responsible for what I say without being responsible for what other hon. Members say about other Bills in different circumstances. The hon. Gentleman asked me what other exceptions there would be to the general rule, and I have not yet answered—
    Mr. Tim Renton: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. As I understand it, the Minister of State is now denying that he has any responsibility for what another Minister said from that Front Bench—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that, and I object to hon. Members raising phoney points of order and thereby ruining the debate.
    Mr Smith: I noticed that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was not even prepared to wait until his question had been answered before rising on that point of order, Sir Stephen. He asked what other exceptions there would be. We are making the proposal for this Bill, and it is on that basis that it must be justified to Parliament. I hope that the hon. Member will bear in mind the widespread support which exists for the principle of the referendum, in all parts of the House especially since it was endorsed by the official Opposition recently when they welcomed the Government's announcement of a referendum.

    1797
    The provisions that we propose take the form of one new clause and one new schedule. The clause deals essentially with the effect of the referendum results upon the implementation of the Act for Scotland and for Wales. That effect, as proposed, is direct and straightforward. If either country says "No", under subsection (3) the Act's provisions in respect of that country cannot be brought into force. The results are in that sense mandatory, not advisory.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the exact conditions under which the provisions whether the Act can be brought into force could be tested in court under the clause that he is now moving?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will notice the provision in Amendment No. 679, in the schedule which we shall be discussing with the amendments to it, under which legal proceedings are excluded in the same way as they were in the EEC referendum Bill.
    As I was saying, if either country says "No", as the clause stands, the provisions in respect of that country cannot be brought into force and the Government are given no discretion in the matter. If either country says "Yes" the Government are under a clear duty to bring forward commencement orders to put the provisions for that country into effect.
    Mr. Peter Rees: Would the Minister of State amplify that? Is he saying that the Government are under a direct duty imposed by this Act, or is there an element of ministerial discretion?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman has no doubt read the new clause, since he is arguing about whether it is an order. He will see that in subsection (3) it is clear that if the decision is "Yes" the Government must make the orders under Clause 114.
    Mr. Pym: Surely the Minister of State will agree that Clause 114 (1) says that the Act will come into operation
    "on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
    Is that not different from what he has just said?
    Mr. Smith: I am relying on the provisions of New Clause 40. If the right hon.
    1798
    Gentleman reads that he will see that in subsection (3)—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Smith: I should like the Committee to allow me to bring out some more points.
    Mr. George Cunningham: When I intervened a moment ago, my hon. Friend suggested that no court could call in question the use of the Order in Council provision under the new clause. If he is referring to the new schedule—I apologise if I misunderstood him—paragraph 14, which is headed "Exclusion of legal proceedings", relates to the principles involved in the referendum. No court would be able to say that, although the result of the election was declared to be x for "Yes" and y for "No", the answer was really the other way round.
    In the new clause there is provision for an Order in Council to be made in certain events. There are words in subsection (3) of the new clause which could be taken to court. There does not seem to be anything either in the new clause or in the new schedule which would exclude their being taken to court. Is there anything in the Bill that would prevent a submission being made to a court questioning the decision of the Government whether to implement by Order in Council the powers in the new clause?
    Mr. Smith: No, there is no such provision in the Bill.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Then it can go to court?
    Mr. Smith: That is a difficult question to answer because it depends on the situation which develops and in the form of legal action proposed to be taken. My hon. Friend asked me whether there was some other provision in the Bill, and I said that there was not.
    Mr. Leon Brittan: The Minister of State said that if the decision was "Yes", the Government were obliged to give effect to that decision. In support of that he brought in aid subsection 3 of the new clause. Will the Minister not agree that perhaps he is incorrect because the relevant part of the subsection says:
    "if the decisions are that effect is to be given to those provisions so far only as they relate

    1799
    to the government of Scotland or Wales an order under section 114 of this Act shall not be made so as to give effect to them also so far as they relate to the government of the other of those countries"?
    That does not impose an obligation on the Government to bring forward a commencement order in respect of the other country. If that is so, does the Secretary of State agree that the effect to be given to the referendum is entirely dependent on the Government choosing to exercise their power unfettered by this House to bring forward a commencement order?
    Mr. Smith: No doubt we can discuss these matters in Committee. My understanding is—
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. The Minister is obviously confused, and should we not have the benefit of the advice of the Lord Advocate on this matter?
    The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well. I take this opportunity of saying that in my view it is a great abuse of the privileges of this House to raise points of order that are not points of order. It deprives the hon. Member who has the Floor of the right to continue his speech, it interrupts his train of thought, and it is a procedure that I deplore.
    Mr. Smith: I believe that the interpretation of the facts I have announced is correct but I shall examine what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. The effect of the last line—[Interruption.]
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. The convention of this House is well understood by hon. Members. If a Member has the Floor and other Members wish to intervene, they should indicate that they wish to do so. It is then a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way. It is quite wrong for other Members to try to bully an hon. Member who has the Floor.
    Mr. Smith: The effect of the last line of subsection (1) is that the result is determined by simple majority of valid votes. There is no provision for a specially-weighted majority requirement or for a minimum percentage level of the
    1800
    electorate polling. I am aware that commentators and some hon. Members have pointed out that a very narrow majority on a low poll might be regrettable, but I do not think this is a likely situation, and it would he difficult to fix an arbitrary qualifying level of some kind in regard to the counting of votes.
    The second detailed point concerns the hypothetical situation in which one country says "Yes" and the other says "No." This again I think unlikely, but I must accept that it is possible. Right hon. and hon. Members at an earlier stage expressed concern that this might produce an intolerably confused legal situation. I can assure the House that any such fears are unfounded. It is a familiar feature of many Acts that commencement orders can have the effect of bringing some parts into operation at one time and others at another or even not at all.
    But to put matters beyond risk of doubt subsection (3) provides specifically for the "Yes" and "No" eventuality. If one country says "Yes" and the other "No", the provisions for the second cannot come into force; and an Order in Council subject to affirmative resolution of this House can tidy up the Act and so lend to its being published in a form more suitable for practical use by those to whom it will apply, without the confusing inclusion of inert provisions.
    My final point about the clause is that the referendums are, by implication, once-for-all affairs. There is no provision in the clause for a re-run if a country says "No". In that event, the Act's provisions for that country perish; they do not, as it were, hang in limbo available to be revived by a later referendum under the Act.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman says that an affirmative resolution of this House would be involved. Should he not have referred to an affirmative resolution of both Houses?
    Mr. Smith: I stand corrected, and I am grateful for that intervention.
    I turn to the schedule, and I shall pick out the main points. Paragraph 2 deals with the date of holding the referendums. It specifies that the date shall be the same for both. This seems right in order to avoid fears that voting on one might be undesirably influenced by the outcome

    1801
    of the other. That matter aside, the date is left open. It would be settled by Orderin-Council subject in draft to affirmative resolution of both Houses. I wish to stress that all the orders relating to these referendums will be of this affirmative-resolution kind and will give Parliament maximum control.
    Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman said that it would be undesirable that voting in one country should be influenced by voting in another and that for this reason both referendums should be held on the same day. Why would that prospect be so undesirable?
    Mr. Smith: Fears have certainly been expressed to me that voting on a different day in one country might influence the result in the other. It is convenient to have the polls on the same day, and common sense indicates that that is a desirable course. I have not heard any convincing argument why they should be on separate days. We would not want to see the unedifying spectacle of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) fighting with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) over which country should go first.
    Mr. Pardoe: A Welshman making up his mind about whether he wanted Wales to be part of the United Kingdom might well come to a different view after finding out whether Scotland would be part of the United Kingdom. Is that not part of the evidence that he will have to take into account?
    Mr. Smith: Any Welshman thinking in that direction would be so wrong about what was involved in the referendum that he would have to be a Welsh Liberal. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that the question Would be whether Wales should remain in the United Kingdom. But the Government have not proposed such a question.
    Mr. Timothy Raison rose—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I do not know how many times I must remind the Committee that we cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
    Mr. Smith: As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North knows perfectly well, the question proposed by the Government for the referendum—and I am defending the Government's proposal—is whether the Scotland and Wales Bill as passed by Parliament should be put into effect. Some people may get that wrong and the chances are that most such people will be Liberals. We must do our best to make clear that the question will be about whether the devolution scheme should be put into effect.
    Mr. Raison: A few minutes ago, the Chair ruled that it would be in order to introduce, by means of amendment, other questions so long as they did not actually have any effect.
    Mr. Smith: I am defending the Government's proposals and not amendments that might come from any other quarter.
    In practice, we envisage that to give time for administrative preparations and the circulation of information at least a month would be needed after Royal Assent to the Bill. For our part, the Government will certainly want to carry matters forward as briskly as possible.
    I come now to paragraphs 3 and 4, and thus to one of the crucial issues—the issue of eligibility to vote. In substance, the essential test, as we propose, will be inclusion in an electoral register in Scotland or Wales. Now I am very well aware that a good many people, in this House and elsewhere, would like a wider basis of eligibility—a basis extending to the whole United Kingdom. We shall undoubtedly discuss this further when we consider detailed amendments; but I should like to explain briefly the Government's approach.
    Our country is a United Kingdom, and any major new constitutional relationship within it is naturally of some concern to all parts. But it may not, and the present concept does not, concern them all equally directly, or in the same degree. It is a cardinal principle underlying the Bill, plainly enunciated in last year's White Paper, that the Government propose the devolution only of
    "those areas of activity where decisions affect primarily people living in Scotland and Wales".
    In practical terms, the Scottish scheme, for example will affect those who live in

    1803
    Scotland far more concretely and extensively than it will those who live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; yet all these latter are in total far more numerous. The result is that if voters everywhere in the United Kingdom took part, the view of those most closely affected by the proposals, could very easily be swamped by the opinion—even if a tepid one given by narrow majority on a low poll—of those far less affected and far less concerned. This would be not merely unsound as a matter of equity; in the practical circumstances of today, it might be a recipe for confrontation and division of the most damaging kind.
    There is a further very relevant factor. If it be urged that the voice of England must be heard, then I ask the Committee to remember that the provisions of the Bill will be determined in Parliament—above all by 516 MPs representing English constituencies in the House of Commons. In respect of the Scottish scheme, Scottish MPs will be outnumbered eight to one in the Lobbies. In respect of the Welsh scheme, Welsh MPs will be outnumbered seventeen to one.
    Mr. Higgins: If I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument correctly, I am a little puzzled by the discussion which we had earlier on whether the referendum was to be mandatory. Is he saying that if the majority of hon. Members do not like the result of the referendum, the Orders in Council which will be laid before us by affirmative resolution is one against which we shall be allowed to vote?
    Mr. Smith: That is not my understanding of the provision. I was talking about the effect of the voting which takes place in the country and pointing out that there will be a referendum only if the House approves the Bill and that the vast majority of hon. Members are from English constituencies. If the Bill reaches that stage, it will have been approved by a majority of the House, and this is a factor which should be taken into account by those who say that the voice of England must be heard.
    Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the majority of English Members is a counter-weight to the effect of
    1804
    the referendum in which only the Scots and the Welsh will be able to vote, will he kindly undertake never to use, in the remaining stages of the Bill, the argument that it must be passed because otherwise there will be no referendum?
    Mr. Smith: I would not consider using such an argument. It would be a hard one to sustain. The hon. Gentleman's question is confusing because it attributes to me in advance an argument which I have no intention of espousing. The only proper way that anyone can commend a Bill to the House is on its merits and that is what we have been urging on the House.
    Mr. Higgins: Our earlier discussion turned on the question whether the referenda was to be mandatory. Am I correct in understanding that it will be possible for hon. Members to vote against the proposed Order in Council?
    Mr. Smith: The Order in Council deals with a slightly different matter. It is a tidying up provision for the Act in case the decision is"No" in one country and "Yes" in the other.
    Mr. Jay: It was said earlier that in order to carry the effect of the referendum into legal effect, it would be necessary to bring an order before the House. If that is done the House may, in the last resort, vote against it. Is that not so?
    Mr. Smith: That is not so. The effect of the decision is on the Secretary of State making a commencement order under Clause 114 of the Bill.
    Mr. George Cunningham: I understand that if the result of the referendum is "Yes" in both cases, there will be no need for the Order in Council, apart from the technical necessity to which the Minister has referred. But does that mean that if the vote in Scotland is "X" in favour and "X minus one" against, there is no possibility of the House stopping devolution going ahead for Scotland?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. The decision is made on a simple majority of the votes cast. A one-vote majority is sufficient. That is clear from the provisions of the Bill.
    10.30 p.m.
    I shall turn, briefly, to two other aspects of voting eligibility. First, I understand and sympathise with the feeling that

    1805
    expatriate Scots and Welsh should vote. But on examination I believe that this is untenable both in principle and in practice. It is untenable in principle because this is a Bill about the government of those who, whatever their origin, live in Scotland and Wales, not of those who come from there. It is untenable in practice because there would be intractable problems of definition, location and identification. Precisely because ours is a United Kingdom we have no legal concept of Scottish or Welsh nationality, and we cannot sensibly attempt to create one by the back door in the course of this Bill.
    Secondly, we are considering sympathetically the position of Service voters from Scotland and Wales. Parliament has already made special arrangements for Service voters as a distinctive class in the 1975 referendum, and there is a case in equity for doing something of the kind again. The administrative problems here are different and in some ways more awkward, but we are trying to solve them, if possible on the lines of somehow bringing forward in suitable respects the operation of the Representation of the People (Armed Forces) Act which Parliament passed last year on the initiative of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). If such arrangements prove possible, and if they prove to entail adjustment to the present clause or schedules—and they might not—we shall bring suitable amendments forward at the Report stage.
    I come now to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the schedule, which provide for a single question in each referendum on the basis of a ballot paper in the terms set out in the relevant appendix. We have drafted these terms as neutrally as possible, and confined them to the minimum we judge necessary to remind the voter of the direct practical and legal effect of his choice, as distinct from subjective political opinion of where it may or may not lead.
    I wonder whether the Conservative Party will make criticism of that because when I discussed this on a radio broadcast last Friday the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart did not find much at which to object in the proposal.
    The major issue in this area is however—and I recognise this—whether there
    1806
    should be any additional question, in particular a question in some form or another about independence.
    The Government have thought carefully about this, because we know how much importance is attached to this by some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. But it is our very firm conclusion that to include such a question would be both unhelpful and out of place. We shall, if necessary, develop the arguments to this effect more fully when the Committee conies to consider the relevant amendments. Such amendments already appear on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Kinnock: Was my hon. Friend's use of the word "firm" well advised in view of the general history of the Bill, which has been anything but that? Whilst he may have his chance to advance arguments against having the second question, will hon. Members have the chance to argue in favour of having the second question? He has spoken of the necessity of coming to a clear decision. Would not the process of getting an intractable result with which nobody could quarrel be assisted by the provision of a second question which would separate the separatists from those who disagree with devolution?
    Mr. Smith: The Government have promised to listen carefully to amendments and indeed, accept suggestions. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, on the one hand we are accused of not being firm now, and on the other we are accused of being arrogant, inflexible and are described by all manner of adjectives. When I say "firm" I mean no more and no less than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) deployed the argument in favour of the proposition for the independence question before I had had the opportunity to develop my argument.
    Perhaps I could say briefly that we see no virtue in converting the referendums into opinion polls on an undefined concept as a political device for scuppering nationalists or any other section of political view in the country. Our view of the referendum proposes a direct reference to the people on a practical question with a precise meaning and a precise operational effect related to the Act. We see

    1807
    no ground for dignifying the nationalist minority parties by presenting them with a ready-made platform to seize the limelight for their extremist theories, and to swing the focus of the campaign and the attention of voters away from the real practical issue, which is whether devolution is to be implemented in Scotland and Wales. We see no ground for creating the impression either at home or abroad that the break-up of the United Kingdom is a serious item on the political agenda of the British people.
    I do not think that I need to say a great deal more about the other provisions in the schedule as I am sure that Members of the Committee will have noted them as they read the schedule. We have at every point sought to follow as closely as is possible in the slightly different circumstances the provisions that Parliament approved in the 1975 Referendum Act, including the pattern of counting and declaration of results.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman says that he has followed the pattern of the previous referendum but some of the features of that referendum have been omitted, especially the possibility of finance for the umbrella organisations for the "Yes" and the "No" votes. Allied with that is the control of expenditure, which many believed was one of the major drawbacks in the whole procedure of the previous referendum. Is there no way in which checks can be built in? What are the Government's thoughts?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of campaign funds or some subsistence being provided by Parliament to campaign organisations on either side. As the provisions now stand, there will be no power to make subventions from public funds to any campaign organisations. This is a matter that we are still considering. We have not yet come to a decision. We shall take account of any views that the Committee may express. I should say so that there is no misunderstanding, that our current inclination lies rather against making any public subventions. There are considerable difficulties in respect of umbrella organisations. As I have said, our inclination at present is not to make subventions from public funds. We shall listen carefully to what is said on the
    1808
    matter in Committee when we discuss it further.
    Mr. Rifkind: In line with the Common Market referendum, will members of the Government be free to campaign on either side?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is a clear difference between the present situation and the Common Market referendum. This is a Bill produced by the Government to which the Administration gives its full support. There is no question of there being any difference of opinion when it comes to campaigning.
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Government have endeavoured to follow precedents but I think I am right in saying that there is one change, which is that the last referendum asked "Do you think?" and this referendum "Do you agree?" It seems quite clear that the word "agree" is a clanted and tilted word. Why has it been introduced?
    Mr. Smith: I find that argument almost incomprehensible. I cannot see that it is tilted to ask people whether they agree with the provisions that the Government put forward. There is another proposition that suggests "want". We must consider the words carefully, but the Government strove to ensure that there was as objective a presentation of the issue as possible and a simple proposition. However, this is a matter that we can consider—[Interruption.] I have to listen to Opposition Members a good deal during our proceedings in Committee and I hope that they will pay me the courtesy of listening occasionally.
    There is nothing slanted in the use of the word "agree". It is a simple proposition. It is a proposal to ask the people whether they agree that the provisions of the Act should be put into effect. Those who try to cavil at that and to suggest that in some way the Government are trying to slant the question deliberately are putting forward an unworthy, unjustified and unreasonable argument.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are not considering making resources available to the umbrella organisations. Are they at the same time

    1809
    to tell the Committee that the Government will not use any of their propaganda resources to campaign on behalf of their own Bill?
    Mr. Smith: The Government are being very fair with regard to the expression of opinion. I do not know whether the Conservative Party takes any view on the question of campaign funds. No doubt that will be revealed during the debate if it is thought appropriate. If so, we shall listen. We have not finally decided that question. We shall listen to the views of the Committee. However, I must be fair. Our inclination is that there would be considerable difficulties about restricting the expenditure. Again, that matter will no doubt be explored.
    Mr. Rathbone: I should like to raise two technical points. The first concerns subventions from public funds. The crucial part of any referendum preparation battle is that the arguments on both sides should be discussed thoroughly. Obviously that cannot take place without some subsidy from the Government.
    Secondly, have the Government sought professional advice on the wording of the question from, for instance, the Market Research Society? If the Government do no make use of it, they must lay themselves open to the suspicion that they have loaded the wording.
    Mr. Smith: The first point is no doubt one that the hon. Gentleman will seek to make to the Committee. As I said, we shall listen to the views of the Committee on this matter. We value the opinions of all parties.
    On the second point, no, we did not take advice from the Market Research Society. We thought that we were capable of reaching a fair conclusion. It would not assist us to run to all kinds of professional opinion testing societies. We felt that it was not beyond our ability to devise a fair question and to ask the Committee to consider it. The Committee will no doubt consider whether there should be any change in the question that is to be asked.
    We believe that the preamble is factual. It states what the Bill does. It states that Scotland and Wales will remain part of the United Kingdom. It also makes clear that the provision will be brought into effect only if the referendum gives
    1810
    a positive result. I cannot see anything objectionable in that. We shall be prepared to defend it line by line, consistent with listening to the views of the Committee.
    Mr. Abse: My hon. Friend has declared that the Government will not allow Ministers to express their genuine differences, which are notorious. If that is the Government's stance, does it not become even more important that money should be made available? The Government have all their own resources and my hon. Friend implied that they will use the resources of the Labour Party, despite the fact that, when justifying the referendum, he indicated that there were deep conflicting views right across the parties? Therefore, is it not important that the Government should reconsider the position of subventions, particularly if they are going to put up a spurious front of unanimity?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend should not be surprised if the Government defend a Bill which they have recommended and expect their supporters and Ministers to support it. I am sure that he will not expect me to accept ministerial responsibility for the Labour Party in Wales, in Scotland or in any part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I think that the Labour Party would be the first to object to Ministers making commitments on its behalf. No doubt the Labour Party throughout the United Kingdom will come to its own conclusion on its own consideration of the matter. My hon. Friend should advance that argument within the councils of the Labour Party, not in this Committee.
    10.45 p.m.
    Sir Nigel Fisher: The Minister said that the preamble to the question was factual. It says:
    "Scotland would remain part of the United Kingdom."
    That is an assertion and a matter of opinion. It happens to be the Government's opinion—at least, I hope it is—but it is not a statement of fact. In fact, the fear that Scotland will not remain part of the United Kingdom is the very reason why most of us who oppose the Bill are so worried about the whole concept of devolution and the contents of the Bill. It is not fair to put it into the minds of the people that this is a

    1811
    factual statement, when it is simply an expression of opinion, with which many hon. Members do not agree.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Member is entitled to his own views, but I believe that it is correct to say that as a result of these provisions, Scotland would remain a part of the United Kingdom. Clearly that is the effect of the Bill. We shall come to these matters later, but I cannot understand why exception is taken to that. It is understood that Scotland and Wales would remain part of the United Kingdom—I believe, most strongly part of the United Kingdom, but that is a matter for argument. It is important that people asked to vote in the referendum understand that. That is why we included that sentence in the preamble.
    Mr. Iain Sproat: If the hon. Gentleman says that that statement is a fact and that is why it is included, why does he not also include statement of the facts that it will cost £36 million and will need another 1,000 civil servants to administer, with a general increase in bureaucracy?
    Mr. Smith: That would be an absurd thing to put in a referendum in which we were drawing attention in a very short preamble to the main provisions of the Bill in order to put a simple question.
    Mr. Powell: On the matter of the Government's attitude and collective responsibility in favour of the Bill, would the Minister say something about the question of confidence in the event of a "no" answer if the referendum is mandatory? Of course, if it is only consultative, no question of confidence necessarily arises. He will recollect that in the case of the 1975 referendum, the fact that the Government themselves as a Government were not collectively involved evaded the issue of confidence. Would he address himself briefly to that?
    Mr. Smith: Questions of confidence in the Government are matters for the Prime Minister and not for me. I do not think that the Prime Minister would welcome my giving assessments in a hypothetical situation of what would be the effect for the confidence of the Government. Indeed, I wonder how long I would stay in this job if I started on that road. Of course, that may be an
    1812
    incentive to hon. Members to try to get me to make that assessment.
    Mr. John Mendelson: I accept what the Minister has said and will not press him on this point, but will direct all questions about confidence to the Prime Minister. But would he therefore agree not to make large statements about it being so self-evident that all members of the Government must campaign in favour of a "yes" vote?
    Mr. Smith: I have tried to explain. The Government will support the Bill, which should not surprise my hon. Friend, since they are asking the House of Commons to support it and it would be surprising if they did not take the same attitude in the country.
    As a whole, the provisions that we are now putting before the House are designed to set before the voters in Scotland and in Wales a clear issue, fairly presented, and with a precise practical objective; and to conduct the poll in a businesslike manner closely precedented by the 1975 referendum. It is for these reasons that I commend the clause and, eventually, the schedule to the Committee.
    Mr. Pym: Not for the first time do I find myself in the unenviable position of opening a debate for the Opposition long after the time when a normal parliamentary debate would have ended. The Government got their way on the last motion and we are now embarking on a debate on the referendum. I think it is a mistake, but we are doing it because the Government wish it to be that way.
    I was disappointed with the Minister of State's opening speech, for two reasons—first, because I do not think he gave a clear reply on the important question of the extent to which this referendum is to be mandatory—or the extent to which it is not—and, in particular, the situation that arises in the event of the majority of voters in Scotland or Wales saying "Yes".
    I believe that subsequent events are governed by Clause 114 (1) which says that
    "This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint ".
    Nothing in the new clause in any way alters that. No parliamentary process at all arises out of that. Certainly there is a

    1813
    parliamentary process if one of the two countries says "No" and the other says "Yes", but not in relation to that country that has said "Yes". I think that is the true position which I do not think the Minister of State made clear.
    Mr. Hal Miller: My right hon. Friend is correct in adducing that there is nothing to activate it if one says "Yes" but, further, there is nothing to activate it if both say "Yes".
    Mr. Pym: That is indeed the position, and only the Secretary of State decides. I wish to mention an amendment that we have already tabled which will alter that position because it is an incredible and unacceptable position to contemplate that at the end of this referendum there should be no further parliamentary process.
    The other aspect I found disappointing was that although the Minister of State carefully described the new clause and new schedule he did not raise many of the fundamental constitutional issues that seemed to arise out of it. I am quite certain that after what has happened today there is no doubt that the implications of holding a referendum are considerable and, politically, potentially far reaching. The sovereignty of Parliament itself is involved and there is no doubt that the introduction of this referendum procedure creates, as the Chairman of Ways and Means has said, a new precedent.
    Those facts alone show the significance of what we are doing. Although there was a referendum two years' ago, the circumstances at that time were different and the issue was different. But the referendum we are now debating is still a constitutional innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is right about that. I am certain that the House will want to treat the matter with the utmost care.
    It is clear from the Minister of State's speech and the many interruptions that there are many issues to be debated in connection with this new clause. Many hon. Members believe that a referendum is unnecessary and wrong in principle, because referendums do call the supreme authority of Parliament into question and introduce a new element into our democratic parliamentary system.
    1814
    Other hon. Members feel that in certain circumstances there is a place for a referendum. Some of my hon. Friends have been campaigning for this new method to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has taken a lot of time and trouble campaigning for this.
    If referendums are to be contemplated there is a danger of having too many. Everyone will agree that if they are to come they ought to be used sparingly. Most hon. Members will agree that they should not become routine. But the question is on what principle or basis do we decide to have one. That is the strongest reason for having a separate Bill dealing with referendums in general. The beginning of that Bill should set out what the principles or criteria are that have to be satisfied before we have a referendum. I myself am not competent to suggest what they should be but it is certainly the right approach to take, so that we can look at the general principle rather than considering it on a piecemeal basis as we did with Europe and in connection with this Bill.
    Mr. Douglas Henderson: It would perhaps be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us fairly early whether the Conservative Party is opposing the holding of the referendums or supporting it, or is doing what it has done throughout the debates—abstaining in total.
    Mr. Pym: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with my speech.
    Mr. Henderson: Answer the question.
    Mr. Pym: I shall answer it. I have indicated how this matter should have been approached. A constitutional issue affecting the way in which the United Kingdom or any part of it is governed is obviously a highly important matter, and certainly there is a case for giving the people an opportunity to express directly their own opinions and preferences on a constitutional matter. But it depends on the context in which it is done.
    The context in which we are considering this new clause is the government of the United Kingdom as it affects Scotland and Wales, and I wholly agree with many hon. Members that any alteration there also affects the government of the United

    1815
    Kingdom as a whole. But in the context of the government of the United Kingdom as far as it affects Scotland and Wales, it does not seem right to deny to the people of Scotland and Wales the chance to cast their votes in a referendum.
    We know that they want to do it. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have reported that to be so, particularly those representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies, and I think that the desire of people to express their views in a referendum is understandable. On that basis, we shall not oppose what is in effect the Second Reading of the new clause, but I emphasise that this is in the context of a particular referendum, of a particular question, and of the particular circumstances of this Bill.
    But that is far from the end of the matter—it is only the beginning. What is crucial is the question or questions asked, the status of the referendums and all the details surrounding them. Public understanding and comprehension of all the issues involved in what they are being asked to decide is most important, and we are concerned about the handling of the campaign in connection with the referendums if the House decides eventually to hold them.
    Here we must express again our great anxiety about the arrangements being made. The Government have indicated that they do not intend at the moment to make any funds available, and we are worried about the possibility that, in one way or another, the vast resources of money and other resources available to the Government could be used, directly or indirectly, to further their propaganda campaign.
    It is our feeling that one of the reasons, although not the main one, why the clause is being taken now is in order that the Government will have parliamentary justification for making propaganda war on Scotland and Wales with all the Government's resources, and it will be difficult to identify any particular expenditure in an individual Government Department used in connection with that campaign. But used it will he, we suspect. That is why anxiety has been expressed on the financial aspects.
    It is all very well for the Minister of State to say that the Government want to be fair. That is an assertion. But the
    1816
    Government have greater resources at their disposal than those which are available on the other side of the fence. That is why separate and different arrangements were made in connection with the European Communities Act. These are difficult aspects in the organisation of the holding of referendums.
    Mr. Crouch: My right hon. Friend has just told the House and his Conservative colleagues where the Conservative Party stands. I am greatly concerned to hear his statement, because he is saying that the people of Scotland and Wales should have a chance to decide this issue and have it referred to them. But it is not just a matter of that issue. It is also a question whether my right hon. Friends agree with the Bill, and they have clearly shown that they have not agreed with the Bill from the beginning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".] I must take time. I never get called in these debates. I have sat here for hours day after day and have not been called. Originally I was in favour of the Bill. I am concerned to hear my Front Bench taking the view that the matter should be referred to the people of Scotland and Wales. I thought that my Front Bench did not want the Bill to go through. The Government have not made a single concession, except over Orkney and Shetland, in the past month, and I am gravely concerned that we are producing a Bill that no one likes. I do not think that we should foist that on the people of Wales and Scotland.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Pym: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view. I have indicated our attitude to this Bill many times and I am just adducing our arguments about the fact that there are numerous problems with a referendum.
    Of course we are opposed to the Bill, and it remains to be seen whether Parliament will ever pass it. It seems to me that there is not a majority for it in the House of Commons, in which case the problem will not arise. It is not accurate to say that we want to refer it to the people of Scotland and Wales, but we do not seek to deny them the right to express their opinion by referendum about a change in the government of the United Kingdom which affects them.
    Mr. Higgins: I return to the point my right hon. Friend was making before the last intervention—that is, will Government funds be used for party political purposes? It is right to mention that the Head of the Central Office of Information has an impartial role to play, and his duty is not to allow the use of Government funds in the way my right hon. Friend described.
    Mr. Pym: I am not sure that I would not rather have the Auditor-General or the Comptroller. I did not say that the Government would use funds in a party political sense. I am fearful that the funds might be used in a campaign to vote "yes", which might be considered party political but which is not really so, without any resources being made available to the other side. It would be very difficult to identify what expenditure of Government Departments could he said to have been used in favour of the referendum.
    Mr. Kinnock: Could the right hon. Member tell us whether he agrees that the integrity of the whole proposition of a referendum is better sustained by making available Government finances in equal amounts to both sides in the campaign, than by leaving the question in doubt—something which might sadly afflict the public's attitude to the whole campaign?
    Mr. Pym: I will give a personal opinion—yes, I do think that it would be better to do it that way, as in the last referendum, because of the anxieties which could be felt about one-sidedness. But we can debate that later in greater detail.
    Mr. George Cunningham: The right hon. Member is suggesting that there is a fear that Government funds could be used for this purpose. Does he recall the period of 1961–63 when, although there was no referendum on the Common Market, a massive effort was mounted by the then Government to persuade people that it was a good thing to enter the market? Vast amounts of public money were used on that occasion to try to get the public to agree with the Government's way of thinking. No referendum was at issue then. But do not let us encourage the notion that there is an off-chance that public funds may be used. It is an absolute dead certainty.
    Mr. Pym: I suppose another example would be the vast expenditure by the Government in engaging public relations experts to persuade the British people that inflation was only 8·4 per cent. when it was twice that figure—
    Mr. George Cunningham: No.
    Mr. Pym: Well, there was a campaign and people were employed at high salaries to do that. In neither case, however, was there a referendum, and it is a referendum that we are discussing.
    I think that the Minister of State was rather too optimistic about getting away with the wording of the question as it now is. I do not think that the wording of either the question or the preamble will do. The hon. Gentleman said that the question was designed so that people in Scotland and Wales could decide whether devolution would take place or not. But that is not the question. The question is whether the particular form of devolution as proposed in this Bill will take place, and that is totally different.
    I disagree with the preamble, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) who said that the assertion that Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom is a matter of opinion. It is. I do not agree with the question. The word "agree" is wrong and the Minister of State's defence of it will be challenged by many hon. Members. The impression given by these questions as worded here is a thinly disguised slant towards "Yes". It is a tendentiously-worded question, and frankly we do not accept it.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider, as a sort of trade-off for leaving that phrase in, the inclusion of something to the effect that the Government consider that the cost would be not less than £12 million?
    Mr. Pym: There is a body of opinion in the House that believes that the cost ought to go into the question. No doubt hon. Members will debate that aspect.
    I want to contrast the questions drafted in Appendices 1 and 2 with the question in the Referendum Act 1975. It was a much simpler question. The preamble was one sentence. It read:
    "The Government have announced the results of the renegotiation of the United

    1819
    Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community."
    Then the question was:
    "Do you think that the United Kingdom should say in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
    That was a much flatter, more neutral question than that which is proposed here. I am intrigued by another variation between what happened then and what is proposed tonight. There were separate boxes for "Yes" and "No" in the 1975 scheme. They are joined together in the proposed schedule before us. I am not a psychologist or an expert in consumer affairs, but I suspect that there must be some subtle reason for joining the two boxes together this time.
    We have tabled an amendment which is lettered k6—(kkkkkk) or k to the power of 6—and another which is lettered (111111) or I6 which we seek to include in substitution of the two existing appendices. They are an attempt by us to make the wording more neutral and to satisfy the criticism of possible bias.
    Mr. Dalyell: I do not know whether it is bias against me, but my amendment is lettered (zz). Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether costs ought to be brought into the questions, and whether the destinations of the oil revenues should also be referred to?
    Mr. Pym: Those are very important questions to which we shall come later, but I have spoken for some time and I still have much to say. I must not he diverted by the parliamentary interrupter-extraordinary.
    I come to the second substantive issue raised by the debate—namely, whether there should be more than one question. Undoubtedly there are many arguments on both sides, but our debates will be mainly concentrated on whether there should be an extra question on independence. We are not in favour in this context of an extra question of that kind. I shall explain why.
    In the first place it is accepted by nearly everybody in the United Kingdom that the people of the United Kingdom are against separation of the parts of the United Kingdom, or partition, or independence, or whatever one likes to call it. The number of people who are said to be in support are about one in six in
    1820
    Scotland, and perhaps a slightly lower proportion in Wales. That is a small proportion of the people in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is not a United Kingdom issue, and in those circumstances it does not appear that a referendum can be justified because so few people want it.
    But even if there were a referendum on that question, I do not think that it would dispose of the issue, as some people try to pretend. By including a question of independence at this stage, it seems to me that we should be giving the concept of possible independence of a part of the United Kingdom a credibility that it does not now possess. It may positively assist those who would like to bring about that end result. That is a matter of opinion, and we shall debate it at length, but it is an issue on which Parliament is entitled to know our view at this stage.
    I do not believe that the desire for independence for any part of the United Kingdom will grow in any part of the United Kingdom. After these debates we have had so far, I believe that it will lessen. I think that people are becoming more and more alarmed at the possibility of separation or independence and what that would mean. But if it ever did become an issue—and I do not accept it will—everybody in the United Kingdom would be entitled to vote and would wish to exercise that vote. It would have to be done in the context of a General Election and not merely of a referendum. It is far too major an issue for that.
    Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important policy statement on behalf of the Tory Party—namely, that if the people of Scotland wish independence, the people of England will have a veto. Does he not agree that that is the position of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Pym: I am saying that if independence were to become a live and real issue, and if in different circumstances from those that now obtain there were a desire for a referendum on that issue, everybody in the United Kingdom would be entitled to vote.
    Mr. Henderson: English people?
    Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman must not add two and two and make the figure

    1821
    106. If we ever come to that issue, we shall debate all the circumstances surrounding that referendum, if it is proposed.
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is back-tracking.
    Mr. Pym: No. I have said that such a matter would be so major that it would not be a question of a referendum but of at least one General Election, and perhaps two.
    This brings me to the question of the constituencies. If ever we were to get to the unfortunate and unhappy question of independence, if such a question arose, I should be in favour of extending the referendum, if such were held, to the entire United Kingdom. But let us hope that we never reach so undesirable and unattractive a possibility. But unless we do, I see more disadvantages than gains in asking these questions prematurely.
    I come to another aspect of the constituency argument which involves the expatriate Welshman or Scot. Such expatriates who live in England are very keen indeed to vote—and naturally so. They feel keenly involved. What consideration has been given to this possibility? The Minister of State raised some difficulties, and I accept that there are many of them. But what would be involved in making that decision? That is clearly a question to which the House will want an answer, if not now then when the amendments are considered. because it is a matter that will affect the unity of the United Kingdom. Scots and Welsh people living outside their own countries feel directly concerned and that is understandable.
    11.15 p.m.
    Next I want to raise the matter of the status of the referendum about which we have had so much discussion today. That is linked with the question about whether a simple majority will do or whether there ought to be some stipulation on a specified percentage turnout of electors and a specified majority vote.
    If, at any stage, a referendum on independence were held, there would be a powerful argument for requiring that a majority of the electorate should have voted for it, and that the result should not depend just on a majority of the votes cast. If the referendum was man-,
    1822
    datory such a requirement would be inescapably necessary, otherwise how would we know whether there was a real and genuine majority desire for so major a change? The onus must rest with those people desiring change to prove that it is wanted.
    The question that arises here in the context of the Bill does not relate to independence. Even so, the principle of a minimum percentage turnout and a minimum percentage majority does arise. As the Bill stands, a simple majority in favour, with no minimum turnout, would put the Secretary of State in a position to activate the Bill. The Minister said, in dealing with this point, that such a situation was unlikely to occur, but that is absolutely no answer. The fact that there is the remotest possibility, in theory or in practice, that it could happen means that it will not do to leave the Bill in its present state. To allow a simple majority turnout that might be as low as 35 to 40 per cent. to activate the Bill, with all that that would mean for Scotland and Wales and for the whole United Kingdom, could not be justified.
    That is an overwhelming argument for saying that, whatever else happens, the referendum ought to be on a consultative and advisory basis. It is hard to believe that the House would accept the proposition if it was not arranged in that way.
    If the Leader of the House were as lie was in the old days when he sat below the gangway, he would be most passionately in favour of that point of view. If he were—if he will forgive me for this description—as he was in his Jekyll days when he keenly defended Parliament and the rights of Back Benchers, he would support this point of view.
    The supreme authority of the House must be preserved and if any constitutional change is to be contemplated following a referendum, the House will want to return again to the details and implications involved in the referendum result. In this sense, the new clause has no more been thought through than a lot of the other issues in the Bill. An advisory and consultative referendum is much the wisest course to take. If the referendum is to be mandatory, then we must ensure that the majority in favour must be clearly overwhelming. Otherwise many people in this country who do not want

    1823
    the Bill could be damaged and that would be quite the wrong way to proceed.
    There must be a subsequent parliamentary process. After the referendum on the EEC took place in 1975, Parliament had no difficulty in assessing the verdict. It may or may not be so clear next time. At any rate, we have tabled Amendment No. 756 to Clause 114 that has as its purpose and object the clear necessity and requirement for an additional parliamentary process, whatever happens in the referendum, so that the House will be able to consider all the circumstances surrounding the referendum. The House will be able to consider all the figures and everything that could be meant by them and will be able to judge the genuine and true consequences of the referendum. That proposition may find widespread support in all parts of the House.
    The Bill has raised many major issues which have not been adequately thought out by the Government. The new clause and the schedule also raise many issues of a different kind, but of near equal significance. Whatever one may think of the proposal, it is another constitutional change in its own right.
    The fact that the referendums have not been brought before the House in a separate Bill does not reduce the importance of what is proposed. I trust, therefore, that the Government will listen to all the arguments and views which will be put forward. At present, they are in-dictating flexibility. There was a moment earlier when it looked as though the House would get into a terrible tangle over points of order until the Leader of the House showed surprising flexibility on the advisory nature of the referendums. However, the Minister of State later showed what sounded like—though it may not have been intended—a degree of inflexibility in relation to the wording of the two questions. The Government must be flexible.
    By taking the new clause now, we are diverted from continuing our discussion on the Bill. We are adding to the complications. I hope that there is no thought of a timetable or a guillotine in the Lord President's mind. We took a little comfort from what he said at the end of the last debate about wanting to ensure that there was adequate time to
    1824
    discuss all the issues which are relevant to the new clause.
    A timetable motion cannot be justified on the Bill and certainly not on a matter dealing with a constitutional issue of the magnitude of that raised here
    I have touched on some of the main issues arising from the new clause and we shall return in detail to many of its aspects. No one can be under any illusion of the magnitude of what is proposed and I hope that the House will show its usual good sense and work out a scheme that ensures that the authority of the House remains supreme in the government of this country. That is the fundamental principle from which we should never depart and amendments to achieve that end will be the minimum that we shall expect before the debates on the new clause and the schedule are completed.
    To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
    Committee report Progress: to sit again tomorrow.

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland),
    That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
    Question agreed to.

    A30 (PLANNING BLIGHT)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
    11.24 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring before the House and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport a matter that is very important for my constituency, though not such an important matter nationally as that which we have just been discussing. I refer in particular to the problems of the people of Okehampton and district arising from the route of the A30, the Okehampton bypass, and

    1825
    the planning blight that some people are experiencing.
    People want road improvements and it is easy to promote a new road. Most people are at one on that, as long as it does not pass through or near their own gardens. There is no doubt of the need for road improvements in the Okehampton district or that problems will arise as a result of them. Indeed, they have started for many people.
    I turn first to the need. The A30 has been a nightmare of a road for motorists for many years. It is true that this may be so for only a few months of the year, but one cannot bring new motorways down to the West Country without improving the other roads. That is why I support the proposed improvements. However, I believe that after the completion of the improvements to the A30 and perhaps the spur road off the motorway to North Devon we should call a halt to further improvements or new roads. Otherwise, we shall not be able to preserve the land for food production.
    The other reason for my supporting in particularly the Okehampton bypass is my dread that one day a lorry will come careering down the hill into Okehampton, as has happened elsewhere. Because the loss of life could be considerable, I believe that there is a paramount need for a bypass.
    A further reason for the improvements is to assist the future development of Okehampton and district. Good communications are essential. While there may be some loss of agricultural land in carrying out the improvements, jobs are scarce in my part of the country, and new employment will do much to help the area. Lord Northfield and his Development Corporation are determined to help in the area, and we are grateful to them. We hope that the Government will provide the finance for them to carry out the schemes that they have in mind. A proper bypass and link road to that industrial development will be of great benefit to the area.
    Therefore, I find the need proved beyond doubt. The route is another matter. The proposed route has caused considerable problems to some people already. I support the southern route, because I believe that it will mean the loss of less agricultural land and less distur-
    1826
    bance and blight than other routes, although some people on that route will be considerably affected. Consultations with the public resulted in most support for the southern route, although it is true to say that the proposed route is different from that proposed for consultation.
    I must say a word about consultation. I believe that Okehampton was one of the first towns in the area where the new consultation procedure was used. In theory it is fine, but it results in serious blight for all who are on any of the proposed routes. If there are four or five proposed routes, many farms and houses may be affected by blight. For some this may be only temporary, but it can be serious at the time. People cannot sell their houses, and farmers find it difficult to plan for the future.
    How does the Minister see this new method of full consultation? I am not condemning it, but it produces many problems and much more blight. Certainly we shall have a tremendous amount of that in the new proposals for various routes between the motorway in North Devon and my constituency of Torrington.
    Before I turn to the question of blight and the effect of the proposed route on people in the area, I must ask the Minister for an explanation about the route of the A30—the new road—between Tongue End and Whiddon Down. The facts are that the route has been determined; we have had consultations and an inquiry, and so on, and the people in the area have accepted the problems of blight. The whole procedure has been gone through, and it has cost a lot of money. Now we have this sudden change. I want to know the real reasons why. We see it as more delay, more blight and more money being spent. There is the cost of studying the possibility of another route, with all the consultations that are necessary. There is bound to be another inquiry. It will all mean the expenditure of more money, and more delay.
    I believe that this change is quite shocking. I must protest strongly to the Minister. I wonder whether he realizes—I expect that he does—and whether all those concerned in his Ministry realise the anxieties of many people in this area arising out of the proposed change. The

    1827
    original route was less disruptive, less expensive and less damaging to agriculture. Surely that is an important consideration.
    Now we have a change in the route. The new route is being surveyed. We know the difficulties created by putting a road through a national park. We know all about the Sandford Report. Why was this matter not thought of before? That is what the people in my constituency cannot understand.
    The inspector said that the new route would be more expensive and more difficult to build and would have a serious effect on the village of South Tawton. If the inspector was right—and I do not doubt his word for a moment—why is it that we have changed back to the route which he said was not as suitable as, and was more expensive than, the one that had been decided? This question must be answered. If the Minister cannot answer it now, I hope that he will do so in the form of a letter, so that I can make it clear to my constituents what are the reasons for the change.
    I now turn to the problems of blight. They are very real, not only in the Okehampton area but in other parts of the country where similar developments are taking place, and they can cause real hardships. This is certainly true of Okehampton. Even though a small minority will be affected, I believe that their case must be put before the House and the Minister. It is the duty of a Member of Parliament, even if he disagrees with the ideas of these people about where the route should go—and most of those who are affected prefer the southern to the northern one—to put the case before the House and the Minister.
    In this case the problems of blight are very serious, so much so that at Okehampton an action group has been formed. It consists of perfectly respectable people. They are not the sort of people who protest for the sake of protesting, as may have been the case in other parts of the country, with not "do-it-yourself" protesters but "rent-a-protest" protesters. These are not such people. I have met them and I am able to say that they are perfectly sensible. They feel strongly, however, that the southern route is not the correct route. To some extent I agree with them,
    1828
    because there are major technical problems in cutting a way through the moor. There is the problem of a local quarry, which ought not to be affected by the route because of the employment that it provides.
    I believe the southern route to be the best, in spite of the troubles of blight and the technical problems, because it has the least effect on agricultural land. It is important that all these issues are tied together—Whiddon Down and Tongue End, developments by the commission, and the bypass.
    I cannot agree with the minority, but I have considerable sympathy with those holding that view because of the impossible positions of many of them. I could quote at length from their letters expressing their strong feelings. I should like to quote a letter from the secretary of the action committee. He makes what he calls three points of principle. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could reply to them tonight, but I should like his assurance if he cannot do so that he will write to me. The letter says:
    "We should like to know the difference in cost between knocking 14 houses down (Park View Terrace and Mount View properties) where excavation and levelling would already have been accomplished and the preferred route which is far from level and encroaches further in the national park. The former suggestion would also mean road and rail would really be together."
    The letter says that the second "point of principle" is:
    "The preferred route is not the same as the green proposed route and many people in Okehampton feel cheated that the route which they voted for has been altered to such an extent. Is this fair or even legal?"
    He says that it certainly "smells of sharp practice". I do not believe that, but that is the view of some people in Okehampton.
    The letter adds thirdly:
    "The proposed route between Whiddon Down and Tongue End has been re-surveyed to comply with the Sandford Report which recommended major trunk roads to avoid national parks. On this basis, then, the Okehampton bypass 'preferred' route must be reconsidered in the light of 'reasonable alternative means' to the north of the town."
    This is serious for those who are affected by planning blight. The Ministry has stated a preferred route. After six months or a year will the Ministry, because of the Sandford Report, take some action between Whiddon Down Cross and

    1829
    Tongue End and change the route again? Once again this will cause uncertainty and blight. That is what the secretary of the action committee, Mr. Jeremy Stephens, thinks about the position.
    I should like to quote a very sensible letter that I received from Mr. John Newton. Writing on 1st October, he said:
    "Until the 3rd of September we thought we had sold the house. The intending purchasers knevs, of the original 'green route' and agreed with us that we were right in voting for it. However, since the commencement of the proposed modified 'green route' they have withdrawn their offer and we are left in the unenviable position of having to sell a house which now has a massive planning blight and a Company which quite obviously is pressing me for a quick removal to Eastern England."
    In other words, Mr. Newton has had to move his job to the east of the country and wants to sell his house. He is in a difficult position.
    My constituent continues:
    "In the present economic difficulties there would appear to be little hope of the road being built for at least ten years. Even if the present building plan was maintained I understand that I would have to wait for twelve months after completion of the road before the question of blight compensation can be considered which would make it 1982 before I could move.
    I am hoping there is some way in which people who are affected by the proposed road plans can be helped. At the moment I seem to be on a 'hiding to nothing' ".
    That shows how strongly people feel about these issues. My constituent has had to move to the eastern counties because of his work. That means that he cannot sell his house and that his family is split up. His is not an isolated case. This situation occurs throughout the country and it causes serious hardship to many families. The constant delays and the cutting back in the building of roads by the Government means that people will continue to suffer for many years.
    In his letter to me of 8th November, the Minister stated:
    "We will make a decision as quickly as we can but it may be a few years yet."
    It will be a few years before the decision is made, but then how long shall we have to wait before the road is built? In the meantime, the blight problem continues.
    What can be done to help in these circumstances? Having been a Minister myself, I know how difficult such situations are. However, I shall put to the
    1830
    Minister one or two points that could help decisions to be speeded up. Of course we want consultation, but we must speed up the decisions. Once a route for a road has been agreed, it should be finalised and not changed. In the case of Okehampton adjustments could be made that would save some of the affected houses. On the Okehampton bypass that could be done by straightening the route, which would cost less than paying full compensation to the owners of many of the houses that are to be knocked down. It would cost little to straighten out the route.
    We should have more flexibility over blight compensation. Even drawing the line 100 yards back from the edge of a new road would be a considerable help to those affected. That is known as fringe blight, which is often just as bad as blight itself. When one is affected by fringe blight, one receives nothing, but when one is affected by blight, one receives compensation. The Government should consider compensating those affected by fringe blight.
    Outright purchase before a road is built would help those who are seriously affected by fringe blight. Such people—and there are many like my constituent throughout the land—are getting a raw deal. If it is in the interests of the community at large to have major road improvements and blight or fringe blight is caused, the community should be more helpful and generous in dealing with the problems of those affected. Each case must be judged on its merits. Where families are seriously affected and homes are broken up because the father has to move away to find work, we should be more helpful and generous.
    I have made my case to the best of my ability and I am grateful to the Minister for listening so attentively. I hope that he will answer my questions if not now in a letter explaining the situation to my constituents in the Okehampton area.
    11.45 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) for giving me the opportunity to speak about the proposed route of the Okehampton bypass and the problems of blight that are associated with it. The hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in these matters to judge by the volume of

    1831
    correspondence alone, quite apart from the Adjournment debate that he has initiated. If I cannot answer all the questions he has raised in the short time that is available, I undertake to answer them by letter.
    I reply specifically to the questions that he raised from correspondence with the secretary of the action group. The first of the three questions was about the cost of 14 houses. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that as I do not have the specific figures at hand. As for the green route, which was the southern route to Okehampton, and the extent to which it was changed post consultation, my understanding is that it was changed largely as a result of suggestions made during the consultation exercise, which were improvements to the route from an environmental and amenity point of view. There was a genuine effort to take those factors into account. I hope that there have been improvements in many cases. Certainly it was not changed other than to take account of views expressed in the consultation exercise, which was particularly keen and thorough. Indeed, it was a model of its kind in many respects—for example, the uptake of questionnaires.
    Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we shall change the Okehampton route in the same way as the other route is being reconsidered further east. The answer is "No". We shall stick with the route we have, which we have announced as a preferred route. We are happy to get on on that basis. I do not think that one route affects the other.
    The hon. Gentleman asked why we should reconsider the route that affects South Tawton and that particular stretch of road if the inspector said at the original inquiry that it would be more expensive to have an alternative route and that an alternative would have disadvantages. the point was that the inspector drew very narrow boundaries within which we could reconsider the route. He suggested that the examination should be limited to the length between the River Taw to the west and Ramsley Stream to the east of the village. The alternatives we are considering are of a rather wider band and bring into possibility the construction of an alternative route that is no more expensive than the existing route. I think that
    1832
    gives us a wider remit to consider a more satisfactory route.
    What is the real reason for our reconsidering this route? I think the answer is that the Sandford Report came out after we had fixed the initial route. But, in view of the Government's commitment to revise their routes in the light of the report's findings, I do not think we could have gone ahead and ignored the report when we publicly admitted to its findings in the case that we are considering.
    The Government would have justifiably been open to criticism at a public inquiry if they had made no attempt to look at the route again, especially in view of the impact on the village of South Tawton, which is a beautiful little village and well worth doing all one can to preserve from an environmental point of view. That is the real reason and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts it. There has been an honest effort on the part of the Department to carry out as speedily as possible the work involved in considering the new route. I have told the hon. Gentleman in correspondence that we shall press ahead with all possible speed.
    We are aware of the anxieties of the local community about blight as well as the eventual site of the road. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and issue a Press notice as soon as we have reached a decision, which I hope will be very soon. The aim for the bypass is to publish draft orders under the Highways Act. Another public inquiry would then be held early in 1978. If there is to be a change in the line between Tongue End Cross and Whiddon Down, revised orders will be published and a joint public inquiry will be held. We shall do that as soon as possible.
    M r. Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there will have to be another public inquiry?
    Mr. Horam: If the route were revised, there would almost certainly have to be another inquiry. There might be objections. There will be no public inquiry if there are no objections. If there are objections, there will have to be a public inquiry.
    I turn now to planning blight. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in the recent transport policy debate, we fully appreciate the anxieties of those who find that their homes and

    1833
    community are threatened by proposals of this kind. Inevitably, we have great sympathy for those who are overshadowed by the cloud of uncertainty.
    The fundamental problem, not peculiar to this particular scheme, is one of striking the right balance in the public interest between, on the one hand, full disclosure about the possible lines of route for new roads to enable the public to participate meaningfully in decision-making and, on the other hand, the uncertainly caused in the property market and the anxiety or, in some cases hardship experienced by householders whose property may be affected by the disclosure. I do not think that we can satisfactorily resolve that question. Successive Governments have tried to do it and have made steps forward during the last few years—I can say that in a nonpartisan spirit—but we cannot totally resolve it.
    We try to take decisions as speedily as possible after the consultation procedures. The hon. Gentleman, in the aftermath of the Okehampton consultation procedures, pressed us to reach a decision as quickly as possible. We have had a great deal of correspondence with him on that matter. We did our best, but it was an exhaustive consultation process which required a great deal of time to examine thoroughly all the possibilities.
    The Town and Country Planning Acts, as extended by the Land Compensation Act 1973, provide relief for this type of
    1834
    planning blight in two ways. A right may be exercised under the relevant statutory provisions to require the Department to buy property in advance of the time when it would normally wish to do so, or separate discretionary powers of advance land acquisition may be used. In both instances it is necessary for an expectation to exist that some or all of a property, or of a right over a property, is or might be needed in order to build the road. The law on this point was improved considerably by the Land Compensation Act, but it did not go so far as to alter that basic consideration.
    I turn now to the question of houses blighted by proximity to the proposed southern bypass to Okehampton. With one exception which has been dealt with—the Langham family—the land is not required for the building of the road. Perhaps it can be made plain to potential purchasers of the house that it is not possible for the land to be bought because it is not directly affected by the road. Indeed, I understand that there are several fields between the house in question, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Newton, and the road. I appreciate that—
    The Question having been proposed often Ten o'clock, 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 six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  FRANCE
  FRANCE
  BONN
  BONN
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  HEATON
  HEATON
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES
  GOVERNMENT POLICIES
  TUC
  TUC
  CBI AND TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION
  CBI AND TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION
  PRIME MINISTER (MOTORWAY TRAVEL)
  PRIME MINISTER (MOTORWAY TRAVEL)
  NORTH-WEST ENGLAND
  NORTH-WEST ENGLAND
  NELSON
  NELSON
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (BROADCAST)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (BROADCAST)
  WASHINGTON
  WASHINGTON
  HARROW
  HARROW
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
  SWEDEN (PRIME MINISTER)
  SWEDEN (PRIME MINISTER)
  CBI
  CBI
  MEDICINES (PRICES)
  MEDICINES (PRICES)
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
  MOZAMBIQUE
  MOZAMBIQUE
  NORTHERN IRELAND (IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS)
  USSR
  USSR
  SUMBURGH
  SUMBURGH
  10, DOWNING STREET (KITCHEN STAFF)
  10, DOWNING STREET (KITCHEN STAFF)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
CIVIL SERVICE
  Senior Executive Officers
  Senior Executive Officers
  European Assembly (Electoral Candidates)
  European Assembly (Electoral Candidates)
  Pensions
  Pensions
ENERGY
  Gas Pipes
  Gas Pipes
  Gas Leaks
  Gas Leaks
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Nuclear Reactors (Safety)
  Nuclear Reactors (Safety)
TRANSPORT
  Bedford
  Bedford
  Railway Sidings
  Railway Sidings
  Public Enterprises (Sale)
  Public Enterprises (Sale)
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  M1 (Southbound Extension)
  M1 (Southbound Extension)
  Motor Cycle and Tractor Drivers (Age Limits)
  Motor Cycle and Tractor Drivers (Age Limits)
  M26 (Construction Work)
  M26 (Construction Work)
  M25 (Construction Work)
  M25 (Construction Work)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  European Incoherent Scatter Association
  European Incoherent Scatter Association
  Teachers (Pensions)
  Teachers (Pensions)
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Bachelor of Education Degree
  Bachelor of Education Degree
  Teachers (Physical Education)
  Teachers (Physical Education)
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Victoria and Albert Museum
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Industrial Stocks and Capacity
  Industrial Stocks and Capacity
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Fay Committee Report
  Fay Committee Report
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Beer
  Beer
  Consumer Advice Centres and Price Surveys
  Consumer Advice Centres and Price Surveys
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Milk and Dairy Cake
  Milk and Dairy Cake
  Tomatoes
  Tomatoes
  Poultry (Retailing)
  Poultry (Retailing)
  Rabies
  Rabies
ENVIRONMENT
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Community Councils
  Community Councils
  Bury St. Edmunds
  Bury St. Edmunds
  Rents, Prices and Incomes
  Rents, Prices and Incomes
  Inner City Areas
  Inner City Areas
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Smokeless Fuel
  Smokeless Fuel
  Housing Grants
  Housing Grants
  Elderly Persons (Housing)
  Elderly Persons (Housing)
  Redditch
  Redditch
  Historic Houses
  Historic Houses
  Houses (Maintenance Costs)
  Houses (Maintenance Costs)
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Houses (Construction Materials)
  Houses (Construction Materials)
  Elston Bypass
  Elston Bypass
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Trial Costs (Crown and Magistrates' Courts)
  Trial Costs (Crown and Magistrates' Courts)
  Borstal (Feltham)
  Borstal (Feltham)
  Criminal Trials
  Criminal Trials
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  Crossbows
  Crossbows
  Shot-guns
  Shot-guns
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  International Business Machines Ltd
  International Business Machines Ltd
  Toolmakers
  Toolmakers
SCOTLAND
  Teachers (Primary Schools)
  Teachers (Primary Schools)
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Birth Rate
  Birth Rate
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  College of Education
  College of Education
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  European Assembly (Direct Elections)
  European Assembly (Direct Elections)
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Students
  Students
  Dunfermline College of Physical Education
  Dunfermline College of Physical Education
  Colleges of Education (Lecturers)
  Colleges of Education (Lecturers)
  Bachelor of Education Degree
  Bachelor of Education Degree
  Dundee College
  Dundee College
  Hunterston Power Station
  Hunterston Power Station
  Clyde Estuary (Windscale Leak)
  Clyde Estuary (Windscale Leak)
  Shipping Services (Grants)
  Shipping Services (Grants)
DEFENCE
  Bacteria Sales
  Bacteria Sales
  HMS "Wakeful"
  HMS "Wakeful"
  Chiefs of Staff
  Chiefs of Staff
  Infantry
  Infantry
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  European Parliament (Direct Elections)
  European Parliament (Direct Elections)
  European Parliament (Pay)
  European Parliament (Pay)
  European Parliament (Staffing)
  European Parliament (Staffing)
  Nairobi
  Nairobi
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Northern Ireland Electricity Service
  Northern Ireland Electricity Service
  Citation (Method)
  Citation (Method)
  Republic of Ireland (Talks)
  Republic of Ireland (Talks)
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Safeguarding of Employment Act 1947
  Safeguarding of Employment Act 1947
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
  Payments of Debts Act
  Payments of Debts Act
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Recreation and Youth Service Order (Expenditure)
  Recreation and Youth Service Order (Expenditure)
  Sport and Recreation Organisations
  Sport and Recreation Organisations
  Criminal Charges
  Criminal Charges
  Gas Undertakings
  Gas Undertakings
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Commercial and Industrial Security
  Commercial and Industrial Security
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Betting and Gaming (Duty Yields)
  Betting and Gaming (Duty Yields)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Employment, Costs and Incomes
  Employment, Costs and Incomes
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Budget Date
  Budget Date
  Government Debt (Interest)
  Government Debt (Interest)
  Public Expenditure and Borrowing
  Public Expenditure and Borrowing
  Mentmore Towers
  Mentmore Towers
  Historic Houses and Works of Art
  Historic Houses and Works of Art
  Manual Earnings
  Manual Earnings
  Stock Appreciation Allowances
  Stock Appreciation Allowances
  Sterling Balances (Basle Facility)
  Sterling Balances (Basle Facility)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Departmental Inspectors
  Departmental Inspectors
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Immigration (Indian Subcontinent)
  Immigration (Indian Subcontinent)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Immigration (Indian Subcontinent)
  Immigration (Indian Subcontinent)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  POST OFFICE WORKERS (RELATOR PROCEEDINGS)
  POST OFFICE WORKERS (RELATOR PROCEEDINGS)
TRADE
  Government Aids to Industry
  Government Aids to Industry
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Timber (Imports)
  Timber (Imports)
INDUSTRY
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  Coastguard Service
  Coastguard Service
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Kirkby
  Kirkby
  Chrysler (United Kingdom) Limited
  Chrysler (United Kingdom) Limited
  International Business Machines Ltd.
  International Business Machines Ltd.
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976
  Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Chairman)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Chairman)
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Adopted Persons
  Adopted Persons
  Oxygen
  Oxygen
  Children Act 1975 (Implementation Costs)
  Children Act 1975 (Implementation Costs)
  Drugs (Prescribing)
  Drugs (Prescribing)
  Doctors (Superannuation)
  Doctors (Superannuation)
  Community Homes
  Community Homes
  Westminster Hospital Group (Telephone Account)
  Westminster Hospital Group (Telephone Account)
  Pregnancy Advice Bureaux
  Pregnancy Advice Bureaux
  LIST OF REGISTERED BUREAUX
  LIST OF REGISTERED BUREAUX
  BUREAUX ON WHICH DECISIONS HAVE BEEN DEFERRED
  BUREAUX ON WHICH DECISIONS HAVE BEEN DEFERRED
  Disabled Housewives
  Disabled Housewives
  Tobacco Substitutes and Additives
  Tobacco Substitutes and Additives
  Widowed Mothers
  Widowed Mothers
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
WALES
  European Assembly (Direct Elections)
  European Assembly (Direct Elections)
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits

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

SILVER JUBILEE: SCOTTISH CELEBRATIONS
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name of the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their previous decision, and now arrange that the public celebration of Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee be held throughout Scotland on a single date, instead of, as at present proposed, on a variety of dates during April, May and June in different localities.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the fixing of the public holiday in Scotland, as distinct from the bank holiday which will be designated for Monday 6th June, 1977, is, by practice and tradition, for local authorities to determine. All but two of the authorities have completed arrangements for the additional holiday in their respective areas.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, would not the Government agree that this is no ordinary holiday for the sole purpose of enabling people to have a day off from work but rather an occasion for national rejoicing and thanksgiving and, as such, should be celebrated simultaneously?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government certainly agree with the noble Lord's expression of opinion as it relates to this particular holiday, but they do not have a locus in the Scottish scene in this sense. We have no power to prescribe a holiday.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, does this mean that, for instance, the proposed May Day holiday, which I understand
1272
we are to have next year, will be celebrated on different dates at the discretion of the local authorities?
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, my Lords, It is going to be arranged in the normal manner with each local authority reaching its appropriate decision.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, if the Minister cannot, as I quite understand, direct local authorities in Scotland, could he not perhaps use his great influence to persuade them to have a holiday on only one day, because of the disruption of work in Scotland which is of great national importance?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government consulted with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities informally and it was felt that the traditional arrangements whereby the local authorities concerned should themselves determine the actual date should obtain again in this connection. As I have said, all but two of the authorities have now firmly fixed their dates.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as Her Majesty is starting her official celebrations in Scotland in May, would it not be more appropriate to choose a single day for what should be a joint celebration and not simply choose another public holiday?
Lord KIRKHILL: Certainly, my Lords, a single date can be chosen but the Government have no locus in this regard. The Government have done what they have always done in the past; they have permitted the traditional arrangement whereby each local authority determines its own date.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, does the noble Lord therefore imply that local authorities have the right to dictate in national matters?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, they do not have the right to dictate but the right to determine the date of the holiday.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he ever thought he could get the Scots to agree about anything?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I certainly confirm that I never thought that this Question would be asked of me.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that devolution has arrived already?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, that is another Question.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is it not a splendid thing to find something in which Her Majesty's Government do not have a locus?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as an intervenionist, I do not think I should express an opinion about that supplementary question.

KENLEY AIRFIELD
3.10 p.m.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government for what Service personnel it is proposed to pull down the existing barrack buildings at Kenley aerodrome and to replace them with 100 units of family accommodation; and whether this is the most economic place for such housing.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, 100 married soldiers' quarters will be built at Kenley airfield within the area now occupied by the old RAF administrative buildings which are no longer needed and will be demolished except for those required for Army administration, welfare and amenity purposes. The quarters are required for London Ceremonial Troops who have been short of married accommodation for some time. Kenley airfield is the most suitable available MOD-owned land in the area for this purpose; and the existence of a substantial number of RAF quarters which can be used by the Army makes this the most economic proposition.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, having regard to the fact that the site will be at least a mile from the nearest shopping facilities and with a rather unsatisfactory
1274
bus service, could I ask whether any provision will be made for limited shopping facilities?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that question; but, knowing how efficient are the Army welfare services, I am quite certain that suitable arrangements will be made.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many acts of great courage originated from Kenley during the war in the course of the Battle of Britain? Would he consider making representations to any part of our Services or organisations that is to take over what was Kenley aerodrome for the provision of some small memento, something in memory of those who fought so gallantly from that place?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall certainly bring that proposal to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It seems to me to be most appropriate.

THE ARTS: FUTURE GOVERNMENT POLICY
3.12 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the importance of maintaining the high level of excellence achieved by British theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries and whether they will give an assurance that no cuts will take place in the next three years in the Arts Council grant, taking inflation fully into account.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): Yes, my Lords, the Government are very much aware of the importance of maintaining this country's excellence in the arts, of which they are very proud and to which the noble Baroness has so signally contributed in the past. She will have welcomed the Answer given by my

1275
right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 2nd December that there will be no major changes in the Government's policy towards the arts. So far as Government grants are concerned, my noble friend will not expect me to anticipate the presentation of Estimates to Parliament, and she must await the publication of the Supply Estimates for 1977–78 and the publication in detail of the Government's plans for future expenditure. But in view of the importance which the Government attach to the arts, I can say that I am confident that there will be sufficient resources broadly to maintain the level of Government support in real terms.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the growing anger among those who are responsible for maintaining the levels of excellence in our theatres and orchestras, in London, in the regions, and elsewhere? Increasingly they feel that they are being grossly exploited. I am sure that the Minister is aware that if we add together the grant given to the Arts Council and that for the museums and galleries, they amount to only one-twentieth of the income brought into this country by the tourist trade. In these circumstances, will the Minister come to the rescue of the people of whom we purport to be so proud, by seeing not only that they are maintained, but that they are given more adequate tools to do their job?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Baroness puts me in a difficult position. What she has said is incontrovertible. A great deal more money could be spent on the arts. But the Prime Minister, who is my leader and the leader of the noble Baroness, made it clear on 2nd December that, although he did not intend to make any major changes, he did not feel he was able at present to increase the allocation of the national dividend given to the arts. I agree with my noble friend that a very strong case for doing so can be made. My noble friend Lord Cudlipp's letter which appeared two days ago in The Times put the matter extremely well; but we are subject to overriding constraints, which we all know and which I will not bore noble Lords by going through again. As a member, however humble, of this
1276
Government, I do not feel that I can quarrel with my leaders so long as at least they maintain and do not decrease Government support for the arts. That is what I have said in my Answer to my noble friend.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that in a civilised country a high priority ought to be given to the arts on merit alone, without taking in economic factors? Would he also agree that, far from the Government paying for the arts, the arts are helping to pay for the Government, both in terms of industrial design and of the growing number of people who come here on package holidays, part of the attraction being our free museums and galleries as well as our theatres? In those circumstances, will the noble Lord discuss this matter with the Treasury officials to see whether they could make a fairer deal for the arts?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I have no difficulty whatever in agreeing to my noble friend's proposition. I agree with her arguments, which I have frequently put to my colleagues, and I will do so again. But this is not a question of weakness or strength; it is a question of a national decision. Although both my noble friend and I believe that the amounts involved for the arts would not basically affect the national interest, when they are multiplied by all the other people who are putting up the same kind of arguments—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, did so last week, saying that the amount involved was only £4 million and that would not make any difference to the national problems—it is a different matter. My colleagues guarding the nation's standard of living have to pay attention to this. I will happily put the arguments again—and my noble friend must not think that they are new—but that is as far as I can go.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider asking his colleagues to find a way of exempting all recognised artistic organisations from the 2 per cent. National Insurance surcharge which in the case of the symphony orchestra of which I am chairman—and I declare my interest—is going to add nearly £10,000 a year to our expenses?

1277
We shall find it virtually impossible to recover that in increased charges in the way in which a commercial organisation can.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I will certainly look at this detailed question and discuss it with my colleagues.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the desperate plight of many provincial theatres, quite a number of which are now faced with closure? Will he give an assurance that, whatever allocation is made by the Government, our provincial theatres will receive their due share, and that the major part of the funds available will not be confined to the London area?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. The position of local theatres is an extremely mixed one. Some are meeting trouble; one in particular has just recently been rescued by a fairly large grant from the Arts Council and a still larger one from the local authority. I can quote another instance where the local authority has not come up with the necessary money and there is a problem. Local theatres are not neglected; we are fully aware of the problems that they are facing. The commercial theatre is facing problems, too. At the moment something like two-thirds of the total Arts Council grant is spent outside London.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am in full sympathy with the plea of the noble Baroness for consideration for the arts. May I ask the Minister to draw the attention of the Government to the success of the Pompeii exhibition, where a high entrance fee is charged? The exhibition has been so successful that the organisers have sought an extension. I wonder whether consideration might be given, where possible, to making admission charges for the arts?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness. In the national institutions, since the change of Government, it has been policy not to charge for general entrance; but it is not the policy not to charge for localised
1278
special exhibitions within those institutions. So we have already moved some way towards meeting the point made by the noble Baroness.
Lord FEVERSHAM: My Lords, since the Minister is being so agreeable in his answers to these questions today, I wonder whether he would also agree that one of the reasons why so many organisations are in difficulty is perhaps, as it has been calculated, because the inflation rate in the arts and in organisations running the arts, is running rather far ahead of inflation in general? Therefore, when the Government are thinking about support for the arts being kept going, will they do so in terms of meeting an above-average inflation rate in that regard?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, when I speak of maintaining the grant in real terms, I mean last year's grant plus a calculation as to next year's inflation and an adjustment to meet it. The Arts Council's estimates—I believe that figures of 20 per cent. and 21 per cent. have been mentioned—applied primarily to a period something over a year ago, when Equity succeeded in raising the salaries of actors by some 80 per cent., and inflation was running at between 25 and 30 per cent. At the moment, about 75 per cent. of arts expenditure is in wages and salaries, and these, presumably, are subject to the normal disciplines under which the country is working. But I think there are a certain number of items in this field which are more expensive. The Government are, unfortunately, confronted with a great variety of things which require money, most of which have different rates of inflation. The policy has always been to estimate a national rate, and to calculate on that.

CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
3.22 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which EEC Member Governments have ratified the European Convention on the

1279
suppression of terrorism; and what steps are being taken to obtain the signature and ratification by other civilised nations of other conventions on the suppression of terrorism.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, all the Member States of the European Communities except the Republic of Ireland signed the Convention on 27th January. So far none has ratified. Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify as soon as possible. All Governments are aware of Her Majesty's Government's abhorrence of terrorism and of their determination that joint international action should be taken to suppress it. The United Kingdom has ratified the Hague Convention of 1970 on hijacking and the Montreal Convention of 1971 on sabotage of aircraft, and has encouraged other Governments to do the same. At the last session of the United Nations General Assembly, Her Majesty's Government took part in the Consensus Resolution which called for a convention against the taking of hostages. Within the framework of European political co-operation the Nine have begun preparatory work to follow up the European Council's Declaration of 13th July 1976.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for the reply he has given, may I ask whether he is aware that there is considerable appreciation of the lead taken by the Government in respect of the present Convention? Is he further aware that we are anxious for ratification to take place as speedily as possible and for further steps to be taken in order to ensure that civilised States—I will emphasise that—should have similar conventions ratified, in view of the terrible methods being adopted by terrorists at the present time?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, as I am sure Her Majesty's Government will be, also. I can add nothing to what he has said as to the need for this very useful Convention to be speedily ratified by all who took part in its formation. Hopefully, it may serve as an example to an even wider range of countries.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government could possibly consider that airlines belonging to countries which harbour terrorists should be banned from landing in any country which, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, says, is "civilised"?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Convention to which the Question is addressed does not deal precisely with that aspect of terrorism: nor indeed does the Convention of the Nine, on which we are hoping to agree as a follow-up to this particular Convention. However, I am sure that what the noble Lord has said is ever-present in the consideration given to this vital question by this Government and others.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would be able to convey to the Attorney-General, who has been in Strasbourg at the European Court of Human Rights, the fact that the only country which has refused to sign the Convention is Ireland?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, together with most other people, has taken note of that position.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say whether it is a fact that Ireland has not signed or is it anticipated that it will?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly anticipate that it will in due course. Of course, I could not answer for the Irish Government or for any other Government which may have reservations in anticipation of ratification. I think the Members of the Council of Europe will all sign and ratify this Convention. Seventeen have already done so.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his statement, that it is a well-known fact that this Government abhor terrorism, is a little surprising, because Her Majesty's Government are at the moment urgently attempting to reward terrorists with the government of Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, not more surprising than some of the remarks of my noble friend.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, as a resident of the Republic of Ireland, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the vast majority of people in that country find terrorism in all its forms abhorrent and that the decision of the Government not to sign the Convention on the grounds that it could be considered unconstitutional was very widely regretted?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and the people of Ireland, look forward to an early opportunity of signing and eventually ratifying this Convention.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, may I revert to the second part of the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he can say what steps are being taken by the so-called Front Line Presidents in Africa to suppress terrorism?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not without notice, my Lords, Perhaps the noble Lord will put down a Question on that subject.
Lord COLERAINE: If I can get an Answer, my Lords!

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROAD VEHICLES (REGISTRATION AND LICENSING) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1977
3.29 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1977 be approved, and I suggest that they and the draft Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1977, with the leave of the House, be considered at the same time. These regulations seek a standard charge of £50 for the transfer on request of a vehicle registration
1282
mark from one vehicle to another. They have already been passed in another place.
While the transferring of marks is a subject which seems to excite considerable interest—it has a certain entertainment value—it is a matter of little importance when set in the context of the many pressing issues which the country faces today. I shall therefore make my remarks brief and, I trust, to the point. May I say first, that, the Government have every intention that the facility to transfer a mark from one vehicle to another should continue indefinitely. We recognise that many people enjoy having on their cars marks to which they have a sentimental attachment, or which they deem to be distinctive or unusual. We have no wish to put a stop to this innocent and sometimes amusing practice. That is why we took powers in the Finance Act 1976 at last placing the transfer of marks, which has been going on for over half a century, on a proper statutory footing. But, at the same time, we see no reason why those who wish to transfer their marks should not pay rather more than the cost for the privilege of doing so. After all, the registration and licensing system, which creates the possibility of having a cherished mark in the first place, is, though essential, expensive. If its cost to public funds can be offset a little, that is all to the good. It is for this reason that Section 12 of the Finance Act states explicitly that the charge need not be related to the cost, and it is for this reason that the Government seek a charge of £50 for a service which today costs between £10 and £15.
We do not regard £50 as in any way a punitive price. The market value of a cherished mark—or, to be precise, the vehicle bearing it—may be as much as several thousand pounds, with the average being of the order of £150. The proposed charge is not a great deal in relation to that. The motorist who is fortunate enough in these times to be able to afford a new car every year can afford £50 to transfer the mark at the same time. And the average motorist, who changes his car every three or four years would, in effect, pay about £15 for the privilege of retaining his mark. That is certainly not excessive. It is not the object to forestall potential applicants with a high charge, and I doubt that the number of applications would fall substantially as a

1283
result of this increase. Perhaps I may anticipate one possible objection to the charge; namely, that it represents a ten-fold increase on the present one. That is so. But it must be remembered that the present charge has stood since 1924, when £5 was the present-day equivalent of something approaching £100. This also illustrates that making a profit for the Exchequer from transfers is hardly a new idea and the profit margin in 1924 must also have been a very handsome one.
Some may argue that £50 is, on the contrary, too little; that those who wish to indulge in this luxury, while many cannot afford a bag of potatoes, should jolly well pay for the privilege of doing so; and that a charge of double the proposed figure, if not more, would be right. My reply would be that not all transfers of marks are to new and expensive limousines. In fact, two-thirds of the transfers are to second-hand vehicles, and all makes of cars are represented. Nor are all cherished marks distinctive marks. But there is no practicable way of distinguishing the valuable mark from the sentimental one, or the rich applicant from the poor. A charge which substantially exceeded £50 might be beyond the pocket of a large number of cherished mark holders. In sum, the proposed charge is a reasonable but not an excessive one, and it will provide some relief to the Exchequer in a fairly painless manner. I commend these regulations to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1977, laid before the House on 18th January, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
3.34 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Baroness for so briefly introducing these regulations. I hope that she and the House will forgive me if my speech is slightly longer than hers, because I have not only to express the indignation of myself and my colleagues, but also to speak for my noble friend Lord Belstead who feels considerably perturbed about these regulations; and as the regulations for Northern Ireland are
1284
the same I shall be speaking on both. Therefore I crave your Lordships' indulgence if I speak for him too.
From the noble Baroness's opening remarks in introducing these regulations, it would appear that they involve only a little harmless, perhaps slightly disreputable, personal idiosyncrasy, and a new charge—a mere administrative bagatelle, in other words. And in comparison with certain items with which we may find ourselves involved later this year, when we consider that in all probability we shall be asked to compress what might in other times have been a century of constitutional evolution into a few brief crowded Parliamentary weeks, the insignificance of our business today must appear all the more palpable. However, I would argue that there are certain features of these regulations which give them a considerable degree of importance.
First, nothing which affects the rights of individuals, on whatever matter, is unimportant, and here we have a set of regulations which abrogate certain rights formerly held by the private citizen. Secondly, nothing which affects the purses of private citizens should be lightly passed over by this House, and vigilance on this topic is surely more than ever necessary in our present economic circumstances. Thirdly, anything involving the relationship of Government and trade unions is obviously of some interest and importance. It is my contention that all these three major issues which I have mentioned are involved in this little set of regulations which your Lordships are now considering, and, indeed, that the Government have so mishandled this whole affair as to elevate these regulations from a mere figment of vexatious legislation, a grain of sand in the great anonymous ruck of statutory paper, into an abuse of considerable proportions.
Let us consider the history of this squalid affair. I hope that no one will be so naive as to deny the connection between the industrial action of July last and the new regulations in February this year. I know that provision for increased charges was made in last year's Finance Act, as the noble Baroness said, but their implementation and the new regulations governing future licence transfers followed so clearly after the industrial action at Swansea that it would stretch

1285
credulity more if we were to deny the connection, than if we were to see the new charges and regulations as part of a deal to bring the industrial action to an end.
Why did certain civil servants unilaterally and in breach, at least, of the spirit of their terms of employment refuse to perform part of their duties? It was said that civil servants engaged on these duties were subject to harassment and were even offered bribes. But surely there must be many more civil servants in contact with the general public who are, in the course of their normal duties, harassed bullied and threatened, or who encounter attempts to suborn them. I find it hard to believe that the entire vehicle licence transfer unit at Swansea, all its officials, in a whole year's operation have to face as much aggressive behaviour as the average traffic warden in central London meets in one day. No, my Lords, such difficulties as the Swansea unit has to deal with are part of the job and the officials involved must be prepared to deal firmly and decisively with awkward customers and to repel inducements.
I suspect that the origin of the troubles in Swansea does not lie in the telephone manner, whether blandishing or threatening, of the unit's customers. The Swansea centre, since its much heralded inception, has suffered the teething troubles of any new infant. Thus far, the great increase in efficiency and speed of handling, which was anticipated from this new and expensive unit, has not materialised. Not only that, but the unit possesses, as we know, a large expensive and much publicised computer. The computer has now come to occupy an honoured place in what, if we still had a music hall, would be music hall comedy. I am sure that the generality of computers go about their business and perform their functions in an impeccable manner, but there is no doubt that when a computer malfunctions the attendant possibilities of confusion and confoundment are limitless, with chaos beyond the dreams of even the circumlocution office.
Every now and again—I am sure that, statistically, the incidence is infinitesimal—an old lady in a Suffolk village tremulously posts off her driving licence to Swansea, to receive back a heavy goods vehicle licence, usable in nine European countries and made out in Welsh. The
1286
Press, needless to say, gleefully seize on such instances. The result of a series of highly publicised errors, added to the general public's dissatisfaction with the, thus far, lack of success of the Swansea centre, has, I suspect, seriously undermined the morale of those working there.
Low morale is a prime breeding ground for malcontents, and it may be possible that in the civil servants' trade union malcontents are considerably overrepresented. But the responsibility for this lies directly with the Department of Transport. It may very well be that the problems of morale at Swansea required firm and sympathetic handling and that the management at the Centre needed to be stiffened and encouraged in their endeavours to sort out this dispute. All of these steps should have been initiated by the Minister and his Department. Instead, not only was nothing done but the Minister's attitude almost encouraged the persistence of the action.
Our debate today ostensibly concerns only the new charge for these transfers. The regulations are made by ministerial edict and are not subject to Parliamentary review. However, I hope that your Lordships will agree that we can reasonably discuss the sandwich's contents as well as its price. I am afraid that the content of these regulations seem to be so designed as to make it extremely difficult to effect number transfers in future. In particular, it will be difficult for motor vehicle dealers to continue with their practice of using distinctive number plates as a form of advertising. In future they will be unable to transfer such plates until they have been on the same vehicle for nine months. Motor showroom display vehicles have a service life of only four to six months. This means that this form of commercial advertising, which has been practised for many years, will now be impossible. To add further burdens to the difficulties of the motor trade during a period of major economic difficulty is quite injustifiable and shows gross insensitivity, I suggest, on the part of the Government.
Also, transfers between different classes of vehicle will no longer be possible. This is a further needless annoyance masquerading as a regulation. In particular, many persons, especially dealers in these number plates, used to keep them in

1287
suspended animation between transfers by transferring them to mopeds. Now that these new regulations have come down like an iron curtain, apparently these number plates will remain on mopeds in perpetuity. Nor does this restriction affect only dealers. Why should anybody be debarred from transferring a number plate from one class of vehicle to another? What harm can possibly come from such a transfer? What possible grounds are there for preventing it?
As regards the £50 charge, it is of course right that those cherished number plates should not be a charge on the revenue, but that does not necessitate or justify a 250 per cent. profit. There have been a few highly publicised cases of these cherished numbers changing hands for large sums of money. We are no more justified in assuming from that that the average cherished number plate owner is a very wealthy man or woman than we would be justified in assuming, from the few, very highly publicised cases I mentioned earlier, that the Swansea Vehicle Licensing Centre misdirects all its licences.
Many of these cherished numbers are passed on from father to son in the same family. Many others are kept by the same motorist and transferred every time he or she changes his or her car. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us what proportion of these vehicle number transfers do not involve a change of ownership. She very kindly told us that this involves two-thirds of second hand vehicles; but, if possible, I should like to know the proportion of new ownership. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us what possible justification there is for raising even more money from ordinary motorists. After all, many of these transfers also involve the purchase of a new motor car—on the noble Baroness's figures, one-third. The man buying a new motor car is already paying 14.5 per cent. of the cost of that car in taxes. Why on earth should he have to pay more? That cost would normally include the number plate.
The private motorist, we must remember, contributes at least £800 million a year surplus to the Exchequer after paying his contribution to the roads programme, and if you include road haulage vehicles it is £1,000 million a year surplus. Yet
1288
this Government persist in regarding the motorist as a perpetual ram in the thicket, to be sacrificed whenever it is necessary to raise more revenue. The motorist is paying through the nose for his motoring. Why should he have to pay still more for his cherished number plate?
Would it not have been more reasonable to fix the charge at a lower level—say £20, allowing a profit—but to abandon these restrictive regulations? The regulations will have the effect of drastically curtailing the number of transfers. If they were scrapped, the volume of transfers would increase and more revenue could therefore be raised. There is no more unpleasant way of raising money than to impose an expensive monopoly and to complicate the natural process of supply and demand.
There seems, indeed, to be a measure of confusion as to the purpose of what I regard as an exorbitant charge. It was widely and not unreasonably assumed that it was an attempt to kill off such transfers in future by making them prohibitively expensive. In the debate in another place the Under-Secretary denied that he had any such intention. He said, if I may quote his words:
"It is not the intention to drive would-be applicants away with a high price. I should be surprised if the number of transfers fell dramatically as a result of the increase in price".
However, later in the debate a document was produced. The Under-Secretary did not deny the authenticity of that document, which gave a very different interpretation of the previous Minister's motives. According to the document, the then Minister of Transport had told the Swansea Vehicle Licensing unions before 29th July last that, while he could not attempt, for political reasons, to abolish the cherished transfers in the present political climate, his Department preferred to reduce the workload by increasing the charge to the public. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness which Minister is right? Perhaps she can dispel our scepticism. I would urge the Minister to ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to reconsider both these charges and these regulations. The charges are not justified. They represent a profit, as I have said, of over 250 per cent. On that subject, I should like to know more about the calculations by which the figure of £10 or £15 for the cost

1289
was arrived at. Is it seriously suggested that if these transfers were to cease some civil servants would lose their jobs? If the civil servants are to be employed, anyway, why are they charged, as it were, to the cost of the transfers?
Equally, why is it necessary to institute a costly system of vehicle inspection? If the new regulations were liberalised, would it not be possible to dispense with inspections, thus cutting the cost still further, especially on the receiving vehicles which are usually in better nick? There are, after all, only 300,000 of these numbers. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us how many of them change hands every year. She gave various guesses, as I have done. Assuming that they change hands every three years, which was the figure that the noble Baroness gave, that would give us 100,000 transfers a year, or 2,000 a week, which, when one considers that the Swansea Centre employs 3,000 persons, does not seem to be an excessive workload. I have had four cars in the last 25 years, which works out at one car every six and a quarter years; and the ratio is still increasing because I have not changed my fourth car. So perhaps the figure for number plate changing is even less. Not that I go in for these cherished number plates; I have no feelings about the subject, although I am in favour of those who do. I hope that the noble Baroness will urge on her right honourable friend that at least in cases involving no change of ownership relief should be given in the matter of profit-making fees.
It is not part of my duties to urge self-interested caution on this Government. However, may I offer them some disinterested advice on this occasion. I remember a Labour Minister who, many years ago, expressed some strong views on the subject of cheese. She said that she did not see why anybody should want to buy any other cheese than Cheddar or mousetrap. I am sure that many people are in practice very happy with such a choice. I thoroughly enjoy Cheddar; it has the most splendid taste. However, I can vividly remember the annoyance that was widely felt after this statement, denying people the pleasure of a variety which, after all, is the spice of life. We might remember that that Government did not long survive this Minister's remarks. There is no doubt that little
1290
things, trivial circumstances, can have a quite significant influence on public opinion.
We live in a world which is becoming steadily more uniform. There are many who feel that personal choice and personal freedom are becoming increasingly restricted. While nobody can argue that cherished number plates are a very significant part of personal freedom, nobody should underestimate the possibility of our fellow citizens strongly resenting any interference with their harmless personal idiosyncrasies. One frequently sees in the streets around Westminster embassy and high commission vehicles with the first three letters of a country's name and a low number. If diplomatic missions can indulge in this harmless vanity, why should not private owners also do so without being unduly penalised? The Government may well find that cherished number plates will loom surprisingly large. As I have said, trivial issues can affect electoral fortunes. I hope therefore that even if the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend are deaf to the arguments of personal freedom and personal choice, and are determined to override these in pursuit of new regulations, new charges and new impositions on the hard pressed motorist, a certain caution, a certain memory of cheese, perhaps, will make them think again.
3.51 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has said practically everything that can be said on this matter probably rather better than I could have done, so I will make my speech even shorter than I had intended. I suppose that in these days of rising costs we should welcome the fact that the charge is only £50 and not £100. But just because having a cherished number is not a necessity of life like bread, is it really an adequate reason to increase the cost of transferring it by 300 or 400 per cent? I ask myself, why should the individual be penalised over this?
I was very happy to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, saying it was not the Government's intention to do away with the transfer charges for number plates, but I was most unhappy to read what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said in the other place, as

1291
reported in Hansard for 24th January at column 1104, namely, that he would have much sympathy if the whole system were abolished. Unless I misread it, that is down in black and white and it seems to be a slightly divergent opinion from that expressed by the noble Baroness.
I would humbly suggest that the charge should match the cost, and should the cost increase as inflation rises then the charge would be increased accordingly. But the main problem in regard to these regulations is that they make it increasingly difficult for people to change, whether they now have their own number or wish to get one. I should like to consider the hardship caused, despite the fact that it is said not to be a hardship. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, in the case of demonstration models, which will have an agreement between manufacturers and dealers, the cars are six months old. A lot of legitimate advertising will be done away with if the car has to be nine months old, and this will affect trade adversely. That does not seem right. Similarly, should a vehicle be written off or destroyed—it may be stolen or it may catch fire—one cannot then have the number changed, because obviously it cannot attract a Ministry of Transport certificate to the effect that it is fit to be driven.
I have been given to understand that some of these points were never really given a fair hearing with certain relevant interested parties. I believe that most of the consultations that the Government had were with the staff associations at the Licensing Centre in Swansea; the Road Haulage Association, who I really do not think have a great interest in this; the Freight Transport Association, who again, I should have thought, had no great interest; the Automobile Association, who I think agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and myself; the SMMTA who have similar sentiments; the RAC, who consider the whole thing a dangerous precedent for future licensing legislation.
But who was not consulted? Perhaps that is a little more relevant. The Motor Agents' Association Limited was not consulted. In fact all that organisation received was a note from the Government saying that there was not enough time to
1292
consult them. I agree that a cherished numbers dealers association does not exist and that may be their own loss. But it is estimated that there are 300,000 of these motorists in this country. Surely they could have been consulted in some way?
I do not want your Lordships to think that the Government should not have consulted the staff associations at Swansea at all, because they most certainly should have done; but I think they should also have consulted other people who were interested. I do not have a cherished number; but if a private citizen wants to have one, why should it be made more and more difficult for him or her to do so? Except in certain circumstances, we can still paint our houses and our front doors in different colours.
The British people elect their Governments—some may say misguidedly on occasion—but this does not give any Government the right to be dictatorial just because they are being dictated to by the Civil and Public Service Association and the Society of Civil and Public Servants. That is my humble opinion. In most States in America if you want to register a car, you can choose three numbers and, provided they are not immoral or obscene and they have not been taken, you pay your money and you get one of them.
Again, why should it be necessary for both vehicles to be licensed—the donor and the recipient—and furthermore both licensed under the same schedule or class? I believe the oldest number in Kent is "D 1" and that is on a moped, where it will remain for ever more. I really do not see why it should. Although the noble Baroness said this, may I remind noble Lords that the majority of people who have these cherished numbers are not Rolls-Royce or Bentley owners; many of them are owners of motorcycles who graduate to a car and wish to change their number. They are the people who will suffer hardship. There is a lesson here for us all to learn: that if the Government charged a little less, as the noble Lord said, more people might use the facility and therefore more revenue could be produced. Also, if a citizen should dispose of his car and cannot immediately get a replacement, why should he lose his own number which he has had for years? That does not seem right.

1293
My last point is that I believe it is forbidden for a newer vehicle to have an earlier suffix, by which I mean the letter which comes after the number, denoting the year of original registration. Surely today this has become invalid because the computer at Swansea will refuse to issue a tax disc to an owner unless he can produce the MOT roadworthiness certificate. And to say that it helps the police is really out of date, because within a minute and a half the police can today find out who is the owner of a vehicle. This is done by a wireless call and a telephone call.
It seems that the difficulty here must be laid fairly and squarely on the people at Swansea, who for some inexplicable reason, do not seem to want to deal with cherished numbers. Unless the noble Baroness can convince me to the contrary, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Under-Secretary of State when he says the rules were specifically designed to protect the bona fide possessor of a cherished mark. To me this is yet another encroachment, however small, on the freedom and liberty and individuality of the British citizen or, to put it another way, perhaps yet another small victory for bureaucracy as it remorselessly continues its advance in trying to turn us all into a nation of monastics.
3.59 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I hope the House will not look at me in trepidation. I listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and I listened to the splendid speech made by the noble Lord, the first Baron of Britain, whose noble ancestor stands in effigy in the corner of this House at the present moment and who stood by the side of King John in his battles and at Runnymede when he made him sign the Magna Carta. Therefore I applaud the effort of the first Baron of England to stand up for the liberties of the individual.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Stedman, first, what effect this will have on trade plates? Secondly, is my noble friend aware of the vast columns of numbers in the Sunday newspapers and certain magazines? These number plates are a marvellous avenue for sale and exchange, doing a little on the side, increasing the inflation in society. They are very expensive to buy. This is the
1294
complexity of modem life. In a kind of way, the noble Lord is right to raise a brouhaha about this. I am on his side in this case. Does this interfere with the individual's liberty? I do not think so. When we grumble about the price, Heavens above, my poor old granny would roll in her grave if she thought the black sheep of her family, myself, had to pay the modern 6½p for a piece of bread and butter in the cafeteria of the House of Lords. This is about Is. 5d. for one piece of bread and butter. What is the matter with the noble Lord? Bread and butter is much more important than a number plate. The inflation in the price of bread has definitely increased more than that of a number plate.
I must tell the noble Lord that, when his great ancestor was in France and by the side of King John, on the other side of him was the noble ancestor of Lord Salisbury. And what did Salisbury say to King John? I will tell him—just as I can tell him what Gladstone said in 1884. What Salisbury said to King John was this:
"To gild refinéd gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taperlight
To seek the beautiful eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous."
The extent of the noble Lord's speech and the extent of his protest, despite his insistence on the fight for liberty, reached a little excess.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am not going to recite poetry to your Lordships. We are living in a country with over 1¼ million unemployed, with prices of every item of ordinary everyday life increasing, with the prospect before us of grave problems to be hammered out in connection with the next wage increase, with the country split from top to bottom on how much we should spend on defence. When we have to take into account the fact that we have to spend four hours or more later tonight on discussing the very important Criminal Law Bill, surely we ought not to go on with this debate much longer. Naturally, I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and the support he received from the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. I could see what their cherished number plates would be—

1295
MOW in one case and KIM in the other. My noble friend Lady Stedman explained this matter very carefully, very fairly, very temperately in her opening speech. It is not fair that the ordinary motorist should have to bear some of the excess overhead costs of this particular sub-department of the licensing department in Swansea. I think we have discussed the matter long enough. Cannot we have a vote?
4.4 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sorry to upset the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, if we continue. I would start where the noble Baroness's right honourable friend had to stop, at the beginning of January in the other place, when he said he hoped these number-plates would bring an element of gaiety and pleasure. Unfortunately, he could not continue because time was up. Even if the noble Baroness has not explained just what gaiety and pleasure the Department of Transport were going to bring to somebody, thank goodness that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has enlivened our afternoon with a great deal of lighthearted gaiety.
It is perhaps on this point that we could dwell. There is no doubt that the increased charge and the new rules applying to the transfer of numbers are going to have an effect which will diminish the number of transfers. One has a feeling that there are certain forces at the VLC at Swansea that have brought undue pressure to bear in this matter. Whether it is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and his friends to do away with the numbers, I do not know, but certainly any reduction in the opportunity for an expression of individualism is dangerous, particularly as this expression is harmless. We can shortly be reduced to the uniformity and greyness of mediocrity. Perhaps for some people, with a little Morris Minor, a Rolls-Royce or some other kind of motor car, the individual number plate expresses something of that person's personality and individualism, and it should be encouraged. As somebody who deals with these matters, not every day but from time to time, I can see that the price being asked, £50, will not prove to be such a great deterrent. I would find it difficult to argue against the figure.
1296
The only point of argument I would have is this. At the liaison committee's meeting in October when this matter was discussed, those present, so I understand, suggested that a realistic figure might be £20 or £30. This, on anybody's calculation, will provide a handsome profit, and I do not object to that. But it is surprising that between 1st October, when this matter was first raised, and the 7th January no further formal consultation took place. There was the letter to which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has referred, saying that it is proposed that this fee should be £50. I do not really care about the £50. Whether it be £30, £40, £50 or £60, I do not think is terribly important. Time and time again in your Lordships' House, on matters concerned with the motor industry, I have said that there is inadequate consultation. Not three months since a somewhat stormy exchange of words between the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and myself about consultation, we have the same thing happening. I beg the Government to make even more strenuous endeavours to improve the channels of communication with legitimate bodies.
The other point is in regard to the regulations; the change in the rules. God knows why they have to be changed. I believe it is suggested that this is so that some abuses may be ironed out. What abuses? To what degree are the abuses so important that ten amendments to the rules have to be introduced? It is these new rules that bear most harshly upon the people who want to keep the system going. If the staff associations feel that the new proposed rules will relieve them of some harassment, I ask them, "Why should you be harassed?" And I answer, equally from personal knowledge, "Because the system is so grossly inefficient". I have actually seen the three registration documents for one vehicle sent from Swansea, not one asked for nor required by the owner, who is extremely mystified.
My Lords, if there is abuse and big money changing hands in the number-plate business, I assure your Lordships that there is a greater abuse and a greater amount of money changing hands over registration documents. Here, almost God-given, are three new documents—the products of a splendid new, highly technical and computerised centre to deal

1297
with licensing. It is a farce. What has happened to all those who used to be employed in all the local taxation offices, who could deal with all these matters so simply? One could queue for ten or fifteen minutes, be attended to and go away, and that was an end of the matter. They are still in those offices. I do not know what they are doing, but I know that if I want to license a motor car in Southampton, I have to go all the way to Salisbury to do it; or, if it is a new vehicle, wait between six and 12 weeks for the procedure to be gone through at the computer centre in Swansea. It is those things that worry the industry. As my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton said, it is all part of the filling in the sandwich.
I ask the Government most seriously to reconsider the rules. After all, they do not have to come before Parliament to amend them—they can do that at any time in any way they like. The Government must show that they can open the opportunity to those who want to spend their £50. They must show that they want to deal with the motor trade and those people on the periphery of the trade who have to make a living—and it is a reasonably honest living—by having meaningful and proper consultations, and by bearing in mind what the staff associations say. Your Lordships should not forget that motor cars evoke the most strange sentiments in all sorts of people, not only motor traders. There must at least be a feeling that the staff associations do not have everything their own way, but that those who are interested in this particular topic and who have an interest in motoring also have had their fair say. The outcome may, perhaps, be a compromise, but it should represent the full fruits of proper consultation with all interested parties.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I do not own a motor car and I have no personal interest in this matter at all, but I am very curious about the reasons which were given in justification for this charge. My noble friend Lady Stedman said that it was not nearly so much as would have been justified on the basis of the decline in the purchasing power of money since, I think, 1929 as compared with the present day. Does this represent a new Treasury policy? Are all the charges then in existence to be
1298
multiplied 100 times because of the diminution in the purchasing power of money? I am also intrigued by the statement that this charge will represent three or four times as much as the cost of rendering the service. This is also a new doctrine in public finance. Will it be applied to the nationalised industries and many other services?
4.15 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this has been a very good-tempered debate and a very conciliatory one in many ways. I, personally, have no complaints at all about those who want to have cherished number plates, and indeed one of the pleasures that I get locally is of seeing the number AAA 1. It is the number plate belonging to the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, who is not present in the Chamber, which recalls by its initials his tremendous athletic prowess and the contribution which he made to this country. Earlier today I heard one noble Lord say that he did not know what all the fuss was about over the payment of £50; he would pay considerably more than £50 if I could produce the number EGO I for him. At least Members of this House have a sense of humour about it all.
The noble Lords, Lord Mowbray and Stourton and Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred to the Minister's statement and the activities of the unions at Swansea. I should remind them that initially the unions wanted to abolish cherished marks altogether. They failed, so the Government cannot be accused of having given in to the unions. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State said in another place that the unions were holding out a political challenge to us and that if it was a political challenge, it had been defeated because the system continued to operate. We hope that it will continue to operate and it is our intention that it should. The industrial action was not the reason for introducing this measure. What we charge for cherished number plates has nothing to do with the legitimate interests of the unions. The unions have accepted that. They played no part in deciding what the proposed figure should be and I give Members of this House a categoric assurance on that matter.
Many comments have been made about the Swansea registration unit. If noble

1299
Lords will send me details of some of the cases that they have raised, I shall be very happy to examine them and sort matters out. However, I believe that the general attacks on Swansea now are misplaced and misguided. We had teething troubles and the Press took jolly good care to ensure that everyone knew we had teething troubles. However, the general performance now is accepted to be good and is getting better. The Automobile Association is now saying that, so noble Lords do not have to take my word for it, they can ask the AA.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I should like to ask whether it is true, as I was told yesterday by a Member of this House who had personal experience of it, that it now takes three weeks to obtain a provisional licence to drive a motor car.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should doubt that, but if the noble Lord will give me the details I shall look into the matter for him. It should not take as long as that. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked about the proportion of transfers that do not involve a change of ownership. Under the new rule, no transfers involve a change of ownership because both vehicles must be registered in the name of the applicant for the cherished number plate. That has always been the rule. How many cherished marks are cherished and how many are simply bought as a status symbol we cannot tell at present. The noble Lord also asked about the number of new cars and, again, I cannot give an exact figure at this time but as I said in my opening statement, abou' one-third are for new cars.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, why cannot the noble Baroness tell me how many of the cherished number plates are transferred to the same owner on another vehicle? I do not understand the great problem. Can she give me that information later on?
Baroness STEDMAN: I shall certainly hope to give the noble Lord that information. I shall commence inquiries tomorrow and pass on the information. If a private motorist wants a special number, he can
1300
have it if he pays for it. It is purely a matter of personal choice whether he has the registration number that is issued when he buys his car or whether he has a cherished number plate.
I turn to the last regulation where the price was fixed at £5 and has stood at that figure since 1924. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch was a little confused about the mathematics of how we arrived at our figure and why we had to up the charge so much. However, we anticipate that the present charge of £50 will also last for a long time. The charge of £5 stood from 1924 until 1977, and we hope that the present charge of £50 will stand for a long time without us having to come back to the House time and again to revise the price either as inflation or as other things catch up with us.
Only 19 civil servants are engaged fulltime on the transfers of cherished number plates at Swansea. The inspection of the vehicles is very simple and no more staff are going to be needed for that, and it is needed in order to prevent fraud. We think that there are something like 50,000 transfers going through the office in any one year. I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the comments that have been made, and I have no doubt that he will take them into account when the rules are being revised.
I am not prepared to make any comments on cheese. I cannot promise the noble Lord opposite that he is going to see an early demise of this Government. The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred to the comments of the Under-Secretary in another place. If he will read the Hansard, he will see that the Undersecretary made it plain that it was his personal view that he would not mind if cherished number plates ended; but the fact remains that the system is going on.
So far as consultations are concerned, there are always problems when you start consultations with people. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the consultations that had been held where those people concerned came away from the final consultations assuming that £25 to £30 would perhaps be an acceptable total. The £50 has, I have no doubt, now been accepted perhaps somewhat grudgingly.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for letting me speak. I think that she misunderstood me. The meeting to which I referred on 1st October was the first meeting. Having expressed a view that the price should be £20 to £30, it is surprising that there was no formal consultation after that time. The matter was finally resolved with a letter from the Department on 7th January saying, "No, it is £50, and we are sorry that there has been no time for formal consultation".
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, and I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this for any future consultations. Again, the noble Lord raised interesting possibilities with the complaints he had about the Swansea office. Again, if the noble Lord would like to let me have details of those complaints I shall take them up and look into them fairly quickly and let him know what happened. The noble Lord also referred to the question of how long he would have to wait if he tried to re-license a vehicle by post. I am advised that you would never have to wait six to 12 weeks to re-license a vehicle by post, and that postal applications are dealt with within two days. If the noble Lord has information to the contrary and lets me have it, again I shall take it up.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek asked what effect there would be on trade plates. There is no effect whatsoever on trade plates. There may be a problem in the future with traders who use cherished number plates on their demonstration models. As I understand it, they usually sell the vehicle after about four months, but they cannot now change the cherished number plate for nine months. This is one of the things we shall have to look at.
We propose to keep the rules under regular review. We propose to have an early review within a couple of months of them coming in to see how they are working. If it is necessary for amendments to be made, then I can give noble Lords the assurance that my right honourable friend will make them and look to see where they need tightening up and where they need to be a little more flexible. It is a question of trial and error for the first
1302
few months, and we hope that before long we shall have got them absolutely right, and that everybody will be satisfied.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness one question as to which Minister was right. The previous Minister in his letter, which the unions quoted to each other, said that he was increasing the price in order, hopefully, to bring down the workload; in other words, to decrease the number of people willing or able to take out these licences. The present Minister seems to be encouraging. His speech the other day in the Commons was encouraging. Therefore, I take it that the noble Baroness has answered by implication that the present Minister's view is the current one.
Baroness STEDMAN: That is so, my Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD VEHICLES (REGISTRATION AND LICENSING) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1977
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved—That the draft Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 18th January, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [Offences made triable only summarily, and related amendments]:
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 40, leave out lines 30 to 38.
The noble and learned Viscount said: We have spent the best part of an hour on business which was, in the course of the debate, described as of little significance. Debates on this Criminal Law Bill have considerable significance. Nevertheless, I think that perhaps we can conduct them at shorter length than the last debate, and I shall endeavour to do so, although on this first Amendment I feel obliged to speak for a little longer than I shall on the others for reasons I shall disclose.
Your Lordships will see that once again an unusual thing has happened. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I, have our names down to the same Amendment. This should satisfy anyone that it is not an Amendment which is affected by any Party spirit, which I think affected our debate on the last occasion in one respect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is unable to be present today, and I have told him that I shall do the best I can to put his case for him. But alas before he departed he did not tell me what his case was. However, I think the case for this Amendment can be put in two ways, and I shall try to put both of them. The first is—and I have had some communication suggesting that there is force in it—that where a man is charged with assault on a police officer, and the police officer is a police officer whose evidence has often been heard and accepted by a bench of magistrates, the man charged should be entitled, if he thinks fit, to ask for trial by a jury.
I am not suggesting in any way that there is any bias on the part of magistrates or any leaning towards the prosecution, but I think it cannot be denied, as I said in our recent debate, that it is only human that if you have once heard a witness give evidence and you believed him you are inclined to believe him again. However, there is the complication that at the moment there is no right to go for trial at the instance of the accused in this respect. This may be—and I am putting it forward in this light—one of the reasons for thinking that there should be a right
1304
of going for trial that led the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to put his name down to this Amendment, but it is not the reason why I put my name down.
My reason is that surely in these days we ought to think at least twice before reducing the protection that the law gives to the police. Under the law as it now stands, on indictment someone who assaults the police is liable to imprisonment for two years, or to a fine of unlimited amount, or both. Under the change that is proposed the maximum will be six months' imprisonment, and a fine of £1,000, or both. Not many persons who assault policemen are likely to be able to pay a fine of £1,000. That is what is happening. I feel that there is considerable force in saying that where such charges are preferred it should still be possible to secure trial on indictment. I know full well that assault occasioning actual bodily harm is indictable and that if a policeman suffers harm as a result of an assault there can be trial on indictment, but circumstances may exist where the case, the assault, is of such gravity that although the officer does not suffer harm, it is right that there should be trial on indictment.
The figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in his Written Answer lend considerable support to that view, for if your Lordships look at those figures you will see that in 1975, 546 persons were committed for trial at the instance of the prosecution for this offence; 321 of those pleaded guilty on arraignment, leaving 225 to be tried before a jury. One does not know—one can only guess—the number of persons who would elect trial by jury, if they could, if charged with this offence, but in view of the large proportion of those charged who plead guilty, I should not have thought it was likely to be considerable.
It strikes me as odd that at this time we should make this change in the law, the down-grading of this offence, bearing in mind also that it is proposed in the Bill that assault on a policeman with intent to avoid arrest is left as an indictable offence. It seems odd that there should be this disparity. The purpose of this division of offences is, as the James Report indicates, to achieve greater simplicity in the law and relieve the burden on the superior courts. I doubt very much

1305
whether, if this Amendment is not carried, the burden on the superior courts will be materially affected in view of the figures which Lord Harris has given.
However that may be, I repeat that we should think twice before making a change of this nature. I may have missed it because I cannot claim to have read the whole of the report, but I have not found that this particular change is recommended by the James Report, paragraph 107 of which deals with offences against the person and says:
"There is little evidence to suggest, nor is it our experience, that the time of the Crown Court is being taken up to any significant extent by minor assaults that should properly be tried summarily."
Later it says:
"The evidence of two senior magistrates suggested that some assaults are being tried summarily which ought to be tried on indictment."
The figures which Lord Harris has kindly given us show that over 500 offences of this character were thought proper for trial by indictment in 1975. In these circumstances, I think there is a very strong case for the Amendment on the grounds I have put forward which, I hope, although I do not know, are the same grounds as Lord Gardiner would have put forward if he had been here.
4.33 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: I wish to add my support for the Amendment. The position as I follow it is that, although the general law has been that if there was to be a sentence of three months or more there was a right to trial by jury, there was in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 an exception in the words:
"…unless the offence is an assault."
The result of that was that in this particular instance the law has been a little out of line. The James Report says in paragraph 156:
"Assault on the police is another common hybrid offence which, by virtue of the exception in Section 25(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 to the general provisions of that section, does not carry a right to elect trial by jury."
A case came to your Lordships' House in 1967 in which the effect of the words in Section 25—
"…unless the offence is an assault "
1306
were considered. The paragraph from which I was quoting goes on:
"There is a case for abolishing this offence altogether on the ground that the general assault offences would be adequate to deal with assaults on the police, the fact that the victim was a policeman being an aggravating feature which can properly be taken into account in considering the appropriate sentence."
A little later it says:
"In our view, the present position whereby in effect the prosecution can choose to take the case on indictment but the defendant has no choice is indefensible. Where the case is contested there is often a straight conflict between the evidence of the defendant and that of the police. If there is such a conflict, it can be said that the prosecution has a special involvement in the case and that therefore it is particularly suitable for resolution by a jury."
The James Report is therefore recommending the Amendment which my noble and learned friend has proposed. I should have thought that it commanded great support in many quarters and that it would be only fair that trial by jury should be available in these cases.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I will detain the House only briefly and I will certainly not tangle with the noble and learned Lords who are speaking to the Amendment. I find it deplorable that during the passage of the Bill in this House we have had on several occasions what I can only call a slight suggestion that magistrates are a different kettle of fish from judges. They are a different kettle of fish in one particular, in that they are not professionals and are unpaid, but I challenge strongly the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that they are more liable to display any particular bias when dealing with a case.
Viscount DILHORNE: I made it perfectly clear that I was not suggesting that magistrates were affected by bias at all. I said on a previous occasion that I have a high regard for the competence with which they perform their duties. I made no reflection whatever on the magistrates and I would not do so, but I said—and I regret that the penny did not drop—that if one, whoever it may be—judge, magistrate or jury—has heard the same witness on a number of occasions and has believed him each time, the chances are that one will believe him the next time, whereas a jury will not have heard that police officer once.
Baroness PHILLIPS: The noble and learned Viscount may say that is not a reference to bias, but he has repeated that if one hears a certain witness a number of times one will automatically believe him. That can constitute only one tiling: that one does not come to a conclusion, upon listening to the evidence, with an unclouded mind. I feel that it is important to appreciate that though of course the magistrates hear the same people on many occasions, they do not do so to the extent that the noble and learned Viscount is suggesting. The average magistrate—with the exception of the stipendiary magistrates; and they do not make up the majority of the magistrates—does not sit every day, and I believe that it is important to establish that the transfer of these various cases to the lower courts will not in any way prejudice the opportunities of the man who stands in the dock to get an absolutely fair trial of the highest character.
4.40 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: Those of us who are supporting the Amendment are not in any way seeking to criticise the way in which magistrates deal with this or any other class of case. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that the figures that were produced a week or so ago rather indicated that, for assaults on the police, magistrates acquitted in a rather higher proportion of cases than did juries. There is no complaint about the conduct of cases of this or any other nature in front of the magistrates, whether they be paid or justices of the peace.
The argument in favour of the Amendment—which also follows a recommendation of the James Committee—is that assault on the police is a serious offence and one which, very often and very properly, is dealt with, when it is proved, by a custodial sentence. It is an offence which, of its very nature, almost invariably results in evidence which consists of a direct clash. The policeman says that something has happened; the defendant almost invariably says: "No, it didn't. The policeman hit me first", or makes some defence of that nature.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I should like to make it clear that all cases of assault are serious offences. I only recently had counsel before me who took this line of
1308
argument. He said, "It was only an assault on a woman." This was rather foolish because there were two women on the bench. When I asked him to elaborate, he said, "It was not an assault on a policeman." So he made this subtle distinction. Surely, all cases of assault are serious offences.
Lord WIGODER: Yes, indeed; and there is something to be said for saying that assault on a policeman should not be a separate class of offence, but should be dealt with as a particular type of assault in which a particular person happens to have been injured. The point that I wanted to make was that, where one has a situation where there is a serious offence—and there is almost invariably a direct conflict of evidence—if the trial takes place before the magistrates it is very possible that the defendant will go away with the feeling that some injustice has been done even though the magistrates have tried the case absolutely impeccably. The reason is partly that it may be that the magistrates know the police officers who are giving evidence—not socially, but are familiar with them and have met them on previous occasions in court. Clearly, it is difficult for a magistrate in those circumstances to make a finding that disbelieves the sworn evidence of someone who is regularly giving evidence in his court. That is a feeling that, rightly or wrongly, a defendant may have.
Secondly, there is the fact that very often a defendant on this charge is appearing in a court for the first time in his life and he feels that it is the State which is bringing this serious charge against him and, rightly or wrongly, that there is no independent tribunal to deal with the matter but only a bench of justices or a stipendiary magistrate who, in a way, represents the very authority upon whom he is alleged to have committed an assault. To add a third and, I think, rather complicated matter, it sometimes happens that defendants on this charge are coloured people and it is common experience that, where that happens and there is a conviction, it is extremely difficult to persuade a coloured defendant in particular that there has not been some bias or prejudice, even though we would all accept that that is extremely improbable.
For the reasons of the gravity of the offence and because it gives rise to feelings

1309
of injustice where there is a conviction recorded by magistrates—however properly the conviction may have taken place—I believe that there is a strong reason for saying that people should have the right to go for trial when faced with this charge. I would only add that the Criminal Law Revision Committee is at the moment considering whether the offence of assaulting a policeman should remain as a separate offence. While that consideration is being given, it is better to preserve the present position in which assaulting a policeman is a hybrid offence rather than to downgrade it into a purely summary offence as the Government now propose.
The other observation that I want to make is that I shall not be terribly surprised if, in a moment's time, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicates that some number—perhaps a fairly substantial number—of cases may find themselves at the Crown Court if this Amendment is carried. These would be cases which would otherwise not go to the Crown Court. May I say that I believe that all of us who have been taking part in this debate are very much aware of the fact that when we are debating the principles of the various Amendments we have to do so all the time against the background of the pressure of work on the Crown Courts and the comparative pressure on the magistrates' courts as well as the effect of any particular Amendment on that balance.
However, I find it difficult to see how the Government can at this stage suggest that the Amendment will increase the burden on the Crown Courts when they have, throughout the passage of the Bill, vigorously resisted the very Amendments that would have served to reduce the burden of the Crown Court. I have in mind particularly the Amendments dealing with the prosecution handing over its statements in the magistrates' court—a point to which we shall have to come back in due course—and the Amendments that deal with avoiding unnecessary Clause 1 committals. Had the Government indicated that they were prepared to accept Amendments of that nature and to reduce the pressure on the Crown Court, one would have been prepared to take their contentions on the present Amendment with rather more seriousness than at present one is prepared to accord them.
Lord JACOBSON: The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, mentioned the case of a coloured defendant who might feel that his colour was a factor in the decision: would not this equally be so if he were tried by an all-white or predominantly white jury?
Lord WIGODER: There is that possibility, of course. I think that one's experience nowadays is perhaps that there is a very reasonable possibility that where a jury of 12 people is sworn in—and where there are some seven peremptory challenges available to a defendant—there will be one, two or three coloured people on the jury. That will avoid the problem to that extent but, even where the problem is not avoided in that way, I cannot help thinking that there are some coloured defendants who would have—perhaps quite wrongly—more confidence in the verdict of a jury than in that of justices or a stipendiary magistrate who so obviously come from a different social class and background.
4.48 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: May I begin by expressing agreement with the noble and learned Viscount on two propositions? One is that the issues in the Bill which we are discussing are matters of considerable significance. Certainly, I attach great importance to this one. Secondly, I agree even more strongly in hoping that the debate this evening will be less prolonged than that on the previous issue before the Committee.
Certainly, I recognise the concern that the noble Viscount, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have expressed on this Amendment. I do so all the more because this is one of the few matters on which the Government have not accepted the recommendation of the James Committee. Nevertheless, I think that our decision to provide in the Bill that an assault on a constable should be a purely summary offence is right, and I shall seek to show why. First, I must emphasise, as did the noble and learned Viscount, that the Bill does not deprive any accused person of any right that he now possesses because an accused at present has no right to demand trial by jury for this offence. It is a hybrid offence; that is, the choice whether the accused

1311
should go to the Crown Court rests with the prosecutor and not with the accused. However, although in general any offence which carries a maximum sentence of more than three months' imprisonment automatically carries a right to claim trial by jury, this particular offence is an exception, because of a special provision in Section 25 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952.
Secondly, although it is true, as I have indicated, that the James Committee recommended that this offence should be triable either way, they recognised as an alternative the possibility of curtailing the maximum penalties. At present the maximum penalty on second conviction by a magistrates' court is nine months' imprisonment and the penalty on indictment is two years' imprisonment. These maximum penalties are reduced by the Bill to six months' imprisonment, or £1,000 fine, or both.
Thirdly, I turn to the question of the burden on the Crown Court. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made a point with which I warmly agree; that was that I would be deploying the point that if this Amendment were carried it would inevitably increase the burden on the Crown Court. It would indeed. I do not want to go back over the ground which we covered at some length on the previous occasion, but I think, with great respect to the noble Lord, that he brushed aside the Government's argument a little too briskly. As he will recall, public expenditure of £4 million is not an unimportant matter, and that was the argument which I endeavoured to deploy before your Lordships on the last occasion. I think that it is an argument which deserves serious attention, particularly when in fact Members on all sides of the Chamber, not least some of the noble Lord's colleagues, perfectly rightly call for substantial controls over public expenditure.
The problem is this. If the Amendment were to be carried, it would, in our judgment, impose a substantial extra burden on the Crown Court. In 1975, there were 12,000 cases of this offence, of which 1,400 were committed for trial at the Crown Court, presumably at the behest of the prosecution, though the figures recently given in Answer to the Question by my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker
1312
on 26th January indicated—it is important to emphasise this—that in only 546 of those cases actually tried at the Crown Court was this offence the principal offence. If there were a general right to claim trial by jury, it is inevitable that a substantially greater number of cases would then go for trial to the Crown Court, adding to the very substantial burden with which the Crown Courts are already confronted. We cannot of course put any definite figure on this, but the James Committee thought that it might be fairly considerable. As I have indicated, the consequences of this to Crown Court business could be serious. It would mean that any relief to the Crown Court which might be obtained by transfer of drinking and driving offences to the summary category would be almost cancelled out, and that at the end of the day we would find that we had not given as much relief as we want to give to the Crown Court at all, and that, after all, is one of the purposes of this clause of the Bill. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had already indicated at an earlier stage of the Bill what the consequences of this would be.
The argument on which the James Committee mainly relied was stated in the following terms in the Committee's report:
"Where the case is contested, there is often a straight conflict between the evidence of the defendant and that of the police; if there is such a conflict it could be said that the prosecution has a special involvement in the case and that therefore it is particularly suitable for resolution by a jury".
That was the position of the James Committee. Although inevitably this argument may seem persuasive at first sight, it is rather less so when examined in detail. There is no reason for saying that a jury is a better tribunal for establishing the truth than is a bench of lay magistrates, as my noble friend Lady Phillips has just said. Moreover, the James Committee did not have the benefit of the statistics which were quoted in the reply which I gave in the House to my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, which demonstrated that, contrary to what is often asserted, magistrates are not more prosecution-minded than are juries in relation to this particular offence. The Committee will recall that the figures show that the magistrates acquitted 27 per cent. of those pleading not guilty to this offence,

1313
whereas of the cases which were tried in the Crown Court, the jury acquitted 20 per cent. of those pleading not guilty. Hence the chances of acquittal by either tribunal seem to be roughly equal, though the balance slightly favours the magistrates' court.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was troubled by the fact that a bench of magistrates might have some form of social contact with a policeman who was giving evidence. They might know him socially in some way, and therefore it might be assumed that they were in some form prejudiced. But I say to him that the figures do not demonstrate this at all. I repeat that if one is to make a judgment about whether to take one's trial at a magistrates' court or at a Crown Court, the figures indicate a slight preference, it would seem to me, so far as the accused is concerned, for the magistrates' court. But the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, referred to a further argument; namely, that this would be a serious matter because the police would be deprived of some protection which they already have. This could well be a powerful argument, but on this point I should say that this is not the view of the police themselves. The Police Federation specifically recommended——
Viscount DILHORNE: The noble Lord referred to the Police Federation; were the chief constables also united in support of it?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am coming to that. The noble and learned Viscount has anticipated the point. He will be glad to know that it is a very satisfactory answer that I am about to give. The Police Federation was consulted on this matter, and it indicated that the offence should be classed as summary and should be triable only in magistrates' courts, and the Association of Chief Police Officers was on balance also in favour of the offence being a summary one, carrying the new maximum penalty provided for in the Bill. The Association's reasons for this conclusion were that if the assault were of a serious character, a different charge of grievous bodily harm, or assault occasioning actual bodily harm, could be brought according to the gravity of the injuries which had been inflicted. These arguments seem to us to be fairly persuasive.
1314
The Government have certainly given careful thought to the views expressed about this matter by the noble Lords during the debate on Second Reading, and I have of course listened carefully to the arguments deployed this afternoon. Nevertheless, I remain of the view that the offence of assault on the police should be placed in the purely summary category. We do not think that the issues involved are unsuitable for magistrates to resolve. They are well accustomed to conflicts of evidence, and the circumstances are not usually such as to require the special guidance which only a Crown Court judge may give. Although these offences are very numerous, they are not necessarily in all circumstances serious, and where they are, a more serious offence can be charged. The police support the offence being made purely summary, as I have indicated to the noble and learned Viscount, and although I agree at once that their views should not necessarily be decisive, it is only right that they should be taken into account, as they are inevitably the people at the receiving end of this. It seems to me that the case for proceeding as the Government have recommended is a fairly strong one, and I see no reason whatever to change our position on this matter.
4.59 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I have listened with considerable care to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said, and, for what it is worth, he certainly convinced me. So far as this offence is concerned, as he pointed out, it has never until now been an offence for which the defendant has been in a position to claim trial by jury, and certainly I am not aware that there has ever been a great move to reform the law to bring that about. So one has perhaps to look at this offence as it stands, and devoid of the emotionalism with which sometimes we have in these debates been looking at this type of offence, and ask whether it should be made the subject of a trial by jury at all.
Certainly, in my experience, assaults on the police are nearly always tacked on to some other offence, most frequently a driving offence when an irate motorist is pulled up by the police and then, if I may use the expression, "socks him one". Then there are also cases where the police

1315
intervene in matrimonial disputes and are the subject of violence. There are, then, the now happily rare offences, perhaps, of knocking off helmets on Boat Race night. Taking the point of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and looking at the proposed maxima of penalties, I must say I find it difficult to visualise a situation where the maximum penalties as set out on page 40 will not be sufficient in the absence of some injury to the police officer. One can imagine that, by behaviour on the part of the defendant, there might certainly be a sense of outrage, but certainly not such a sense of outrage that he would deserve more than is set out.
On the question of summary procedure or trial on indictment, I think, perhaps, the less said the better. I always found—and I am sure the position still obtains—that magistrates' courts were well able to try this sort of case. There really is not any difference between a police officer and any other witness. Frequently, police officers come into court in plain clothes, and they might just as well be one motorist giving evidence against another motorist. One takes the point that in certain circumstances the defendant may feel aggrieved, but defendants always feel aggrieved about something—sometimes, dare one say, about the inadequacies of their own representatives.
Lord HALE: Is the noble Earl aware that they nearly always feel more aggrieved when they leave the court than they did when they arrived at it in this type of case of personal conflict? Secondly, does it not occur to him—and I know he has had recent experience—that one of the things we are dealing with is a charge which can be tacked on to another? We have been told that it usually is allied to another when a police officer finds that he has brought one charge which he cannot sustain and may be tempted to add another which is not true but which he is in a position to sustain because he can charge an assault which occurred at a time when there was no other witness available to give evidence.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I hope the noble Lord is not imputing that any of my clients ever felt aggrieved as a result of my effort, because I would be
1316
very hurt at that. Again, if I may say so, the noble Lord is somehow hinting that the standard or quality of justice in the magistrates' courts is inferior to that which obtains in the Crown Court. If that is his suggestion, I refute it; and I am sure he would not really make that allegation. If I may say so, this is the sort of case where, really, if one looks at it perhaps a little more coldly than we tend to on these occasions, for myself, at any rate, I think the proposals of the Government are quite reasonable.
Viscount DILHORNE: We have had a considerable debate on this question, and I have no doubt that we——
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is endeavouring to address your Lordships' Committee. I do not want to interrupt my noble and learned friend, but I do not think he noticed that fact.
Lord GIFFORD: I am very much obliged to your Lordships. I came a little late from other engagements, and I am anxious to take part in this debate and to support the Amendment on a slightly different basis and one which, I suggest, is a more powerful basis than that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. It is not just a question of giving the public greater confidence that justice is being done; it is not just a question of allowing defendants and other persons to see that justice is being done; it is a question of justice being done—and, contrary to what has been said by some noble Lords, there is no doubt in my mind, having seen many benches and stipendiary magistrates at work, that on this kind of offence in particular the quality of justice administered, certainly in the courts of the metropolis, is very much inferior to that administered by juries. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, sees justice done only in her court. I have never been in it, but I am sure it is admirable. She does not see justice being administered in a number of other courts—and some of them are notorious.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I think that, for the information of the noble Lord, I should indicate that I sit at three Central London magistrates' courts, and I deplore the line of argument which is being adopted

1317
here. I think that the noble Lords concerned, who are mainly of the legal profession, should be able to deploy much more powerful arguments than to constantly reiterate this one, which certainly would need some substantiation. The noble Lord has just said, "in many, many cases". I would need a good deal of evidence of a very strong character before I dealt with that kind of statement if it came before me.
Lord GIFFORD: Both the noble Baroness and I can speak in your Lordships' House or Committee only on the basis of the experience we have, re-telling it as faithfully as we can; and I can only say that on this charge of assault against the police, probably more than on any other, I have personally been convinced, so far as one can be convinced, that on a great number of occasions—and far too many to be comfortable—injustice has been done. It is almost always a question of a policeman's notebook against a person's recollection: a policeman's notebook, written up in collaboration with another policeman, as is permitted, some hours after the event in question; a notebook in which both police officers purport to recollect with astonishing precision precisely what happened in an instant of time.
In my experience there are a great number of magistrates' courts for whom a policeman's notebook cannot lie; or, if it lies, it must be proved to have lied. There are many courts where, not merely the untrained client or lay observer but the advocate has the impression that he has to prove the innocence of his client against a case put up in a notebook that such-and-such a particular train of events happened. When one comes to a jury, there is very much more chance of the persons trying the case being able to assess the accuracy, the veracity and the honesty of these witnesses by judging the sort of people they are and the way they give their evidence, and of their being less blinded, perhaps, than some magistrates' courts are, by the uniform. Therefore I say that there is substantial injustice, there is substantial cause for concern, and this is an offence which therefore needs to be tried by jury.
There is another aspect of it. It is not just the casual brush, the assault which does no injury, the occasional contact,
1318
which comes before magistrates' courts on this charge. In fact, the mild assault, the technical assault, the push, normally gets charged as an obstruction. What gets charged as an assault is usually something serious and usually something occasioning actual bodily harm. Only last week, in an appeal from a magistrates' court, I had to deal with the case of a policeman who had weals on his shoulders from an alleged assault—weals several inches long—and yet the defendant had been charged in the magistrates' court only with assault on the police.
Magistrates commonly (and, in view of the severity of the offence, often rightly) impose immediate sentences of imprisonment upon people of good character for offences which ought to be charged as assaults occasioning actual or even grievous bodily harm; and I wonder if my noble friend who represents the Home Office can say whether, in the light of assaults on the police being made a summary offence, there is going to be any new policy that an assault which does in fact cause an injury will be charged before a jury or charged under Section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act as an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, thereby giving the right to trial by jury. It is my experience that a lot of forces limit their charge to an assault against the police for the particular reason of denying the defendant the right to go to trial by jury.
There is one other matter that arises from this Amendment and it is one which I hope my noble friend Lord Harris can deal with. As has been mentioned, in a great number of cases defendants are charged with another offence—theft, driving, damage or what-you-will—and assault on the police. The assault is often alleged to have occurred at the moment of arrest. At the moment, if the offence for which a person is arrested is triable by jury and he so elects, the assault charge also goes before the jury. Under this Bill as I understand it, if someone is charged with, say, theft and assault on the police and wishes to take the theft charge to a jury, only the theft charge will go to the jury. Presumably, the assault charge will be dealt with at another trial before a bench of magistrates. That seems to be unsatisfactory. The number of occasions where there is a linked charge of assault on the police and

1319
another charge triable by jury are very many; and the defendant will have to go through two trials with perhaps different results. I do not see that that is right.
Viscount DILHORNE: The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has raised two interesting points neither of which arise under this Amendment. If this Amendment is carried, it does not give any right of election. The joining of offences for trial together or separately does not arise on this Amendment. With regard to the latter point we might—and ought to—have a useful discussion later to see how this procedure will work. But I do not think it need be done on this occasion.
I had hoped when I moved the Amendment that it would not take too long and that is why I intervene now. I had hoped that I had made it clear at the beginning that I was seeking to put forward every argument that could be put forward in support of it. I am sorry that in doing so I incurred the wrath of that valiant defender of the magistracy, Lady Phillips. The last thing that I wished to do—and I do not think I have ever done it—was to attack the competence and fairness of magistrates. They do their very best. Of that, I have no doubt—and they are nearly always right. But it is a long time since I practised in the magistrates' court. I think it is something like 40 years ago since I last did so.
In those days—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, would probably express the same opinion—I would have no hesitation in advising a client whom I thought had a chance of acquittal—perhaps not a very good chance—to go for trial rather than to be tried by the magistrates. It may be that I was quite wrong or that if I gave that advice today I would be quite wrong. But Lord Gifford's speech indicated that, despite the statistics produced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, there are some at least who think that there is still force in that view. We could discuss that backwards and forwards and at considerable length and I do not think that we should ever come to an agreement on it despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, would say and however much she would lecture us because she might think there was an implied attack on the magistracy.
1320
That was not the reason why I myself put forward this Amendment. I put it forward because I was doubtful about the wisdom of lowering protection for the police at the present time. That was my ground. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has satisfied me that it is the view of the police that this particular offence can be reduced to a triable offence. I am not sure that it would not be wiser to leave out this provision pending the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. That depends very much upon time factors of which I am unaware. So far as I am concerned, the noble Lord has satisfied me that my fears were not warranted. I cannot speak for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on whether, when he reads this debate, he will be satisfied that I have put the case that he might have put correctly or adequately. Although he may wish to come back to it at a later stage, for myself I would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): Is it your Lordship's wish that the Amendment be withdrawn? Amendment, by leave——
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: No. Why can I not get in?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I do not want to intervene but I think that there was one Member of the Committee who did not agree. If that is so, I understand that under our Rules of Order, the Question must be put.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: That is right. I had thought that the intervention was made after the Amendment was withdrawn.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I only wanted to say one word. I did not seem to be able to do so. I wanted to say that I profoundly disagreed with my own Front Bench. That is nothing unusual for me. I have done that throughout the years and I want to do it now. It is not for any particular reason or owing to what they said, but it struck me during the discussion—and I was in favour of the Amendment—that the Government case seems to rest entirely on what they consider (which they are entitled to do) is the issue concerning the Crown Courts.

1321
They went on talking about the Crown Courts and what the Crown Courts wanted and what the difficulties of the Crown Courts were. I do not see that justice depends entirely upon the Crown Courts. If we have Crown Courts with too much to do, then we ought to have done something about it before. I do not see why I could not get up and say that I disagreed with my Front Bench who again were talking about Crown Courts. I was much more interested in justice for the police.
If the Committee does not want to divide, so well and good. I have been a magistrate for many years and it does not worry me what anybody thinks about magistrates. I always think that magistrates try to do their duty. I try to do my duty. I do not think we want to argue about whether magistrates are good administrators or not. It horrified me that the whole of the case seemed to be on the fact that the Crown Courts are getting overloaded. I know something has to be done, but I would be better pleased with the argument if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, speaking for the Government, and my own side who appeared to agree with him—although I did not—could have found some way of dealing with the problem of the overwork in the Crown Courts. It took us in my part of the world—I cannot say exactly how long—almost years to find even a place in which we could hold a Crown Court.
I wanted to say that and my only way of doing so, apparently, was to say "No" when the suggestion was made that the Amendment be withdrawn. Now I have said it—and I will go on saying what I want to say. I do not expect many people to agree with me. They often do not. But it horrifies me when the real difficulty is the Crown Courts and nobody has seemed to argue on the case for the police.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be agreed to?
Lord GIFFORD: I do not know whether my noble friend will be able to indicate whether the Government have given any thought to linked offences. Will consideration be given to allowing some of these offences to be triable either way
1322
in the case of offences charged with them being elected and going for trial in the Crown Court?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I took note of my noble friend's question and also of what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said. I will gladly write to my noble friend before the next stage.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Offences triable either way instead of only on indictment]:
5.22 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 73;
Page 43, leave out line 22.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a matter which can be dealt with with considerable brevity. It is proposed that the offence of bigamy should be put into the class of offences triable either way. I will submit to your Lordships that that is not a good plan for two reasons. My first reason is that to make this change will not advance the aim that many of us have in mind and wish to further: the aim and purpose of relieving the work of the Crown Courts. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is not in her place at the moment; but may I say that so far as I am concerned my main approach to this Bill is to support taking work away from the Crown Court and to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and her colleagues, to accept more work. Nothing that I have said has at any time involved any criticism of the work of justices. I will therefore submit that it is not a good idea to make this change first, as I have indicated, for the reason that this will not materially advance the aim that is in mind—namely, the aim of relieving the Crown Courts—and secondly, apart altogether from that, this proposed change is one that, from the public point of view, is undesirable.
May I remind the Committee in regard to the offence of bigamy that until fairly recent years that was an offence that always went to what we used to call the assizes. It was always an offence that came before a High Court Judge, the "red Judge". Why was this? It was because it has always been regarded as an offence of gravity.

1323
Then some years ago there was a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Streatfeild. They produced, if I may respectfully say so, a most valuable report. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was a member of that committee.
As a result of that report the offence of bigamy became triable at quarter sessions. I do not think that the change made has been criticised as being an undesirable one. We know that in the offence of bigamy often difficult legal questions are involved. Some cases may involve questions of law as to the validity of the first marriage; questions as to whether that first marriage was subsisting; questions as to the availability of a defence based on a period of seven years' continuous absence. The offence is still regarded as one of gravity, for the maximum punishment for the offence is seven years' imprisonment.
As I understand it, the number of prosecutions for bigamy in these days is very small indeed. Why that is so I do not know and it does not matter. It may well be that it is as a result of the changes that have been made in our divorce laws, and the dissolution of marriages has been greatly facilitated. Some figures are given in the James Report on offences of bigamy. On page 53 of the Report, at paragraph 118, it is said that in 1959 there were 89 cases. In 1974 there were 27 persons sent for trial for this offence. It may be that noble Lords on the Front Bench will have more recent figures, but that is a surprisingly small number.
Supposing all those 27 were in the category of being triable either way? What would then happen? Each case would come before the magistrates and the magistrates would apply themselves to Clause 20 of the present Bill. They would have to consider the appropriate mode of trial. In so considering it, they would have to have regard to the following matters. I quote from Clause 20 (2):
"The matters to which the court is to have regard under subsection (1) above are the nature of the case; whether the circumstances make the offence one of serious character; whether the punishment which a magistrates' court would have power to inflict for it would be adequate; and any other circumstances which appear to the court to make it more suitable for the offence to be tried in one way rather than the other."
1324
I suggest that it might be an embarrassment to magistrates to have to consider these cases. They would have had little or no experience as benches of magistrates as to what view to form in regard to bigamy cases. They could clearly identify the cases where substantial points of law of the nature to which I have referred would arise. They would at once say that those cases must go to the Crown Court.
But what about the remainder? Is this not too great a burden to put on magistrates who, in the nature of things, do not have to deal with these cases? How are they to form a view as to whether one case is more serious than another? What experience have they to draw upon? It may be said that if there are only 27 cases in a year do circuit judges and recorders have much experience? At least they have rather more experience than magistrates, and at least they would have heard of other cases and known how other cases had been dealt with.
The James Report tells us the result of some of the 27 cases. They say that of the 27, seven received sentences of immediate imprisonment. A further eight received suspended sentences; so that is 15 out of the 27. It may be a reasonable assumption that out of the 27 the magistrates would have thought that 15 must go straight away to the Crown Court; but what about the others? Is it not very difficult for magistrates to decide? May the result not be in the aggregate more total time will have been taken up if the magistrates have to approach each one of these cases, consider the facts, consider the gravity and consider what they think would be appropriate punishment?
One remembers that in most cases of bigamy the plea is one of "guilty". If the plea is "not guilty", magistrates would certainly send the case to the Crown Court. But if the plea is one of "guilty" there are many very difficult questions to be decided as to the appropriate course to follow. May not more time, in the aggregate, be taken if these cases go to the magistrates' courts than if the cases—so few in number—remained as cases to be dealt with on indictment? Under the new procedure now available, they would then go straight to the Crown Court after being before the magistrates,

1325
with the minimum of magistrates' time being taken in drawing depositions.
I submit that in the aggregate there probably would be a great saving of time if the present practice is adhered to rather than that in the first place each of these 27 cases has to be investigated by magistrates. I would therefore suggest that this proposal to put bigamy in this class is not advancing the dominant purpose of this part of the Bill—a purpose which so many of us are supporting—because the major part of the James Report we support.
That is my first reason. My second and last reason is this: What of the feeling of the public? Do the public regard bigamy still as a serious offence or as one which must be considered to be a serious offence? I would suggest that the public do so regard it, and ought so to regard it. I think the public might be rather shocked. If they thought, some years ago, that it was right to allow these cases to go to quarter sessions they may now ask: Ought we to go any further? Ought this offence, so to speak, to be down-graded? Will not the public think, as I suggest they will, that it is really contrary to the fitness of things to include this offence in the group in which it is now proposed to place it?
For those reasons, I hope that the Government may feel they can accept this Amendment. It would do no damage whatsoever to the purpose of the Bill, but in the public mind there would be retained a serious view of the nature of this offence.
5.33 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I should like to begin by making one or two general remarks about Schedule 2 to the Bill; it might save time in the long run. There are a number of offences which, following the James Committee, this Bill puts into the "either way" class. Noble Lords opposite and on the Cross-Benches have selected five, because they are the only five which they think should be moved. The five are really in three different categories——
Viscount DILHORNE: I hope we are not going to discuss the five together.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I am not suggesting that we
1326
should discuss the five together and, if the noble and learned Viscount prefers that I should not make these general remarks, I——
Viscount DILHORNE: It might save time if we omitted them; that is what I was thinking.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: That is something which I accept with as good a grace as I can. The recommendation of the James Committee was that this offence should be triable either way, because although it carries a maximum penalty on conviction of seven years' imprisonment, it has, in the words of the Committee,
"become less seriously regarded than it was ".
That view appears to be borne out both by the considerable drop in the number of persons prosecuted and by the relatively light sentences imposed in most cases. The noble and learned Lord asked whether I had further figures to give. I have one further set of figures: in 1975 there were 18 cases, compared with 27 in 1974. Of those, only seven were given sentences of immediate imprisonment and six were given suspended prison sentences. It does not appear that the offence remains one which must invariably be tried in the Crown Court. That is the point. If, exceptionally, difficult or complex questions of law were to arise in a particular case which might make that case unsuitable for summary trial, the accused would in any case have the right to elect for jury trial, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out.
In the past, bigamy has been regarded as a very serious offence, and conviction carried a considerable stigma because of the social consequences of the crime; but things are very different today, as I think the noble and learned Lord admitted. Up to 1962, the offence was triable only at assizes. It was made triable at quarter sessions by Section 12 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1962, following the recommendation in 1961 of the Streatfeild Committee on the Business of the Criminal Courts, which recognised that the particular instances of the offence can vary very widely.
The James Committee took that recommendation a stage further by recommending that the offence should be triable

1327
either way, and they commented that many witnesses to the Committee had suggested the change. In accepting that recommendation, the Government believe that it represents a recognition of a further relaxation in public attitudes towards the offence, and therefore consider that the time has now come when it may properly be made triable either way. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, this is not an aspect of the Government's wish to move cases from one place to another: there are too few cases for that to be relevant. It seems to the Government, as it seemed to the James Committee, that the level of seriousness of this type of case has declined sufficiently in the public view to make it reasonable that the alternative should be available to the defendant.
I do not think there is more to say about this. It is not a case of crucial importance. In the Government's view, it is an improvement on the present system. If the noble and learned Lord would be content not to press the Amendment, my noble friend could think about the matter again.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I must say frankly to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I am rather on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, about this—and for one reason which I do not think has been mentioned, although it was touched on by the noble and learned Lord. By far the most difficult thing a criminal court has to do, curiously enough, is not to decide, in 19 cases out of 20, whether the accused person is guilty, but to sentence him. That, in fact, is the most complex and difficult task they have to perform.
I do not claim to have a very wide experience of bigamy, but in the course of 50 years I have heard a number of cases in which bigamy was involved and I would make this proposition for consideration by the Government: it is one of the most difficult cases in which to sentence anybody. You have the interest of the maintenance of public justice, with all the implications as to property rights and inheritance which may evolve from an invalid marriage; and you have the question as to whether and to what extent there was an innocent party to the bigamy and, if so, how far deceived and how far the promise of marriage was
1328
held out as an excuse for sexual intercourse, and so on. It is a very difficult crime to assess for the purposes of sentence.
I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I absolutely agree that the attitude towards it has changed in the last 25 years, in my knowledge. Nowadays the offence is not always treated very seriously, and it ought not always to be treated very seriously. But I believe that what it requires, in the vast majority of cases, is an experienced judge who really knows, who has some background upon which he can assess the proper penalty. I want to emphasise again that I am not attacking magistrates. I am a tremendous enthusiast for magistrates in 98 per cent. of the cases. But this is one of the cases where I do not think a bench of lay magistrates would know whether they were sitting on their heads or their heels.
Viscount DILHORNE: The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, arrived just a fraction too late to hear a denial of another attack upon magistrates. I should like to support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said. I do not think that the right test in determining whether a case should go into this Schedule to the Bill is how public opinion regards it. It may be true—I do not know—that, publicly, bigamy is viewed less seriously than it was, but I do not think that that should be the right test or that very much regard should be had to it. Nor do I think that the only consideration is the number of sentences of imprisonment that are passed. Both those things seem to have been the concern of the James Committee, when one reads their report.
I welcome the statement that the Government will consider this again, because it must be recognised that this proposal in the Bill devalues the offence, an offence which I must say—whatever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, may think—I should always regard as a serious offence. It may have very serious consequences indeed for its women victims. Of course, the degree of seriousness alters. The difficulty of sentence will nearly always exist. I stress very strongly the desirability of second thoughts about this proposal, when leaving 27 more cases, some of which may well prove to be pleas of guilty, to be

1329
tried by the Crown Courts cannot make any material difference to the burden on those Courts.
Lord WIGODER: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, one question? Am I right in thinking that bigamy is one of the comparatively small class of cases in which the Director of Public Prosecutions exercises a very wide discretion as to whether or not to prosecute? Am I right in thinking that if there are mitigating circumstances he does not prosecute, and that therefore the cases in which there are proceedings brought are almost certainly likely to be offences of some gravity?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Subject to checking, I think that is right.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything that was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I feel that the Government might well, after reflection, give way on this matter; that it does not interfere at all with their plan of campaign, and that in the public interest it is desirable that this offence should still be regarded as an offence of gravity.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I have promised reflection.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: Yes. I was saying that I recognise that, I acknowledge it and I am grateful for it. Because of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.44 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 44, line 23, leave out paragraph 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: This, again, is a matter that need take up your Lordships' time for only a very short period. This relates to the offence of complicity in suicide. I do not know whether the Government feel disposed at
1330
this stage to accept this Amendment; if so, I need not speak more fully to it. Short of that, may I in a sentence or two indicate why I submit that it is undesirable to have this offence included in the category in the Bill?
We are dealing with the offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of another, or with an attempt by another person to commit suicide. May I remind your Lordships as to the serious way in which the law has regarded suicide? The former law was that suicide was self-murder and it was popularly so called, felo de se, and until fairly recently inciting another to commit suicide in a case where that other person did, in fact, commit suicide made the inciter guilty of murder. One remembers those pathetic cases some years ago, when two persons agreed to commit suicide together and attempted to do so. One succeeded and the other did not, but the one who did not commit suicide, the survivor, was guilty of murder.
That was all changed in 1961 by the Suicide Act of that year, and that Act provided that the rule whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide was abrogated. But there is still this very serious offence which could involve punishment up to 14 years; that is to say, in the case of somebody who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another and so on. When that Act was passed, there was a provision in it that the offence should not be triable in quarter sessions. There was also provision that no proceedings should be instituted, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. But in 1967 there was a change, which eliminated the provision that the offence was not to be triable in a court of quarter sessions, but the consent of the Director is still needed.
How is this matter dealt with in the James Report? I refer to page 60, paragraph 132, under the heading, "Other indictable offences", which states:
"There are a number of other offences which at present are triable only on indictment, but for which the intermediate category would seem more appropriate, although the effect on the distribution of criminal business would be negligible since proceedings are very rarely brought in respect of them."
Then there is a long catalogue of offences, one of them being aiding or abetting suicide. Are we then dealing with a provision

1331
the effect of which would be negligible; and if the effect is negligible is it really desirable to make it, again having regard to the fact that the charge will be preferred only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Would magistrates, if they had such a case, not be likely to say, "The Director has given his consent. This had better go for trial"? Is there really any reason to include this? The effect is minimal—"negligible" in the words of the James Report—and would it not be better and more desirable in the public interest not to say that complicity in suicide is to be dealt with in the way proposed? I beg to move.
5.49 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The case is such a marginal one, in the Government's opinion, that I am not going to produce an argument. I will simply say that, while the Criminal Law Revision Committee did not discuss the mode of trial of this offence in their report, their recognition that the circumstances in which it is committed vary greatly lends support to the James Committee's recommendation that it should be made triable either way. I believe that this is the only argument. In view of the fact that there were only two cases in 1975—one was acquitted and the other was found guilty—and in view of the weight that the Government always give to views of the noble and learned Lords, I feel quite sure that my noble friend will be happy to discuss the matter further. Therefore I do not think that an extended argument this evening will help us very much.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: May I add to that what I said in relation to the last offence. What I am afraid of both in the case of bigamy and in this case is that, in the nature of things, a bench of magistrates has not had much experience of sentencing. In a very great number of these cases you do not send people to prison. I am afraid of an inexperienced bench of magistrates sending people to prison when they ought not to do so. It is not that I want the case to be treated more seriously than it is, but that I am concerned that the sentencing court should be a court of experience and able to distinguish the serious from the venial.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for what he has said. Again I agree entirely with him. Also I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, for what he said, and in view of that I ask for leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 44, line 35, leave out paragraph 22.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment to leave out paragraph 22 on page 44 of the Bill, which purports to make burglary in a dwelling where entry has been effected
"by force or deception, or by the use of any tool, key or appliance, or where any person in the dwelling was subjected to violence or the threat of violence"
triable summarily. I cannot claim that this may not affect a considerable number of offences, nor can I claim that it is not a recommendation of the James Committee. However, I hope that the Government will look again at this point. The offence of burglary is extremely prevalent at present. I imagine that there are few offences which cause so much distress, indignation and, very often, alarm. I will not speak about it, but two old ladies who are neighbours of mine and who live alone were burgled last weekend and it caused them great distress and upset. To make that kind of offence triable summarily seems to me to require very careful consideration.
The James Committee thought—I think the relevant paragraph is paragraph 113—that the arguments were fairly evenly balanced. One reason why I think that this matter should be looked at again is that I understand that the Court of Appeal has recently been urging Crown Courts to pass substantial custodial sentences for this offence, even on a first offender. Eighteen months has been suggested as a maximum sentence. If this offence is triable summarily, the maximum sentence that a magistrate will be able to pass will be six months. Therefore the Court of Appeal, if I am correctly informed, think now that what is required is a custodial sentence with

1333
a maximum of 18 months, and they are even recommending it for first offenders. It seems to me to be wrong that this offence should be made triable summarily and apparently devalued in the magistrates' court. I have put the point before your Lordships' Committee as shortly as I can. I hope that I have made it clearly and that the noble Lord will say, as he said in connection with the last Amendment, that he will defer consideration of it.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I am certain that any person sitting in any court will agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, about the gravity of this offence. But when it comes to the magistrates' court and a Section 1 committal, magistrates commit straight away to the Crown Court. Magistrates do not even attempt to hear a case if serious damage has been done to property or people. It is sent straight away to the Crown Court. That is my practice.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: This is a much more significant point than that which we have already discussed. Although I have no doubt that I shall end by asking my colleagues to have another look at the matter, it is with a rather different expectation of the conclusions to which they may come. We do not know about the number of cases, but we do know that there were 9,249 cases of burglary in dwellings where entry was made by force or deception. However, we do not know how many of those cases fit into this category. Nevertheless, I should think that a fairly large number would fit into it. Therefore we are concerned with a really adverse effect on the general purpose of the Bill.
Lord WIGODER: Could the noble Lord indicate how many of those cases were contested?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not have that figure, I am afraid, but I will try to get it for the noble Lord. The offence of burglary in a dwelling where entry is gained by force or deception was not made triable summarily with the accused's consent in the 1968 Theft Act, although simple burglary was, because the Criminal Law Revision Committee, whose recommendations were
1334
implemented in the Theft Act, argued that the offence is especially serious by reason of being committed in a dwelling; that it was important that burglary in a dwelling should be considered not on the level of petty thieving but as one of the most important offences against property; and that there would be a danger that magistrates would be too ready to assume jurisdiction in order to avoid going through lengthy committal proceedings.
I am glad to say that when the James Committee examined these arguments they found virtually no evidence that magistrates are too ready to assume jurisdiction—so my noble friend can remain seated—for indictable offences. But in any case, as the noble Baroness said, most committals are now under the much speedier procedure of Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. A more important factor which influenced their decision was that experience had showed that the present categorisation of burglary offences had given rise to anomalies. The James Committee pointed out that
"a person breaking a window to gain entry to an unoccupied house…is triable only on indictment, whereas a masked intruder entering a house through an unlocked door—a much more serious and frightening offence—is triable summarily with consent".
Although the Committee found the arguments finely balanced, they were impressed by the volume of evidence they received in favour of all offences of simple burglary being dealt with on the same basis and being made triable summarily with the accused's consent, and accordingly they recommended that the offence be placed in the "either way" category. Those who favoured this course included the Magistrates' Association, the Justices Clerks' Society, the London Magistrates Clerks' Association, the Criminal Bar Association and The Law Society.
Viscount DILHORNE: But not the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: But not, as the noble and learned Viscount says, the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I was making a positive, not a negative statement at that stage.
Viscount DILHORNE: I thought I had better fill it in a little.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: In view of what I have said and the weight of the case, the numbers concerned, the strength of the arguments on the other side—apart from the one which the noble and learned Lord put forward—and the support for it, I will ask my noble friend to look at the point again. The likelihood of his coming to a different verdict from that contained in the Bill itself is not very high, but certainly I cannot say that we shall not look at the point again.
Lord EDMUND-DAVIES: Lest it be overlooked, the noble and learned mover of this Amendment has moved an Amendment which embraces not only (a) burglary but also (b) handling stolen goods from an offence not committed in the United Kingdom. This is dealt with in paragraph 132 of the report. It can hardly be thought that the learned draftsman and members of the Committee were very enthusiastic or confident about the suggestion that this particular offence should be triable either way, for they say, in paragraph 132:
"Handling stolen goods abroad… The Theft Act's exclusion of this offence from Schedule 1 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 followed a recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. We assume that the Committee thought that it should not be triable summarily because of the difficult questions of law that might arise. We accept that for this reason the offence should usually be tried on indictment, but several witnesses have suggested that it should be triable summarily and we do not think that it is necessary to exclude the possibility of summary trial altogether."
Never myself having been engaged in any case—of course I mean professionally—involving the handling of stolen goods arising from an offence not committed in the United Kingdom, though indeed professionally engaged in many which have been the product of an offence committed in this country, I would readily apprehend that there would be most difficult questions of law involved. Whether it was desirable that the matter should be left to the magistrates' court I cannot pretend to be very excited about, but I should have thought that it would be better if it were left as it is.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble and learned Viscount did not speak to this point so I did not answer, but whereas the Government
1336
would have considerable difficulty in making much change in the first part, the second part—as the noble and learned Lord has just said—is a very much narrower issue. The James Committee thought that there would be difficult questions of law, as the noble and learned Lord has said, but they saw no reason why the possibility of summary trial should be excluded altogether. That really is the point. I do not think it is a vital point, but while my noble friend is looking at the much more difficult point, he might look at this, too.
Viscount DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I apologise for omitting all reference to it, but I was trying to keep my remarks as short as possible. I realise that on the burglary point the prospects for my view being accepted are not altogether favourable, but I still think that the degree of pre-valance of the offence should be considered. If I am right in what I have said about the view of the Court of Appeal, our considerations ought to be thought about again.
I do not desire to press either of these Amendments to a Division this evening. One may come back to them again, but in the meantime there may be an opportunity for discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 44, line 44, leave out paragraph 23.
The noble and learned Viscount said: For the reasons that I am about to advance, I feel very strongly that the proposal to make this offence of dangerous driving and causing death triable summarily is completely wrong, and rather than that should happen I would prefer to see the offence abolished entirely.
I must begin by saying something about the history of this offence; how it came to be created and why. One can read the James Report without finding anything said about that or what purpose this offence was intended to serve. Those are matters which occurred a considerable time ago, and no reference is made to them by the James Committee. They are

1337
matters well within my knowledge because I was Attorney-General at the time when this offence was created, and whether I should claim or whether I should admit responsibility for it is a matter to which argument can be directed.
The position in 1955 was that juries simply would not convict of motor manslaughter in the most glaring cases, and when a man or woman was charged with motor manslaughter very often they were acquitted both of motor manslaughter and of dangerous driving. Manslaughter is of course an offence which covers a wide range, varying from near murder to near accident cases, and on a trial for motor manslaughter a judge had—and still has—to give a very complicated direction to a jury about the degree of recklessness or negligence necessary to constitute the offence and on which they must be satisfied in order to convict.
Those directions must have been very confusing to many juries, and I cannot help thinking—and I thought then—that it was for that reason that juries acquitted when it would have appeared to any person on the uncontested evidence that the acquittal was wrong. Another reason may have been the use of the word "manslaughter". So in those days I wondered whether one could not translate that offence of motor manslaughter into more simple language, and I suggested that the offence of dangerous driving causing death should be enacted. That was not without a considerable degree of controversy. I cannot remember what line the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, took about it——
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I can.
Viscount DILHORNE: The noble and learned Lord has expressed views on so many things that I must be forgiven for not remembering the view he expressed on this one, but I do remember that the Ministry of Transport was not wholly enthusiastic in support of the proposal I made. It was left that the proposal should be put before the House of Commons and that the decision of the House of Commons should be accepted on the matter. So the matter came to be put by me before the Standing Committee
1338
on the Road Traffic Bill of 1955. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was not a member of that Committee, which was perhaps fortunate.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY LEBONE: I was a Member of the House of Lords and I spoke against the proposal in public.
Viscount DILHORNE: That is one of those speeches I have not read. In the House of Commons I gave instances of cases in 1954, picked out pretty well at random, which I think shocked all the members of that committee. I remember that I had support from the Labour Benches as well as the Conservative Benches and, I think from the only Liberal then present. I had support for the view that something really should be done and the Amendment making it an offence was carried into the Bill without a Division.
This offence was meant to be an alternative to the offence of motor manslaughter and it was subject to this limitation: that as originally enacted this offence of dangerous driving causing death was only triable at Assizes by a red judge. It was realised that, degrees of dangerous driving varying so much, there might be charges where there was a small degree of dangerous driving followed by a death which would not have warranted a charge of manslaughter. This was meant to be an alternative charge where one would have charged manslaughter, and it was felt that if the cases that came before the Assize Court were cases which should not have been brought on this charge, the judges would soon give discouragement. I think myself that by and large this has worked reasonably well in those cases which formerly would have been charged with motor manslaughter.
But alas!—I have no doubt through lack of appreciation of the reasons for the creation of this offence—it has become the case in many parts of the country that where there has been evidence sufficient to warrant an ordinary charge of dangerous driving and where a small degree of dangerous driving has led to death, the police have preferred this kind of charge. It was not intended for that and it is not how it should be used.

1339
I think perhaps all that would be necessary would be that guidance should be given to prosecuting authorities to the effect that the charge of dangerous driving causing death ought not to be preferred unless the case really also warranted a charge for motor manslaughter, because it was only meant to be an alternative to that. What is proposed is that this offence should be made triable summarily. That is completely altering the purpose for which this offence was created. I can say with the utmost confidence that I would never have got the Standing Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Commons to accept this proposal in 1955 if there had been any possibility of it being thought to be triable either by quarter sessions or before a magistrates' court. It was kept for trial before a High Court judge, and deliberately so.
So I would say that, rather than make this offence triable summarily, I would go back to the pre-1955 position, whereby you would have dangerous driving, careless driving and manslaughter. Whether juries would be more willing now to convict of manslaughter than they were then, I do not know; but of one thing I am sure, that it really is wrong to make this offence triable summarily. It is changing its character. This can only cause unnecessary duplication. I would rather see it go. I beg to move.
6.11 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I am glad the noble and learned Viscount has come clean about the paternity of this offence, and of course I do not reproach him for having paid no attention whatever, when he was a Member of the House of Commons and Attorney-General, to what took place in this House when a humble Back-Bencher said that the offence should never have been created at all. One of the things about which I have tried to be consistent in my life is to make the law a more logical and rational system. If I drive recklessly—which is a phrase I wish to use deliberately without at this stage giving my reasons for it—I ought to be punished and my licence ought to be taken away. Whether I happen to kill somebody or not is a matter of chance. Driving recklessly puts human life at risk, and that is why I deserve to be punished. If the degree
1340
of recklessness is severe, I ought to go to prison for it; but that is because I put human life at risk, not because in fact my victim died.
It is quite true that at the time when that revered and much-loved figure, Lord Goddard, was Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Viscount was Attorney-General, they discovered that, for reasons with which I think I sympathise, juries were very reluctant to convict of what was called "motor manslaughter". I do not believe in prosecutions for motor manslaughter at all. I think that to make a separate offence simply because a particular type of driving leads to a particular result is simply to darken counsel, and I think that prosecutions for motor manslaughter deserved to founder, because juries thought so, too. Because juries would not convict, this new offence of causing death by dangerous driving was invented. It was neither motor manslaughter nor simply dangerous driving, and for a time I think juries convicted a little more readily. My information, such as it is, is that they are becoming just as suspicious of it now as they were of the original motor man-slaughter.
I sincerely believe that the Government—they will have great difficulty with the Ministry of Transport, who cannot think straight about driving offences at all—ought to reduce this field of the law to something like reason. Let reckless cases be dealt with seriously; let the licence be taken away, and in the worst cases prison imposed. But let not there be an offence which consists of a lottery; that if you kill your victim you are committing it, but if the victim escapes, either because of robust health or great physical agility, you are guilty of something less serious. Really that is nonsense.
The noble and learned Viscount has done many good things in his life, but this is not one of them. Since he has indulged in personal recollections, may I indulge in a very short one. I can remember saying this 22 years ago, when this offence was created, from the Back-Benches behind the Government. Lord Kilmuir was on the Woolsack and he made a very solemn speech, as he always did from the Woolsack, saying that he very much sympathised with his

1341
noble friend—of course, not learned in this House—and that he thought that English law should not be too logical after all. That is a view with which I profoundly disagree. I know I have sometimes been rebuked for introducing too much logic, but I think if law is to be respected it must appeal to the reason, and this is an offence which does not appeal to the reason. I do not particularly care whether or not this Amendment is accepted. What I want to get out of the Government is some promise to look at the reality of this offence before we in this House part with this Bill.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I say that I am profoundly attracted by his argument, but would he not agree that this would equally be true of a man who carried a firearm and, due to bad aim, did not kill his victim? He would not be charged with the same offence.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: There is a difficulty in all homicide cases, of course; but in the main, if somebody shoots at me and misses, I hope he will be charged with attempted murder and not just common assault.
Lord WIGODER: May I venture to agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said, which is really to the effect that the bad driving offence should be one of reckless driving. The difficulty we have got into with the present offence is that it is not an offence of causing death by reckless driving; it includes the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. Because of the way the law has been refined in recent years it is now extremely difficult to appreciate the distinction between dangerous driving and careless driving. There is no doubt that dangerous driving must be the more serious offence because the penalties are very much greater. As the law has developed, I personally would find it very difficult to draw any distinction between causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving. If there is a moment of temporary inadvertence on the part of a driver and death results from the accident, I believe prosecutions are being brought for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, and very often convictions are being obtained. I would hope that the noble Lord will indicate that
1342
this extremely unsatisfactory area might be looked at on a rather broad basis.
The only other observation I would make in regard to this Amendment is that as the law has developed since the offence was introduced it is now unusual, I think, for a defendant who is convicted of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving to be sent to prison, an immediate custodial sentence, unless there are particularly aggravating circumstances, usually either drink or the fact that he is a hit-and-run driver, or sometimes a combination of both. Very often the offences are dealt with on the basis of the actual demerits of the driving itself. Very often those demerits are not very substantial, and very often as a result a not very substantial penalty is imposed. I think much opinion would welcome the disappearance of this offence, but if we are to retain it in its present form I can see no reason why it is not an offence that could properly in appropriate cases be triable summarily.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I entirely agree that this is not a satisfactory offence. I should like to see it go; in fact I wish it had never come. But I think that we have to recognise the fact that at the moment it exists, and as long as it does it would be wrong for a case which involves human death by what is still a criminal act to be tried by magistrates. As long as the offence exists, that situation would be entirely wrong.
We know that the range of these offences is very wide, that some of them really are a combination of carelessness and almost bad luck, and that some are very nearly genuine cases of manslaughter. Those that are manslaughter should be manslaughter and not motor manslaughter. The James Committee was very ambivalent about it, on the basis that it did not like magistrates dealing with acts that have caused death. I strongly support that. However, we are faced with the situation that the offence is there. We are guilty of one other matter; namely, that we have a very strong tendency to consider that offences that are committed in connection with motor vehicles are not really offences at all. That is why I do not wish the offence to be called "motor manslaughter".
I very much regret that the James Committee has given some countenance to the view that it is not immoral to commit an offence with a motor vehicle.

1343
That Committee said that to be convicted of a driving offence does not carry any serious moral stigma, et cetera. That is a statement of fact, but a great many of those offences jolly well should do. So long as a driving offence is a criminal act causing a death, we should be quite wrong to suggest that we should allow it to be tried by the magistrates.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Some fascinating points of view have been put by noble and learned colleagues. It is rather bad luck that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was not present to contribute a third point, which would have left the Government in even greater confusion. Enough has been said to show that there is something unsatisfactory here, but the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will probably prevail in the view that as this offence—well thought out or ill thought out—exists; it is an offence of a kind which should properly be triable either way because of the extraordinary width of guiltiness that it can cover.
I want to address a few remarks on the subject of the statistics. In 1973, 576 people were found guilty and 465—81 per cent.—were fined. Only 11 per cent.—62 people—received sentences of immediate imprisonment and almost half of those were for periods of six months or less. There was a very similar pattern in 1974. To go from a most serious offence to a fairly trivial one is unsatisfactory. If it it is put on the Statute Book, there will be a strong case for making it triable either way. However, in view of the weight of legal argument which has been advanced, I shall certainly ask my colleagues to look at this matter again. I do not believe that they will be able to reform the law in the short time available, but I shall certainly ask them to look at it again.
Viscount DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, for their remarks. This particular offence now seems to have very few friends. I rather thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was trying to revive the debate which obviously took place in this Chamber 22 years ago, when I was not present. I admire his efforts to make our criminal law logical—
1344
it is a big task. In 1955 if I had tried to say that people who by reckless driving killed other people on the roads were not to be liable to be convicted of manslaughter, however illogical it was, I should not have been able to achieve it. It may be that there were illogicalities about the offence that was created, but it was intended to have very limited scope and only to be charged when the recklessness or negligence was of a very grave kind.
I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, when he says that this offence can cover a wide range of conduct. Of course he is right, but it is an offence—and this is what has been ignored by the James Committee and every other Committee—intended only to be charged where the negligence or recklessness is of a very grave character. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect upon that because instructions could be given that charges, which are always preferred by the police, could be limited to that character of offence.
There is no ground for making this offence triable summarily without altering the whole purpose and effect of the provisions. I do not want to prolong this matter but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that it is really impossible to draw a line between dangerous driving and careless driving—the one merges into the other. I agree with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that it would suffice if these motoring offences became just one offence, that of reckless driving or dangerous driving—whichever lable we wish to give it. On the one hand, we should get rid of careless driving and, on the other hand, we should get rid of this offence. That would make the law much simpler. If I could be assured that at the next stage of the Bill I should not be savagely bitten by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I should feel quite inclined to table an Amendment, to which he might put his name, to abolish the offence of careless driving—after all, it is a criminal offence—and to abolish the offence of dangerous driving causing death. This would simply leave the offence of dangerous driving. Sufficient to the day. We have had an interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Offences triable either way by virtue of section 16(1) or (2)]:
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 78:
Page 45, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment marries with the previous Amendment with regard to bigamy. In view of what was then said, I do not move this Amendment.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Offences for which the value involved is relevant to the mode of trial]:
6.28 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No 83:
Page 37, leave out Part I of the Schedule.
The noble and learned Lord said: I would point out that in the Amendment the words, "Page 37" should read "Page 49". I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will agree that acceptance of this Amendment is consequential on the acceptance by the Government of the earlier Amendment relating to Clause 23. I therefore beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Alteration of penalties on summary conviction of certain offences triable either way]:
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 83D:
Page 51, line 33, leave out ("3 months or £500, or both") and insert ("in the case of offences relating to cannabis or cannabis resin, £500; in the case of offences relating to other Class B drugs, 3 months or £500, or both.").
The noble Lord said: We come now to part of the Bill which reviews some of the penalties on conviction for various offences. When Criminal Law Bills review penalties the object is almost always to increase them. My Amendment reduces the penalties for two offences—the simple possession of cannabis and cannabis resin and the cultivation of cannabis. Some 100 years or 200 years ago Parliament was concerned to reduce various penalties,
1346
now thought to be barbarous, in relation to transportation and death and other barbarities for what were considered to be minor offences. It may be that in another 10 or 20 years, let alone 100 or 200 years, it will be considered to have been somewhat barbarous that persons were sent to prison for the simple possession of cannabis or cannabis resin.
The offences which are concerned in this Amendment are offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. When that Act was going through Parliament, there was a body of opinion of which I was a part, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who sought to persuade the Minister speaking for the Home Office that cannabis ought to be in a class on its own, and should not be subject to severe penalties of imprisonment both on summary conviction and conviction on indictment for the simple possession of it. Those arguments did not find favour, and the position at the moment is that the simple possession of however small a quantity of cannabis can be visited with imprisonment. My Amendment seeks to take away the possibility of imprisonment in the magistrates' court.
I am informed that in 1975 some 514 people were sent to prison for the simple possession of cannabis. That, of course, is bearing in mind that there is another offence of possessing a drug with intent to supply it, and therefore persons who are convicted of possessing it only, one may presume, are persons possessing it without intent to supply. This is the first time that there has been an opportunity to review the penalties relating to cannabis since 1971. I would suggest that all the indications since then favour those who were arguing in this House and elsewhere that the penalties for the possession and cultivation of cannabis ought to be sharply reduced.
In many States of the United States of America, there is no longer a penalty of imprisonment for the simple possession of small quantities of cannabis. I am informed that about eight States have changed their law; not legalising cannabis, but providing that up to a certain quantity the only penalty should be a fine. This is what this Amendment seeks to bring about. It is no doubt going to be said that any reduction of the penalties relating

1347
to cannabis indicates that the Government, or the House, are approving of the use of cannabis. It is not a question of approval. This Amendment does not seek to legalise the use of cannabis. The Committee need no more approve of cannabis if it does not want to than it approves of speeding or other offences of a minor motoring category. The Committee does not approve of speeding, but it would never think of putting people in prison for it.
The imprisonment of people for the simple possession of a drug which, on all the indications, is one which, as the noble Baroness said in her report, used in moderate quantities does not cause anyone any harm, should be regarded as a barbarity. I urge the Committee to reconsider whether this part of our prison population ought to be there at all, and whether the type of penalty envisaged for this kind of offence ought not to be changed. I beg to move.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I should like to support this Amendment. I think that the offences of the possession and taking of cannabis are still serious, because I believe it can still lead to the use of hard drugs. I think that no good has ever been done by imprisoning people for taking cannabis. I have never done so, and therefore I have not contributed to the 514 people the noble Lord mentioned. I support this Amendment because imprisonment has been deleted, and the fine of £500 kept in. For those young people who have come before me I have usually asked for a report from the social services. Usually they have been fined and put on probation. Often they are young people who need outside help and counsel.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I must apologise because the Committee having speeded up so much I failed to hear the opening of Lord Gifford's speech, but I am quite sure that I would have supported everything that he said. This is a very timely Amendment. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of repeating once more what I have said over and over again in the past nine years. The report of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence of 1968 did not recommend the legalisation of cannabis; it recommended rather modest changes in the
1348
penalties that could be imposed for possession or even trafficking. This Amendment proposes that there should be further modification.
The previous proposal was denounced, usually by people who mistook what it contained. It was denounced very savagely in all directions. Since then a lot of water has flowed under bridges—or perhaps I ought to say a lot of pot has been smoked—and the climate of opinion now is different from the climate of opinion nine years ago. There have been great changes—and no doubt the noble Lord may have mentioned them—in other countries where simple possession, and certainly simple possession of small quantities, is not an imprisonable offence, as we now say.
All that is proposed in these Amendments is that it should not be an imprisonable offence on summary conviction. You could hardly take a more modest step than to discriminate between this particular drug, which stands in a class very different from the one about which we are so much concerned at the moment; namely, heroin. You could hardly take a more modest step in the direction of liberalisation. I therefore wholeheartedly support this Amendment.
Lord PLATT: In general I absolutely support what the three speakers have said; that is, the removal of the imprisonment part of the sentence for what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has called the simple possession of small quantities. The only thing that worries me a little is whether I would think that this was a suitable penalty for somebody deliberately bringing cannabis into this country and promoting its use among young people, because that seems to me a much more serious offence. Perhaps that was covered in the opening remarks which, I am afraid, owing to the sudden hurrying of the time-table, I also missed.
Lord GIFFORD: Perhaps I could help the noble Lord. My Amendment does not touch the existing offences of both supplying cannabis and indeed importing cannabis, both of which have substantial penalties attached to them and which would remain intact. It is only the simple possession and cultivation.
6.38 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My noble friend's Amendment, as he has indicated, seeks to remove imprisonment on summary conviction for the offence of possessing cannabis or cannabis resin. The point which he did not put forward in his speech—and I make no complaint about that—is that the Bill reduces the period of imprisonment that is available at the moment for magistrates when sentencing for this offence from six months to three months. The Bill in fact does that, so it represents a change in the law.
If we were to remove imprisonment for offences of possession of cannabis, we should in fact be creating a fourth class of drugs, and placing cannabis in a class of its own as regards possession though not as regards the other offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, because that Act differentiates between the seriousness of the same offence according to the kind of drug used; A, B, and C classes of drugs. Cannabis is at the moment classified as a Class B drug. Possession of drugs in Class C is taken to be less serious an offence than any other kind, and in recognition of this the maximum penalty will be, once the Bill is enacted, three months' imprisonment or £200. But of course the Amendment deals only with cannabis, which, as I have indicated, is regarded as a more serious matter than Class C, which would be untouched by the Amendment. I am sure that my noble friend will have taken this point.
I am glad that my noble friend Lady Wootton is here because she was involved in 1968 in the consideration given by a sub-committee of the then Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence which prepared the report on cannabis to which she referred. That sub-committee while expressing the view that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses had no harmful effects, nevertheless observed that it was not recognised for a very long time that tobacco smoking could produce lung cancer. It was not therefore possible to say that the long-term consumption of cannabis was necessarily free from danger. I am trying to summarise her report as accurately as I can.
The sub-committee considered the scale of penalties which they felt appropriate for offences involving cannabis and expressed their intention of removing for
1350
practical purposes the prospect of imprisonment for possession of a small amount of cannabis. Although inclined to prefer that imprisonment should not be available for offences of possessing cannabis, the Wootton Committee concluded that they could foresee situations where a short prison sentence could be an effective deterrent, particularly to someone repeatedly engaging in small-scale trafficking. Their recommendation was that there should be, on summary conviction, a maximum penalty of four months' imprisonment in addition to the fine. What we are proposing in the Bill is three months. In 1971, following the consideration which was given to my noble friend's report, six months' was in fact written in and, as I have indicated, in the Schedule the Government are proposing to reduce the period to three months, which will go a considerable way to meet the point made by my noble friend and her Committee.
The Committee recommended that the Advisory Committee should keep the problem of the use of cannabis under close review. The Committee's successor, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, has a special working group devoted to the study of cannabis. In 1975 the Advisory Council as a whole considered cannabis and informed the then Home Secretary of its interim conclusions and of its intention to consider the position again within the next 12 months; the working group has recently been reconvened. The Advisory Council in its observations last year recognised the anxiety felt about the use of custodial sentences for offences of possession of cannabis. They noted however that there had been a substantial reduction in the use of custodial sentences since the publication of the Wootton Report and that the judicial processes now emphasised the desirability of alternatives to custodial sentences wherever possible. It is only fair to say that in 1974 only one first offender was sentenced to imprisonment by a magistrates' court for simple possession of cannabis as the only offence, and in 1975 the number was three. The total found guilty in those two years in the same category was 6,495 and 5,954 respectively.
Lord AVEBURY: Would the Minister say whether those figures include the Channel Islands, because I am told that

1351
magistrates there are particularly strict on cannabis possession and have been in the habit of sending people to prison for a first offence?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord will realise that that is not a matter for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Jersey and Guernsey have their own Legislatures and would not be touched by any Amendment to this Bill.
The Advisory Council felt that nothing should be done at the moment to amend the law relating to cannabis as long as the matter was kept under review. They felt that the potent and dangerous cannabis concentrates which are now available require strict control and that there was still considerable uncertainty about the harmfulness of the use of cannabis. As I have already said, a fresh review of the position has now been begun by the Cannabis Working Group of the Council and I feel sure that we will all be anxious to consider their conclusion, before wanting to amend radically the law on cannabis. The reduction in imprisonment which the Bill already effects will, I think, serve as a pointer to the courts that simple possession of all the drugs in Classes B and C under the 1971 Act is still seen as a relatively less serious offence than the others under the drugs legislation. I would certainly not wish to seem in any way to undermine the Wootton Committee's recommendation that imprisonment was not in general the appropriate sanction for the possession of cannabis. But I am not persuaded that the time is yet right to go wholly in the direction put forward by my noble friend.
I shall of course reflect on what has been said in this debate and I am sure he will want to reflect on the point that it would be wholly illogical to move, dealing with Class B drugs, in the way he has recommended and leave Class C untouched. I would not wish to indicate at the moment that the Government are likely to change their position on this matter but, as I have indicated, I will take note of what has been said.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I wish to correct my noble friend in certain of the interpretations he gave of
1352
the Advisory Committee's Report. I do not have the report with me, but we said that custodial sentences might be appropriate in cases of repeated supplying, but at that time the Committee was given to understand that it would not be possible to make separate offences of supplying and possessing, and therefore we had to cover supplying as well. Since then it has been made possible by the Misuse of Drugs Act to find a way round this difficulty and trafficking and possessing are now distinct offences. Had we been able to do that we should certainly have said "No imprisonment merely for possessing".
We did not particularly want four months' imprisonment; we picked four months' because it gave a right to trial by jury, and for no other reason whatever. It may be said that we were fairly consistent in our view that imprisonment was not appropriate as a penalty for possession. Imprisonment is a very serious matter for young men or women—it is mostly young people we are considering—who are seeking to undertake a professional career. Indeed, it may be a total barrier to a number of professional careers if they have done this indiscreet thing of having in their possession possibly a small quantity of this drug. If in fact very few sentences of imprisonment are imposed, that is a good reason for saying "If so few, why not none"?
6.49 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for not being in my place to hear him move the Amendment. A few points need underlining as a result of the Minister's speech, and particularly his reference to the reduction in penalties being allowed for in the Bill. I recall that in the debates on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 it was pointed out that the penalties were being substantially reduced as against those which had operated in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. Now the Minister says there is to be a further reduction. Why not continue the process?
What is the logic of saying that imprisonment is not an appropriate penalty for the offence of possession, which the Minister has said—he said he was delighted that there were various alternatives to custodial sentences—when, this being the

1353
second time round in our consideration of the situation, and everyone is agreed on all sides that imprisonment is not appropriate, we are not continuing the process? We have the experience of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Nobody has produced evidence to show that imprisonment has done good to the people given these sentences and, although the noble Baroness says that people are delighted that the numbers are going down, I would remind your Lordships that, in 1975, according to the report of HM Inspector of Constabulary, over 500 people were given custodial sentences, with what effect on their lives your Lordships can imagine. As the noble Baroness has said, these are mostly young people on the threshold of their careers, which may be irreparably ruined because so many occupations will be denied to them as a result of the courts having imposed these sentences.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the more liberal legislation which now operates in many of the States of America. He may also have referred to the situation in Holland where I understand that, although no explicit change in the law has been made, custodial sentences are not imposed for possession of less than one ounce. This is a matter that might be considered before Report stage by the Minister and, if he cannot go as far as removing the custodial sentence, perhaps it could be provided that custodial sentences for possession of a very small quantity of the drug could be removed. I understand that there are other means of bringing to court and imposing sentence upon persons who are in possession of much larger quantities which are clearly not for (heir own use. Perhaps the noble Lord would look at what has been done in Holland in this respect, and perhaps also ask the Working Group to look at the evidence which is emerging in Australia, where an inquiry is under way.
However, I would say to your Lordships that a time comes when inquiries have to cease and politicians have to take decisions. There is a mass of evidence available. There is the noble Baroness's extremely thorough inquiry and there is the report of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare on the long term effects of cannabis. I do not know whether the Minister has had a
1354
chance to study it, but I am reliably informed that it produces no evidence whatsoever to show that there is any long term harm from taking cannabis. With the greatest respect, I doubt whether the Working Group is likely to come up with more evidence than is available to such a powerfully-funded body in the United States, so I am not sure that there is really much point in ducking this decision and saying that we must await the report of some further investigation by the Working Group.
I said in a previous debate, when we talked about imprisonment for soliciting, that this might be the last opportunity that your Lordships would have of considering the matter for very many years. That was in the case of vagrancy and street offences. Now the noble Lord makes all sorts of reassuring noises about the Government's willingness to consider amendments to the law later on, but it is not that easy to find gaps in the Parliamentary timetable where legislation can be introduced to deal with one particular problem.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I take that point completely. The noble Lord pressed his Amendment on the last occasion and the Committee came to a conclusion on the matter. What I am saying on this Amendment is that the Amendment is, for the reason I have given, defective in any event and that I can give no undertaking of any sort that the Government are likely to change their position on this matter. What I have said is that I will reflect on this matter. If my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wish to put down the Amendment again at Report stage they will of course be entitled to raise the matter again and will secure some further information about the Government's position.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Lord has anticipated me because I was going to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that, having taken soundings of the Committee this afternoon and having attracted a substantial amount of support for his Amendment, he will have an opportunity of testing the feeling of the House not this afternoon but when we come back to the subject on Report stage. I very much hope that if he

1355
withdraws his Amendment this afternoon he will give us another opportunity of returning to the matter.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: I should like to say a brief word, having listened to the very lucid and logical speech of my noble friend Lord Harris. I am not at all sure that the Amendment is not right, though I do not think that it should be pressed at this moment. It seems to me that it is very dangerous to try to enforce laws that a great many people do not regard as punishing something that is morally wrong. My noble friend drew an analogy between cigarette smoking, which is harmful, and cannabis, which has not yet been proved to be harmful. But, although we know that smoking is harmful, no one thinks of prohibiting it because the country would not stand it.
There are a great many young people who do not regard the occasional smoking of pot as being worse than drinking whisky and so on. While this is not so true of older people, there is no doubt that, among younger people, a very great many do not regard this as a moral offence. This having a small amount and occasionally having a go at it is quite separate from pushing or anything of that kind. Young people say that grown-ups drink as much whisky as they like, whereas they are not allowed to smoke any pot at all. They do not regard this as a moral offence and I think that it is a great error to try to force upon large numbers of people laws upon a matter which they do not regard as immoral.
There is one other point that I want to make. I believe that if the Amendment or something on the same lines were made it would be one more barrier in the way of the pusher. If it is made very difficult and illegal to have even small amounts of pot, the pusher will have a certain status, whereas, if that is abolished, it will knock out one field in which the pusher works. The pusher, of course, is not really concerned with pot. He is concerned with heroin and he wants to get hold of people who use pot in order to push heroin further along. Anything we can do to make that more difficult and to destroy the market of the pusher is for the good.
Lord GIFFORD: My noble friend Lord Harris has indicated that he will take careful note of what has been said in this debate. The Amendment has attracted support from a very wide spectrum of your Lordships' Committee and I hope that when my noble friend's advisers consider this matter they will take into account one or two further points. My noble friend talked about the advice that he was getting from the Advisory Council. He said, if I have it right, that it was concerned about people being imprisoned for the possession of cannabis but was glad to note the substantial reduction in the number of such terms of imprisonment. It is a great tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, that magistrates have come to recognise that simple possession is not something for which young people should be put into prison. Nevertheless, some are. My noble friend gave figures of one and three for the persons sentenced to imprisonment on first offence. He did not give the Committee the numbers sentenced other than on first offence. I do not know whether he has those figures and would be able to give them to me. I see that he shakes his head, so I hope that he will be able to give them to me in writing.
If there is even one, let alone 500—as I am informed there are—persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment not for supplying, when supplying charges are open, but for simple possession, I believe that, in the light of current knowledge, that should not happen, even on second, third or fourth conviction. It is not an answer to say that there has been a reduction if some persons are still suffering through ignorance on some benches.
My noble friend indicated that the Amendment was putting cannabis into a separate class. I believe that that is right. Those who spoke in 1971 thought that it should be a separate class of drug. Magistrates and others who have had to deal with the problems arising through its use have come to recognise that it is indeed in something of a class of its own. What I hope is that when we next come to consider this matter, as we shall, we can be told whether the advice received by the Home Office is beginning to confirm that there should be a separate class, in which case, no doubt, Amendments or new

1357
regulations enforcing the Misuse of Drugs Act would be the best way of going about it rather than by an Amendment to this Bill.
Another matter which has been raised, notably by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, and by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is whether consideration should be given, perhaps as an alternative to this Amendment, to the removal of the danger of imprisonemnt for the possession of very small quantities. A great number—the majority—of persons who are hauled up before magistrates' courts, perhaps because of the action of some over-zealous policeman, appear there for having very small quantities indeed. There are various ways of liberalising the law relating to cannabis to bring it into line with what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, quite rightly said were the views of a large section of the population, particularly the young. I hope that serious thought will be given to this matter by the Government,
Page 53, line 5, at end insert—

("OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 (c. 100)

Offences under section 42 (common assault or battery).

Section 42 (as amended by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967).

£50.

£200.

Offences under section 43 (aggravated assault or battery).

Section 43 (as amended by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment increases the maximum fine for the purely summary offences of common assault or battery, and aggravated assault on a woman or child under 14.
Page 54, line 14 at end insert—
("ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION ACT 1938 (c. 54)

Offences under section 1 (unregistered persons using title of architect)

Section 3.

£50.

£500.")

The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. The Amendment seeks to raise the maximum fine under the Architects Registration Act 1938. If I had a hint from the noble Lord that he would receive this Amendment favourably, then I could deal with it very quickly; otherwise I should have to take a little more time. This is not blackmail.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am sure that it is not blackmail. I should
and in the light of that suggestion I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 52, line 31, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 33 and insert ("prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 or, in Scotland, of section 289B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975) or both.".").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Increases of fines for certain summary offences]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 84B:
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 84E:
never associate such a grave matter with the noble Earl. I should say at the outset that we would recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. For the record, I should like to say that as in so many other spheres of our national life, inflation has made actions taken in the magistrates' court under this Act increasingly of less consequence to the defendants because of the miniscule fine of £50 which is all that

1359
can be extracted from them. This proposal is in line with very many others in the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.4 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 84F:
Page 54, line 20, in column 4, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£200").
The noble Earl said: This is an attempt to do much the same thing as in the previous Amendment but in relation to a very different enactment, and it follows consultations with a very different body, to wit, the Magistrates' Association. It might seem slightly unusual that a magistrates' court might wish to fine parents whose children are truants as much as £200. I must say that I was faintly surprised when this point was first put to me, but I am assured that there are cases of persistent truancy where the child in question apparently earns a very good living by undertaking some form of employment when he should be at school, and magistrates' courts feel inhibited from dealing with the parents in the way that they feel they should be dealt with. I do not think that I can put the matter any higher than that. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is in a better position than myself to comment, but I put the Amendment forward for the consideration of the Committee.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I should like to speak briefly in support of the Amendment of the noble Earl. I do so because a great many of the cases which come before me in juvenile court arise from children playing truant, and it is very difficult to persuade parents, without the force of fining them, that they should insist that their children go to school. They say that they take their children to school, but there the matter rests. One can hardly envisage an occasion upon which one would actually fine a parent £200 in such a case, but this is the kind of amount which might make parents more aware of their duty in sending their children to school. The maximum fine of £10 which we have been able to impose in the past has been quite ludicrous, and we have had real problems, with parents going out of court laughing
1360
at the bench because we have been unable to fine them more than £10. The proposed £200 is merely a maximum, and I do not think that many courts would impose such a fine. But the threat of such a financial penalty against parents who do not ensure that their child goes to school, and thus almost aid and abet the child to get into trouble, would be very helpful to juvenile benches.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: In the main I should like entirely to support this proposal. As someone who has had experience in all levels of education, I agree that the magistrate has a problem, and if we want to build up a new Britain children must be encouraged to attend school. But I regret having to say that sometimes there is discouragement. Nevertheless, during a period of recession there might be the odd occasion upon which to exploit—I do not know whether I should use that word—a child who is selling newspapers or doing something similar, and so encourage some truancy. The mitigating circumstances of special cases should certainly be taken into account. This is a well-informed Chamber and there is no need to develop the argument, except that I believe it to be worth while to put forward the caveat that mitigating circumstances should be taken into account, if the Government accept the Amendment.
Lord JANNER: I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I appreciate the point put by my noble friend, but of course that is a matter for the magistrates themselves to decide when they impose a penalty. The important feature is that where there are cases in which parents have not exercised the duty which they are capable of exercising, magistrates should be in a position to impose a heavier penalty. I should say in parenthesis that there are other cases in which parents cannot possibly control, or are in a difficult position in which to control, their children. But that again is a matter for the magistrates themselves to decide. But the opportunity should be afforded to magistrates to impose a heavier penalty, and I believe that of itself the possibility of imposing a penalty would act as a deterrent to those who were committing the offences concerned, and I hope that the Government will consider this proposal favourably.
7.10 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The proposal in the Bill for an increase to £50 is, in fact, for a first offence, a doubling in real terms since the fine was last increased, which was to £10 in 1967, and it is our present view that that is about right and that it is possible that the noble Earl's Amendment goes rather too far. Quite apart from any other consideration, there is the point that on a third or subsequent conviction there is available to the court the other possible sanction of one month's imprisonment. Taking a parent to court for failing to comply with a school attendance order is in fact a fairly drastic step, and I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science views the possibility of prosecution as a comparatively minor aspect of the programme for dealing with unjustified absence from school. There are, I should inform your Lordships, two surveys by Her Majesty's Inspectorate under way. One is of secondary schools in urban areas which are having particular success in dealing with truancy or behaviour difficulties, and the second is of the special units which some local education authorities have set up to cater for truants and for disruptive pupils. We are looking to these surveys to provide practical and useful information for the schools and the local authorities.
It is important, I think, not to lose sight of the fact that in many cases much can be done within the schools—for example, by good pastoral care by the teachers and educational welfare officers and, indeed, initiatives in the curriculum—to influence non-attendance before it ever gets to the stage where it is necessary even to contemplate prosecuting the parents. I also think that it is important not to let the penalty for these offences become disproportionate, and I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Earl will not press this matter. As I have indicated, it in fact represents a doubling in real terms, so far as the first offence is concerned, since 1967, and the Government attach the greatest importance to the initiatives which I have just outlined.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am bound to say that on this occasion I find the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, less than satisfactory. Leaving aside what efforts schools, teachers and so on are making to reduce the incidence of truancy, which is an entirely different question, the matter before the Committee is: What powers are the magistrates to be given in those cases—and, in the nature of things, they must be few and far between—where there is a flagrant breaking of the law by parents in the circumstances which I have described? I have received unexpected but powerful support from my noble friend, who instanced cases of parents and children who leave her court laughing. As against that, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, if I may say so, that it is a matter of arithmetic, and that just because the maxima have been increased so far that is some argument against increasing them very much further.
I really think that we sometimes get out of proportion when we consider a Bill like this. As I shall be telling your Lordships' Committee on the next Amendment I shall move, the penalties for careless driving are shortly going to be put up to £500; and, without going into the past history of my noble and learned friend or of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who is no longer with us, it is a fact that, because of the fall in the value of money and the rise in the standard of living, the courts have to take a much more rigorous view of certain cases which come before it.
I noticed a certain Arabian tendency, if I may so call it, on the part of the noble Lord in his answer. I do not know whether we could strike a bargain over this, in the manner of horse-dealing, but I obviously do not intend to divide the Committee tonight. Perhaps we may both have second thoughts, with the various people with whom we communicate, before the next stage of this Bill; and I warn the noble Lord that I may put down another Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 84C:
Page 55, line 33, at end insert—

("MIDWIVES ACT 1951 (c. 53)

Offences under section 8 (falsely using title of, or implying certification as, midwife).

Section 8 (as amended by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967).

£10 for a first offence and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 9 (persons other than certified midwives attending women in childbirth without medical supervision).

Section 9.

£10.

£500.

Offences under section 10(3) (disqualified midwives attending women in childbirth in contravention of a prohibition).

Section 10(3).

£10.

£500.

Offences under section 11(1) (unqualified persons acting as maternity nurses for gain).

Section 11(1).

£10.

£500

MIDWIVES (SCOTLAND) ACT 1951 (c. 54)

Offences under section 4(8) (contravention of prohibition from attending women in childbirth other than as midwife).

Section 4(8).

£10.

£500.

Offences under section 9 (falsely using title of, or implying certification as, midwife).

Section 9 (as amended by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967).

£10 for a first offence and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 10 (persons other than certified midwives attending women in childbirth without medical supervision).

Section 10.

£10.

£500.

Offences under section 11 (unqualified persons acting as maternity nurses for gain).

Section 11.

£10.

£500.

NURSES (SCOTLAND) ACT 1951 (c.55)

Offences under Section 12(1), (2), (3) and (4) (unlawful use of titles, Certificated, etc.).

Section 12.

£10 for a first offence and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.")

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 84D:
Page 56, line 10, at end insert—

("NURSES ACT 1957 (c. 15)

Offences under section 27 (false assumption of title of registered or enrolled nurse etc.).

Section 27.

£10 for a first offence and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 28(1) (restriction on use of title of nurse).

Section 28(1)

£10 for a first offence and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.")

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 56, line 31, leave out ("education authority") and insert ("appropriate Health Board").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 85P:
Page 57, line 14, at end insert—

"HOUSING ACT 1964 (c. 56)

Offences under section 65(1) (failure to comply with notice requiring execution of works) where committed in respect of a notice served under section 16 of the Housing Act 1961 (provision of means of escape from fire).

Section 65(1).

£100.

£500.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 85T:
Page 57, line 20, at end insert—

("ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1967 (c. 76)

Offences under section 13(4) (contravention of provisions as to use of special roads).

Section 13(4) (as amended by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Act 1974).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Earl said: This Amendment seeks to put the maximum penalties in respect of what I might term motorway offences on the same basis as those in respect of the ordinary driving offences, such as careless driving. It is a fact—or it will be when this Bill becomes an Act and comes into force—that for careless driving, as I said a few moments ago, the maximum penalty which may be imposed by a magistrates' court can be as much as £500. But in the case of motorway offences, which can themselves be very much more dangerous in certain circumstances than careless driving, for some reason the maximum fine remains at £100. One can think of examples fairly readily. The ones that I would suggest might be driving down the wrong side of a motorway, which happily does not happen very frequently but which does happen; or, secondly, perhaps, making a U-turn on a motorway, which again happens from time to time. It may be said, of course, that in that event a second charge of careless or dangerous driving might be preferred against a defendant. I would submit that it is perhaps tidier to make a new maximum penalty in respect of motorway offences, and I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As the noble Earl has said, the offences covered by Section 13(4) of the Road
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Traffic Regulation Act 1967 can include some very serious and potentially danger-our acts on motorways. Performing a U-turn and being forced to drive in the wrong direction along a motorway is not a breach of the regulations to be taken lightly. I appreciate and share the concern which I know is expressed by magistrates about such offences, and I should certainly like to indicate to the noble Earl that I accept the case for an increase in this maximum fine. However, I should like to consider, before the next stage, the extent of that increase.
Lord JANNER: I wonder whether my noble friend would consider discussing these matters between now and the Report stage with those who actually perform the duty of imposing the penalties. It is very interesting to find in this House that people, no matter what they are proposing, make laudatory statements about magistrates and apologise to the magistrates if they are proposing something which the magistrates disagree with. The fact of the matter is that tremendous respect for the experience of magistrates prevails throughout the country. I do not know whether the general public realise that today magistrates sit in the Crown Courts and have a considerable influence on the judges who sit there. I am quite certain that many of the judges,

1367
in coming to decisions, rely upon the advice they are given by the magistrates who sit with them. If they do not, I gather that in some cases the magistrates can out-vote the judges so far as penalties et cetera are concerned.
I do not think that the standing of those who give this voluntary service and who are people who devote themselves voluntarily to doing a duty for the country is always fully appreciated. Incidentally, I wonder whether my noble friend has ever calculated how many millions of pounds the lay magistrates save the country. If he is going to use the kind of argument frequently being used—that, "We cannot do this or that because of the cost"—the Government might take into consideration the fact that a tremendous amount is saved by the use of magistrates.
I, personally, do not want to put it on that basis, but I do so because the Government, from time to time—and I believe the Opposition approve of it—put that as the basis of opposing something which they think is essential even for the benefit of justice being given. I intervened because I think that close co-operation should exist between the Government and the Magistrates' Association between now and the Report stage on the points brought out in order to see what their practical experience leads them to advise.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: This Amendment was drafted by the
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 85Q:

("HOUSING ACT 1969 (c. 33)

Offences under section 61 (failing, after a previous conviction, to comply with an obligation to execute works) where committed in respect of an obligation to execute works in pursuance of a notice under section 16 of the (Housing Act 1961 (provision of means of escape from fire).

Section 61(2).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment will increase the maximum summary fine under the Housing Acts for offences concerned with fire precautions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 85R:
Page 59, line 11, column 1, at end insert ("section 33(1)(n) (falsely pretending to be an inspector).").
Magistrates' Association.
Lord JANNER: I believe that this should be considered by the Magistrates' Association because of their experience. I am surprised to hear that the noble Earl did not himself consider it advisable to have a word with the magistrates about the Amendment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: This Amendment has been put down at the request of the Magistrates' Association. That is why it has been put down.
Lord JANNER: Then I entirely misunderstood—and I apologise—what the noble Earl said. I gathered that he did not consult the magistrates. I am talking about the Government being in consultation with them. I would strongly recommend that on these issues they should be advised by those who are really experiencing what takes place from day to day.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Whichever end of the stick the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has got hold of, I am personally certain, to use the fine art sense, that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows the provenance of this Amendment. Obviously I accept the proposition which he has put forward that he will consider the matter; and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment will provide an increase from £400 to £1,000 as the maximum for the offence of falsely pretending to be an inspector under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974. This offence is closely linked with others under Section 33(1) of that Act and it is appropriate that the penalties should be kept in line.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 85A:
62, line 38, leave out from ("by") to ("may") in line 40 and insert ("a relevant enactment").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment applies to Scotland and is comparable to and consequential upon Amendments tabled for England and Wales.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 85B to 87D en bloc:
62, line 43, leave out ("£1,000") and insert ("the prescribed sum").
Page 63, line 1, leave out ("any") and insert ("a relevant").
Page 63, line 16, leave out from ("enactment") to ("a") in line 18 and insert ("(in whatever words)").
Page 63, line 30, leave out from ("under") to ("a") in line 31 and insert ("a relevant enactment (in whatever words)").
Page 63, line 37, leave out ("£1,000") and insert ("the prescribed sum").
Page 63, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) In this section—
"the prescribed sum" means £1,000 or such sum as is for the time being substituted in this definition by an order in force under section 289D(1) below;
"relevant enactment" means an enactment contained in the Criminal Law Act 1977 or in any Act (including this Act) passed before, or in the same Session as, that Act.").
Page 65, line 10, leave out ("but only if").
line 12, leave out from second ("the") to ("fixed") in line 14 and insert ("prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B above) was").
Page 65, line 16, leave out from ("order") to ("to") in line 20 and insert ("substitute for that sum such other sum as appears").
Page 65, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
("(2) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the difference between a sum to which subsection (3) below applies and the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B above) has been or would be altered or eliminated by an order made or proposed to be made under subsection (1) above, he may by order amend the enactment specifying the first-mentioned sum so as to substitute for that sum such other sum as appears to him to be justified by a change in the value of money appearing to him to have taken place between—

(a) the last occasion on which the sum in question was fixed; and

1370

(b) the making of the order or proposed order under subsection (1) above.

(3) This subsection applies to any sum specified in any enactment contained in the Criminal Law Act 1977 or in any Act (including this Act) passed before, or in the same Session as, that Act as—

(a) the maximum fine which may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence triable either summarily or on indictment, or

(b) the maximum fine which, in the exercise of any power by subordinate instrument to impose penal provisions, may be authorised on summary conviction in respect of an offence triable either summarily or on indictment.

(4) An order under subsection (1) or (2) above—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and may be revoked by a subsequent order thereunder; and

(b) without prejudice to proviso (b) to section 46(7) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, shall not affect the punishment for an offence completed before that order comes into force.").

Page 65, line 23, at end insert—
("4. In section 312(z) for "£10" there shall be substituted "£25".").
Page 66, transpose the Table to after line 36 on page 65.
Page 67, line 3, at end insert—
("Offences against the Person Act 1861").
Page 67, line 9, at end insert ("Children Act 1948 ").
Page 65, line 9, at end insert—
("Midwives Act 1951 Nurses Act 1957").
line 14, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1964 Housing Act 1969").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I could save the time of the Committee if I move this Amendment and all the Amendments to Schedule 8 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 87A:
Page 69, line 20, at end insert—
(". In section 70 (restriction on committal after conviction, means inquiry), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—
"(c) fix a time and place for the offender to appear before the court and release him

1371
on a recognisance, without sureties, conditioned for his said appearance unless the fine is sooner paid:
Provided that the court shall not fix such a time and place except in the presence of the offender on the occasion when the fine is imposed.".").
The noble Earl said: The effect of this Amendment would be that a magistrates' court, when imposing a fine, should be able to set a date before the amount of the fine must be paid or the offender must then return, in effect, to explain why it has not been paid. We seem to be getting depleted on our magistrates present in this Committee, but everybody who has had anything to do with the law will know the difficulties with which magistrates are faced when trying to extract money from the defendants they have fined. This is an Amendment which (shall I say?) has occurred to the Magistrates' Association. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am relieved that the magistrates have left, because I cannot welcome this Amendment with quite the degree of enthusiasm that I have welcomed some of the others. Nevertheless, even on this I do not want to take an entirely negative line. There is a problem here. The proposal which the noble Earl has made is for magistrates to be empowered to fix a date for the re-appearance of offenders who fail to pay a fine imposed on them. We have a great deal of sympathy with that objective. I know that the Magistrates' Association have been keen for some time that such a power should be available. We feel that it would be a useful addition to the powers of fine enforcement. There are, I am afraid, one or two matters of detail on which we would differ so far as the way in which this Amendment is phrased. Nevertheless, I will look at this particular point in rather more detail. I hope to bring forward an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill's progress.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I feel bound to point out that I have been collecting the undertakings of the noble Lord and his noble colleagues as this Bill has progressed. It is fair to say that they number now about 39. Nevertheless, on the noble Lord's assurance——
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It I is only the persuasive powers of the noble
1372
Earl which has caused us to reconsider so many of these matters, as I am sure he realises.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: It was an ancestor of mine who was described as being silver-tongued. I have never laid claim to that appellation and certainly do not in the present circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 87B:
Page 69, line 43, leave out paragraph 11.
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which I tabled with some sense of doubt; nevertheless, I should like the Government's reaction to it. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 9 provides for magistrates' courts to sit on any day including Christmas Day, Good Friday, or any Sunday. It may be argued—I think rightly—that magistrates already have the power to sit on any day and therefore one asks: why is this enactment put into the Bill? I suppose the answer will be, for the avoidance of doubt. My reply is: There is no doubt, anyway. This provision is unnecessary because there is not any doubt and it may well be deleted in such case. There are those who feel that a provision such as this could be mistaken to be some form of encouragement for magistrates' courts to sit on these very special days which, being human like the rest of us, they do not wish to do unless it is their plain duty to do so. They see no reason why that should be written into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am aware that the Magistrates' Association have some reservations about this provision. They suspect or fear that it may be the thin end of the wedge and could lead to pressure on magistrates to have regular Sunday courts. Let me at once allay those fears, so far as the Government are concerned. The purpose of the provision is simply, as the noble Earl anticipated, to remove doubts about the power of a court to sit on a Sunday if it decides that there are compelling reasons for doing so. The doubts are best summed up in an editorial opinion expressed in Stone's Justices Manual from which I should like to quote:
"There is no statutory provision preventing a court sitting and adjudicating on a Sunday.

1373
However, we are of opinion that except where authorised or required by statute, magistrates should not perform judicial acts on a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday, and it is undesirable and probably improper for a court to sit on a Sunday unless it is a matter of unavoidable necessity."
We understand that courts have on very rare occasions sat on a Sunday; for example, where a Saturday court held to deal with people arrested at a Pop Festival has gone on into the early hours of Sunday morning. There have also been occasions when, had the law been clear on this point, it would have been desirable to hold a Sunday court to deal with a seaman whose ship had arrived on Saturday and was sailing on the following Monday, and who was charged with an offence which, though serious, was not likely to be sent to the Crown Court for trial.
This provision in the Bill will enable—I emphasise the word "enable"—a court to be held on a Sunday. It will only be exercisable if the court thinks fit. I can assure the Committee that the Government have no intention of pressing or even encouraging magistrates to hold Sunday courts. The power will be there beyond doubt if circumstances arise such as those that I have mentioned. There is therefore no dark plot to bring in Sunday courts as a regular feature. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Far be it for me to quarrel with the contents of Stone, an excellent work of reference which in my earlier days I frequently used. Stone does not apparently say that it is anything other than improper for a court to sit on these days, and nobody claims it is wrong in the legal sense for a court to sit. Nevertheless, I am sure that those concerned will derive some comfort from the remarks of the noble Lord, and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 70, line 25, leave out ("sum there mentioned ") and insert ("prescribed sum within the meaning of that section").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.36 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 70, line 26, at end insert—
("Section 4 (detention of offenders aged 14 to 20) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2)(a) for "three nor more than six months "substitute" six weeks nor more than six months;"

(b) in subsection (2)(b) for "three months "substitute" not less than six weeks nor more than six months.".").

The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment of rather greater complexity than those that we have been discussing before now. It certainly raises much more difficult questions. The effect of the Amendment would permit magistrates' courts to make what I term detention centre orders for a minimum period of six weeks instead of the present minimum of three months. Magistrates feel that this power should be open to them for the following reasons, which are, broadly speaking, threefold. First, it is open to the Executive, so to speak, to shorten the sentences, should they so wish, so that we have a situation where by an administrative order a sentence of detention may be shortened to six weeks, but the courts which impose the sentence in the first place on the merits of the case are denied that right. This is something which I have no doubt some magistrates feel very strongly about. The second matter is that there is presently a grave shortage of places in detention centres, and magistrates' courts feel, rightly or wrongly, that because of the minimum of three months they are stopped from making a detention centre order because they know that there is no place for the offender. The effect is that the course of action which the magistrates' court wishes to take cannot be taken. In other words, justice gives way to expediency.
This is not the only part of our law where justice has to give way to expediency; but I urge upon the Committee the thought that this is unnecessary in this case. Shorter sentences would relieve overcrowding in detention centres and allow magistrates' courts to make use of their powers in cases which they thought fit, where at the moment they are physically stopped from doing so by the shortage of places.
The third matter which I would raise is this. As I understand it, there is remission for good conduct, and I suppose it is

1375
essential to retain that in order that the authorities at the detention centre should have some sort of control over the boys in their care. Nevertheless, I believe the practical effect under the rules would be that if the magistrates passed a three months' detention order, with remission, the offender would serve a total of six weeks. I think I am right about that but, if not, the noble Lord will no doubt correct me. That would still give the offender a lesson—and indeed a short sharp lesson, which is the point of the detention centre—but it would be long enough for the authorities there to do some good and to make some impression for the future. I think that is as far as I need take the argument at this stage. I beg to move.
7.42 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: In considering whether there should be a sentence shorter than the existing three months, we have to consider the objects of detention centre training and what would be accomplished by a shorter period. With remission, a 17 to 20 year-old, sentenced to three months in a detention centre, serves two months. A 14 to 16 year-old serves only six and a half weeks. The proposed Amendment would provide for an additional sentence of six weeks which, with remission, would give a training time of four weeks and three weeks respectively. The question which the Committee have to face is whether such a short period of detention is desirable.
Your Lordships may recall that the Advisory Council on the Penal System carried out a fundamental review into detention centre régimes, and the recommendations made in the 1970 report of their sub-committee, which was chaired by a former Member of your Lordships' House, the then Lord Bishop of Exeter, have been the basis of our policy since that date. I think it is right to say that considerable progress has been made towards implementing those recommendations. The aim has been to make all aspects of the detention centre regime constructive, and, on the establishment of mutual respect, to have discipline increasing.
To that end, staff have been encouraged to get to know individual trainees and to prepare them as far as possible for return
1376
to the community. There has been an increased emphasis on education, particularly remedial education; and I accept that the increase in remission in junior centres in 1975 meant that we now have only six and a half weeks in which to achieve our objectives with the younger boys. But members of the staff have tried very hard, and with considerable success, to maintain standards. Any further reduction in training time would make it very difficult indeed for that constructive approach to continue. An effective sentence of 4 to 3 weeks' detention would be too short a period in which to build up any kind of positive relationship. But if the teaching staff could achieve very little in the available time, and although many of the boys are certainly in need of remedial treatment, it would be difficult to motivate them even towards remedying their deficiencies on release. The discipline staff would be increasingly occupied with reception and discharge procedures, and would have time only for minimal involvement with boys as individuals. In circumstances of this sort, they could hardly avoid seeing their role in a negative light.
While these remarks apply to both senior and junior centres, we would see very little need for a six-week detention centre sentence for the 17 to 20 age group. Your Lordships will be only too well aware of the increase in the junior population at Prison Department establishments as a whole; but to take the point made by the noble Earl, that does not at present apply to the detention centre population, and we are at the moment able to accommodate all those whom the court wish to send. We are not, therefore, forced to consider shorter sentences as a matter of expediency. If, however, the magistrates' courts were empowered, as a result of the other part of this Amendment, to pass sentences of six months on the 14 to 16 age group, the situation could be very different. Obviously I have no means of assessing how frequently the power might be used, but if six months' sentences were available to the magistrates for this age group, we should soon have to tell the courts that the centres were full and to ask them to refrain for a period from making orders of any length. That, I think, would be a serious matter and one which we should do everything possible to avoid.

1377
In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment on two counts: first, the introduction of shorter sentences of detention could mean, and I think probably would mean, a return to a less constructive regime, which was explicitly rejected by the Advisory Council on the Penal System. Secondly, to give the magistrates' courts the power to pass a six months' sentence for those in this age group could well overload the system, and I am quite sure we all want to avoid that.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am very well aware of the force of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and of course it is very difficult to argue against them. One wonders really what one can do with any child for three months, let alone six weeks. Nevertheless, there are those who feel it would be a useful extension of the armoury, so to speak, of the powers of a magistrates' court to make a detention centre order for six weeks rather than for a minimum of three months; and I have no doubt they may well be a little disappointed—I will put it no higher—at the slightly predictable attitude of the noble Lord. As I say, one is a little disappointed, but I personally see the force of the argument and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.49 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 88B:
Page 70, line 26, at end insert—
(". In section 12(1) (return to borstal institution on re-conviction) for paragraph (b) (which relates to the re-conviction of a person who has become unlawfully at large from such an institution and has not returned or been returned thereto) substitute—
"(b) being detained or liable to be detained in a borstal institution,".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which is necessary to deal with a practical problem involving the return to borstal under Section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 of offenders convicted of offences committed while unlawfully at large. At present the courts have no power to return an offender under that section if he has, as often happens, already been returned for
1378
borstal by the police. The Amendment therefore makes good this omission and provides the power to return to borstal an offender convicted of another offence during the currency of his borstal sentence. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 72, line 14, at end insert—
("1. In section 43(2) (penalty for contravention of designation order having effect by virtue of section 39(1)(a)) the words from "in the case of "to" carriageway "(the consequential omission of which was inadvertently not provided for in column 5 of Part II of Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Act 1974) shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should speak to Amendment No. 98 at the same time as this Amendment. This is a minor amendment to Schedule 9, with a consequential addition to Schedule 10, designed to rectify an inconsistency between two columns in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Act 1974, which amended Section 43(2) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.51 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 74, line 33, leave out from ("for") to end of line and insert (""within the period of fourteen days beginning with" substitute "at the next normal sitting of the court after"").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment seeks to change the period within which a court may review what it has done and, in effect, to re-open a case for the purpose of rectifying a mistake or something like that. Under the Bill, the Criminal Justice Act 1972 is being amended, in effect, by increasing the time limit for review from 14 days to 21 days. It has been urged upon me that there are magistrates' courts which sit only once a month—and indeed there are—but I should hate to be asked for instances now. But I am informed of this rather leisurely life which apparently goes on in some parts of England and Wales. In those instances, it would obviously be difficult for such a court to rectify its mistakes—and I say in parentheses that if it sits so infrequently it will probably make some—

1379
at its next normal sitting, without requiring a special sitting if the 21-day rule were to be applied, and I therefore gave a little thought to the problem. I say that because, on this occasion, the wording of this Amendment is my own drafting—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is not in his place—and it may well be that somebody will find fault with it. But it is apparently something which is needed by way of an amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: In view of the fact that the noble Earl indicated that he had drafted this Amendment himself, I regret to say that I have to begin by saying that it is defective in form, because, if made as it stands, it would oblige a court which sits daily to vary its decision the following day or not at all. I assume, however, that that is not what the noble Earl intended, but I make that point by way of introduction.
Apart from this consideration, however, we see objections in principle to the lengthening of the period within which a magistrates' court may change its mind to more than 21 days. These objections are based both on the original purpose of the provision, which was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1972, and on its interaction with the prescribed period for an appeal to the Crown Court.
The provision was intended to make possible a quick remedy if a mistake came to light directly after a magistrates' court had made a decision; for instance, when a defendant accidentally failed to appear and the court went on to deal with him in his absence, or if a fine higher than the prescribed maximum was imposed. A time limit of 14 days was chosen to allow for difficulties in reconvening the bench. The result of this Amendment, where the magistrates' court met infrequently and the Amendment was therefore used, would be that the defendant would have to wait over three weeks before the mistake would be put right. This would largely nullify the original objection of a quick remedy.
A further difficulty is that since three weeks is the prescribed period for lodging an appeal to the Crown Court, if a defendant had to wait more than three weeks before getting a mistake rectified
1380
by the magistrates, he would be placed in a dilemma on where to seek his remedy. He would almost certainly be advised, in that case, to lodge an appeal to the Crown Court, and thus the whole arrangement would be frustrated.
Moreover, notwithstanding what the noble Lord said—and I look forward to hearing about these magistrates' courts which sit at monthly intervals—I am sure he will accept that few courts sit so infrequently, and where they do a special sitting is the way out of this difficulty and not an Amendment to the law, as is suggested in this Amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I must take refuge in the time honoured phrase, "I will write to the noble Lord". But I see the force of the noble Lord's remarks, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.56 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 74, line 36, at end insert—
("ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1973 (c 15)

1. In section 9(4) (abatement of salaries of holders of certain judicial offices, including the stipendiary magistrates mentioned in subsection (1)(e) and (f), by reference to pensions payable in respect of any public office in the United Kingdom or elsewhere), after "United Kingdom or" insert ", except as respects any holder of judicial office mentioned in subsection (1)(e) or (f) above,".

2. Paragraph 1 above shall be deemed to have had effect as from the passing of the Administration of Justice Act 1973.").

The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient also to speak to Amendment No. 106 in this connection. This Amendment is intended to put right a drafting error which occurred as long ago as 1973.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I wonder who was Lord Chancellor then.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I would not venture to guess, or to suggest anything so unfriendly as that it might have been the noble and learned Lord himself. This drafting error in the Administration of Justice Act 1973 has the result, unless it is amended, of

1381
penalising stipendiary magistrates who have served overseas in public office in respect of which they receive a pension.
The salaries of stipendiary magistrates are governed by Section 9(4) of the 1973 Act, which provides that if the stipendiary is in receipt of a pension in respect of any public office which he has held, either in this country or elsewhere—and I underline those words—his salary shall be abated by the amount of the pension. The same provisions also apply to the higher judiciary, but not, however, to circuit judges, whose salaries are abated only to the extent of any pension derived from a public office in the United Kingdom, and that is provided for by the Courts Act 1971.
The higher judiciary have been liable to have their salaries abated also in respect of pensions from overseas, as well as in the United Kingdom, and that is provided for by the Judicial Pensions Act 1965. This has not, in practice, occurred, since no one to whom it could apply has been appointed to the High Court Bench. Until the 1973 Act this has never applied to stipendiaries, nor was it intended that the Act of 1973 should do so or make any change in their position. Unfortunately, owing to an oversight, the words "or elsewhere" which followed "in the United Kingdom" were extended also to stipendiaries by that Act.
I am sorry to say that this mistake, for which my Department and the draftsman of the 1973 Act must accept responsibility, went undetected until very recently, with the result that four of the metropolitan magistrates now holding office are subject to abatement of their salaries by the amount of pension they receive in respect of public offices they held overseas, in Commonwealth countries, in Africa, in Asia and in the Pacific. The result in one case would be that the magistrate was practically doing the work for nothing; or, at any rate, for very little. Had they been circuit judges and not stipendiaries, they would not have had to suffer these deductions. I have identified one case where the impact of the abatement would be severe. Your Lordships may think that it would be unfair to allow those concerned to be prejudiced by what was an inadvertent error in the drafting of the 1973 Act. A further difficulty is that the present provision makes it extremely
1382
unattractive—indeed, almost impossible—for any one who has had pensionable service in a public office overseas to accept appointment as a stipendiary, unless the amount of the abatement is very small. This, I fear, would result in our being deprived of very valuable candidates for the stipendiary bench. It is in the public interest that suitable applicants should not be discouraged.
The effect of the Amendment will be that any metropolitan magistrate, or stipendiary magistrate serving outside the metropolitan area, whether holding office now or in the future, will be subject to an abatement of salary only in respect of a pension received from a public office in this country and not from one which he held overseas. The Amendment will therefore place stipendiary magistrates on the same footing in this respect as circuit judges. I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I think I need only say that I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 75, line 46, at end insert—
("Provided that where an offender has been convicted of a further offence committed during the period of deferment for which he is committed for sentence to another court the above restriction on committal for sentence in respect of an offence for which sentence has been deferred shall not apply.").
The noble Earl said: This is a somewhat technical matter. Subsection (6) on page 75 amends the powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973. As I understand the position, it perpetuates what I might describe as the ruling in a case called Gilby which was reported in 1975. Magistrates view this with some anxiety, if not alarm. Their association feels that it may produce a practical sentencing difficulty. Already the effect is that some magistrates now hesitate to defer the passing of sentence.
To quote an example, if there is a case of a young man of previous bad character who is eligible for borstal training and who is convicted of an imprisonable offence at a magistrates' court, he may persuade the court to give him a further

1383
chance—by promising to make restitution, or whatever it happens to be—and the court defers passing sentence for a period, which it has power to do. If during the period of deferment that offender is convicted again of an imprisonable offence, the magistrates' court may then commit him to the Crown Court with a recommendation for borstal training in respect of the subsequent offence. However, under the rule in Gilby's case, and what will now be the statutory rule in this Bill, that court must also deal with him in respect of the case where sentence was deferred.
In these particular circumstances, therefore, the sentencing of the offender is placed in two sets of hands, if I may use the expression. The effect is that the magistrates' court must either pass a nominal sentence for the first offence, which it is now, under this enactment, bound to pass—and if it does that the motive will be to allow a freer hand for the Crown Court before whom the offender will eventually appear—or, alternatively, deal with the deferred case on its merits and risk embarrassing the Crown Court, who eventually will dispose of the subsequent offence.
In the circumstances, it seems logical and right to preserve the right of a magistrates' court to commit for sentence on the first offence in the event of conviction for a subsequent imprisonable offence during the period of deferment. I venture to suggest that the original decision in Gilby was something of a surprise when it came out and has produced, perhaps, a result which was neither contemplated nor desired. I beg to move.
8.6 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As the noble Earl has indicated, his Amendment would modify the effect of the decision in Gilby's case, which this Bill seeks to embody in Statute. The matter is not an easy one to resolve, but the Government take the view that the decision of the court in Gilby's case was correct. The magistrates have to consider whether to commit for sentence on the basis of the nature of the offence and the character and previous history of the offender. Clearly that is a matter for them. All the relevant data are available at the moment of conviction and if, in all the circumstances, the court judges the case to be
1384
appropriate for sentence by the Crown Court, then it should commit for sentence and leave to the Crown Court the decision whether or not to defer passing sentence under Section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
While subsequent misbehaviour may properly influence the level of sentence imposed by the deferring court—within, of course, its own powers—it should not reopen the initial decision that the case was not of such a kind as to merit a more severe sentence than it was within the power of the magistrates' court to impose. The Lord Chief Justice, whom we consulted, thought that while Parliament may not have intended the result produced in Gilby's case it might nevertheless be quite a good thing to require justices to answer the question, Commit or no? before they deal with deferment.
I accept at once that the arguments are by no means all the same way. In the case of a very serious offence committed during a period of deferment, it might be thought that the offender should be exposed to the severer penalties available in a Crown Court. But if the offence was not thought serious enough to warrant committal for sentence in the first place, it seems on balance wrong for something which happened subsequently to open up that possibility.
A further and rather different matter is the practical problem for a magistrates' court in dealing with a deferred sentence at a time when the offender is awaiting sentence in the Crown Court for another offence. In our view, the noble Earl's Amendment is not really necessary to deal with this situation. Where the magistrates' court, dealing with a subsequent either way offence, is the same as the magistrates' court which deferred sentence for the earlier offence it may, if it commits for the second offence, commit also for the first offence under Section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which is indeed extended by Clause 37 of the Bill. This section would not be affected by the restrictions on committal for sentence contained in the new subsection (8) of Section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. Where a different magistrates' court commits for the second offence, the Crown Court will have power to deal with the earlier offence under the new subsection (4A) of Section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act.

1385
Under both of these procedures the powers of the Crown Court in dealing with the offence for which sentence was deferred are limited to those of the magistrates. The noble Earl may not, I think, have realised the extent to which the practical problems of sentencing by different courts can be overcome under the powers which are already contained in the Bill. On the more fundamental issue—that is, the power to commit during or at the end of a period of deferment with a view to an enhanced sentence—we think on balance, and only on balance, for the reasons I have given, that it would be better not to erode the principle established in Gilby's case. I hope that on that basis the noble Earl will agree not to press his Amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I shall need to study in the Official Report what the noble Lord has said in order to understand it in any detail, but one matter which I had gathered from what he has said is this. It seems to me most unlikely that what he proposes in this Bill will do anything to reduce what I might call the caseload of the Crown Court, because a result of this provision is that there will certainly be more cases going up to the Crown Court. That will bear upon public funds and of course that is, if not the theme of this Bill, certainly the theme of a large part of the Bill, to reduce the number of cases going to the Crown Court and to reduce the amount of money which has to be spent, both on the Legal Aid Fund and on the administration. I may well return to this question at a later stage, but for the nonce I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
8.11 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 79, line 42, at end insert—

"51 & 52 Vict. c. xxxviii.

City of London Fire Inquests Act 1888.

The whole Act.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 59. It deals with the repeal of the City of
1386
London Fire Inquests of 1888. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 79, line 42, at end insert—

("52 & 53 Vict. c. 63.

Interpretation Act 1889.

In section 27 the word "coroner".")

The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment to the Interpretation Act 1889 to take account of the fact that coroners will no longer be responsible for committing any person for trial. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 93 to 95 en bloc:
Page 79, line 47, at end insert—

"15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 86.

Criminal Justice Act 1925.

Section 28(3).")

Page79, line 52, at end insert—

("10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 14.

Exchange Control Act 1947.

In Part II of Schedule 5, paragraph 2(3)")

Page 80, line 42, at end insert—

"7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 66.

Obscene Publications Act 1959.

In section 2, subsection (2) and in subsection (3) the words "on indictment".

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 57.

Films Act 1960.

Section 45(3)")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 95 en bloc because they go with Amendment No. 67 which has already been agreed by the Committee.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 80, line 57, at end insert—

("1966c. 27.

Building Control Act 1966.

Section 1(8).

1966c. 34.

Industrial Development Act 1966.

Section 8(10).

1966 c. 36.

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

Section 19(2). Section 20(6).")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, again, goes with the last series of Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 81, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert—

"In section 43(2), the words from "in the case of" to "carriageway".").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 89 which deals with a defect in the Road Traffic Act, 1974. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 81, line 17, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 91.")

The noble Lord said: This, again, deals with the same point that was dealt with in Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 99A and 99B en bloc:
Page 81, line 23, column 3, after ("to") insert ("the Offences against the Person Act 1861,").
Page 8, 1line 27, column 3, after ("1948") insert ("section 8 of the Midwives Act 1951, section 9 of the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951,").
The noble Lord said: I can deal with Amendments Nos. 99A and 99B at the same time. These are consequential on those to Schedule 6, increasing maximum summary fines under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Midwives Act 1951 and the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 100 to 105 en bloc:
Page 81, line 42, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 8, paragraph 8.")

Page 81, line 44, at end insert—

("1969 c. 51.

Development of of Tourism Act 1969.

In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, sub-para-graph (2) and in sub-graph (4) the words "2 and", "the Director of Public Prosecutions or" and "as the case may be ".")

Page 81, line 57, at end insert—

("1969 c. 56.

Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act 1969.

In section 1, sub-sections (2) and (4).")

Page 82, line 13, at end insert—

("1972 c. 60.

Gas Act 1972.

Section 43(2)(b)and the word "or" preceding it.

1972 c. 63.

Industry Act 1972.

In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, sub-paragraph (2) and in sub-paragraph (5) the words "the Director of Public Prosecutions" where first occurring")

Page 81, line 16, at end insert—

("1973 c. 43.

Hallmarking Act 1973.

In paragraph 2 of Schedule 3. sub-paragraph (2) and in sub-paragraph (5) the words "(2) and".")

Page 81, line 55, at end insert—

("1974 c. 40.

Control of Pollution Act 1974.

In section 87(3) the words from "section 3(2)" to "18(2) of this Act or under".")

The noble Lord said: These Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
The Lord CHANCELLOR The Lord CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 106:
Line 16, after ("amend") insert ("section 9(4) of the Administration of Justice Act 1973,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment was dealt with in relation to Amendment No. 90. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS APPEAL TRIBUNALS
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS APPEAL TRIBUNALS
  HMS "CARDIFF"
  HMS "CARDIFF"