Sitting of 16 February 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first Question I wish to tell the House that I intend to follow the customary practice of calling first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered, but because on two occasions today five Questions from one side of the House will be answered, I shall then, out of a sense of fair play, call hon. Members from the other side of the House as well.
  ENVIRONMENT

    Rent Acts (Review)
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has announced another review of housing, this time on private rented accommodation.
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the working of the Rent Acts.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to draw the Consultation Paper "Review of the Rent Acts" to the attention of home owners in the Armed Services.
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific steps he is taking to obtain the views of students, nurses, teachers and other single and newly-married young people currently suffering from the effects of the shortage of rented accommodation in central London and other cities, on the contents of his consultation paper "Review of the Rent Acts."
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from landlords of privately rented property in the current year in connection with the operation of the Rent Act 1974.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The intention to review the Rent Acts was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 20th November 1975, following an undertaking that I gave to do so in July 1974 when we were debating the Rent Act 1974. We have always made it clear, as we have in the consultation paper, that the Rent Act review would be related to, but separate from, the main housing policy review. In the review I am ready to examine suggestions for changes in the Rent Acts and associated legislation, subject to the major proviso that the general principle of security of tenure for the tenant in his home is to be maintained. The consultation paper has been circulated to individuals and organisations within and outside Government and I shall gladly send copies on request to those who wish to contribute and who have not already received the paper.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Minister now accept that in London thousands of empty houses and flats are being kept off the market by his Rent Act? Can the House have an undertaking that the legislation mentioned in the consultation document will be presented to the House in good time for it to become law within this Session?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Rent Act, but there are several Rent Acts, to which both parties have been committed at one stage or another. As to thousands of properties being empty, the only figures that we have, upon which to base a broad assessment, are those provided by the 1971 Census, which preceded the 1974 Act. In London it was estimated that about 90,000 dwellings—that is, less than 4 per cent. of the total housing stock—were empty on the night of the Census, and that is probably roughly the figure to date.
    Mr. Durant: Does the Minister realise the effect that the 1974 Act has had on accommodation for single persons in growing towns, such as Reading, where such accommodation is essential to the university? Is he aware that 18 students who started at the university last year were sleeping on camp beds because they could not find suitable accommodation?
    Mr. Freeson: For many years past there have been students in such situations in universities all over the country at the start of term. As to the effect of the Rent Act 1974 on housing for single people in Reading, I should be glad to receive more than generalisations and to have information sent to me by the hon. Gentleman. I should welcome that.
    Mr. Hunt: Does the Minister realise that the young people to whom I refer in my Question have strong views on the Rent Acts because those Acts have virtually dried up the supply of rented accommodation upon which they previously depended? Although the Government are now showing stirrings of concern, does the Minister recall how, monthly, he stood at the Dispatch Box and airily dismissed warnings from the Opposition Benches as party propaganda? Does he not feel shame and guilt at his past inaction and complacency?
    Mr. Freeson: Taking one Act at a time, the 1968 Act—which dealt with unfurnished accommodation, and which was a revision and consolidation of the 1965 Act—was not only maintained under the previous Administration; at the appropriate election times, public declarations were made by the Conservative Party that it did not intend to revoke that Act. So all sides must be responsible for the Rent Acts.
    On the substance of the point, I still do not accept that the problem of the shortage of rented accommodation has arisen since 1974. It is nonsense to suggest that it has. It has been a problem of varying patterns, and for many years past there has been an annual loss of about 100,000 rented dwellings from the market. The biggest rise in that figure occurred after the passage of the 1957 Rent Act, which decontrolled properties.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decline in the number of properties to let in the private sector has nothing to do with the security of tenure provided by the 1974 Act? Is it not true that the removal of similar protection in the 1957 Act did nothing to increase the number of properties available for letting at that time, and has not the decline continued for the greater part of this century?
    Mr. Freeson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I urge hon. Members to remember that in examining these matters we require a good deal more than generalisations and slogans. We need to analyse what is happening in the housing market. There is no doubt, for example, that a major contributory factor has been the welcome growth in owner-occupation. In some years, 40 per cent. of the movement into owner-occupation has come from people who were previously in rented properties. This is not a consistent figure, but it is a factor that must be taken seriously into account.
    Mr. Rossi: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although there is no direct statistical evidence, there has been a worsening of the situation since July 1974, and that there is evidence of a withdrawal of letting accommodation, or a shift by landlords to holiday lettings, bed and breakfast, or lettings simply to foreigners and not British people, because of the effect of the 1974 Act? Will he therefore consider some of the propositions put forward by the Opposition to encourage landlords to let empty property, including fixed-term lettings or short holdings, because the need is to provide homes for people and to encourage rather than discourage letting?
    Mr. Freeson: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will prepare a full statement on behalf of his party or himself and other interested people in regard to proposals for changes in the Rent Act. They will be seriously considered. On the first part of his question, I repeat that generalisations are not good enough. I always recognised, even before we introduced the 1974 Act, that there would be some disincentive to some landlords when conditions were imposed on lettings. This is a natural part of life. However, I said then, and I maintain, that the 1974 Act

    473
    together with the Acts of 1965 and 1968 have saved far more dwellings from going out of the rented market than they have lost to that sector. The Acts have stopped a lot of compulsory movement out of rented accommodation which would then have been lost to the rented market.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend give more attention to the needs of tenants and less attention to the pressure from the landlords' lobby opposite? In particular, will he note some of the exorbitant rents now being fixed by rent assessment committees, which are raising rents almost automatically every three years? Will he continue rent control for those who live in houses without amenities and continue, as he says in his document, to provide security of tenure for tenants?
    Mr. Freeson: On my hon. Friend's last point, I have given that assurance at the Dispatch Box and in the consultative document. We stand by the principle of security of tenure. As for proposals for changing or maintaining the status quo of the detailed operation of the Rent Acts, we shall be considering this as part of the consultative process and the review. There is a need to simplify the Rent Acts and to do a number of other things. We have to take account of the point that my hon. Friend has raised about the criteria on which rents are being fixed by rent officers. My hon. Friend has quoted some extreme examples, and there is no doubt that they exist. On the other hand, there are some properties that are not being properly maintained, and we have to look at means of getting an adequate flow of resources to ensure that these properties are maintained and modernised.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has just come into the Chamber. As his Question is being answered with Question No. 1, I shall call him to put a supplementary question. Mr. Onslow.
    Mr. Onslow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not being here when the Minister made his original reply, but I have only just received notice that my Question was being taken with Question No. 1. Is the Minister aware that the Rent Act is having a very damaging
    474
    effect for Service men? Is he aware that those who own their own homes are being put in a position of not daring to rent them, while those who wish to buy their own homes and finance them by renting are actively discouraged from that prudent course?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. If people are in ignorance of the workings of the Rent Act, things can go wrong, but let me make it clear again that a home owner—a Service man or anyone else—who lets his home has an absolute right to repossession when he or a member of his family needs to occupy it, provided he has warned the tenant in the due form set out in the Act before the letting began. This matter was examined closely in Committee and the position was made clear then. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman advises anyone who comes to him with such a problem to act accordingly. I shall be glad to supply him with the appropriate information.
    Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Nuclear Power (Flowers Report)
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish a White Paper in response to the Flowers Report on Nuclear Power and the Environment.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): The Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution raises issues of major national importance affecting a number of Government Departments. The Government will publish their response as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Forman: Will such a White Paper cover some of the environmental issues likely to be raised at the public inquiry into BNFL's plan for a mixed oxide reprocessing plant at Windscale? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no decision will be taken on the commercial fast-breeder reactor unless or until the Government have acted upon some of the recommendations in the

    475
    Flowers Report, particularly on the important questions relating to nuclear waste?
    Mr. Share: I hesitate to say more about Windscale, because I made a statement on 22nd December and the Royal Commission Report went very much wider than the question of the particular oxide processing plant. On the wider environmental issues that the Flowers Report identified, we shall be giving a careful response and addressing ourselves to the whole complicated question of waste management and disposal.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anger felt in areas that have been selected for research into the disposal of nuclear waste into geological formations? Is he aware that many people believe that once test borings are made we shall be on the slippery slope to becoming a nuclear dump, and that we shall be left with no protection from bureaucratic decisions? Will these matters be covered in the White Paper'?
    Mr. Shore: I am certain that no specific decisions will be made in a White Paper which will be a general response to matters raised by the Flowers Committee. I deplore the language that the hon. Gentleman used, but I can assure him that clearly there must be a programme of research into suitable places within the United Kingdom where, on the best possible information, it is safe to dispose of nuclear waste. It is the duty of the Government and responsible agencies to examine the whole country to discover the most suitable areas. No decision has been made, and there is no question of the Government's simply announcing a decision if and when we reach the time when we wish to do so.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Japanese want to export their nuclear waste thousands of miles away?
    Mr. Shore: I think that the Japanese have two reasons. They have made no secret of them. The first is that they are prone to repeated volcanic influences, and it is difficult for their Government to envisage anywhere in their territory that would provide safe geological formations in which they could store waste.
    476
    Secondly, for reasons that we all understand, in Japan there is an extra sensitivity to all nuclear questions.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Secretary of State explain the logic of one Government Department asking the House for another £1,000 million to extend the nuclear power industry before his Department has given us guidance on his reaction to the Flowers Report?
    Mr. Shore: The matters covered by the nuclear legislative proposals that we put before the House a week or so ago of course go much further than the question of building a particular oxidisation plant. They include many other things, such as the provision of new and improved facilities for dealing with Magnox fuels at Windscale. It is appropriate for the Ministry to go ahead as it plans to do. That will not pre-empt or prejudge the results of the inquiry that I am about to set up.

    Urban Problems
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.
    Mr. Eyreasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.
    Mr. Shore: I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) and Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on 19th January 1977.
    Mr. Bottomley: When the Secretary of State does announce the Committee's findings, will he beware of creating intense disillusionment and disappointment by offering no new initiatives or resources to these areas?
    Mr. Shore: I shall be careful not to arouse false expectations. Whenever I have addressed myself to this problem in public, I have always emphasised the great restraint on total public expenditure in which we are bound to be operating for the next year or two at least. But I have also made it plain that it is not impossible, if we are prepared to redistribute resources, to find within existing totals of public expenditure some useful resources to help certain areas. But those areas will be highly selective and will be those that are in real need.
    Mr. Steen: Does the Secretary of State agree that it was grossly unfair of the Prime Minister to blame Labour councils at a recent local government conference for the decline in the inner city areas when most of those areas have been represented by Labour members from time immemorial?
    Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not blamed Labour councils for this. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertee (Mr. Steen) has made a rather foolish remark. For example, I am not aware that the cities of Liverpool and Birmingham have remained under Labour control and direction for many years. The parties have shared control over those areas. It would be foolish of us to blame each other in a party political way for the real problems that exist in the inner cities—problems that exist in other countries as well as in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Eyre: When speaking at conferences will the Secretary of State recall that under this Government the house improvement campaign, which is of vital importance to inner areas, has been cut to one-third of its 1974 level? Will he also state—since he acknowledges that small businesses have an enormous contribution to make to employment—when the Government will stop hammering small businesses, and how their problems are to be eased?
    Mr. Shore: I would like to believe that a substantial proportion of home
    478
    improvement grants found their way into the inner cities when they were available on a lavish scale in years gone by, but I do not think that that was true.
    We are concentrating municipalisation expenditure and Section 105 expenditure precisely within those areas of greatest need, including the designation of housing stress areas. The problem of small businesses is one that can be helped a great deal not only by planning policy changes by local authorities but by a possible improvement of the provisions of all kinds that local authorities are able to make for small businesses.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is the Secretary of State not particularly appalled by the escalation in juvenile crime in areas of urban decline? Does he consider that the action of his right hon. Friend, who has just left the Chamber, in demoralising the police force at the present time is one of the best ways of solving the problem of juvenile crime?
    Mr. Shore: That is not a helpful or serious question. The problem of juvenile crime is a serious and growing one. The whole House understands that. But this is not the proper place or occasion to debate that aspect of the matter.
    Mr. Stan Crowther: In the current debate about the allocation of resources to new towns and city centres, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the majority of people do not live in either? Will he accept from me that in the northern half of England, where many people live in industrial towns of medium size, there is a strong feeling that we have already failed to receive our fair share of national resources because of the competition from new towns? Will he ensure that his current preoccupation with city centres does not further deprive us?
    Mr. Shore: I accept that the majority of people do not live in inner city areas or new towns, but the majority of people not living in those areas get the largest proportion of resources, in the form of rate support grant, allocation for housing, and so on. New towns must have the resources that are necessary for their existence and growth, and in the inner cities there is a large problem that must be solved.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome the change of direction by the Government to the inner areas, but does the Minister agree that greater assistance should be given to self-help groups, such as housing associations? Will he give them every encouragement?
    Mr. Shore: I shall do my best to give them all possible encouragement, but we must go beyond that and try to enter into some kind of closer partnership with the principal local authorities concerned to do the things that are needed.
    Mr. Skinner: Money is what is needed—and lots of it.
    Mr. Shore: I had better not say any more.
    Mr. Newens: I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend is taking in the inner city areas. Will he make it clear that this is not an alternative to new town development? Will he make it perfectly clear that it would be totally wrong for hon. Members to regard new town development, inner city redevelopment or the development of the smaller city areas as being mutually exclusive policies? Those who are concerned about housing should support them all.
    Mr. Shore: I agree that they are not mutually exclusive policies. Anyone looking at the first 20 to 25 years of the post-war period will acknowledge the enormous part that new towns have played in relieving the intolerable pressures in the inner cities of our major conurbations. But in the somewhat changed circumstances we must now look at all policies that are relevant to the dispersal of population from our cities. Within that context I am reappraising the rôle of the new towns.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the real problem with which he is faced at the Dispatch Box today and every day will continue until he refuses to accept the views of the Opposition to cut public expenditure? Until he halts the cuts in expenditure and assists in building more houses and helps those who are providing the goods and services for the public utilities and for manufacturing, he will never solve the problem of the inner cities, the outer cities, the rural areas, the small and large towns and all the rest. That is the problem.
    Mr. Shore: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. There is a remarkable thing—I do not agree with him on this occasion! Even in times when national economic stringency has not been pulling so tightly its cords around us as it is now—during periods of relative national affluenc—the problems of the inner cities have been growing and have not been dealt with. One of the things that we must do, regardless of the total resources available, is to use what we have more sensibly, in a more purposive and helpful way, to tackle what are revealed to be the very serious problems of our society.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does the Secretary of State agree that in talking about deploying more public resources to the inner city centres he is perhaps missing the point? Does he understand that cities grew because there was a powerful economic reason for their doing so, and that the more that the State has encroached, the more that the planner has been regulated, and the more that controls have proliferated, so the attractiveness, economically and socially, of the inner city areas has declined? Until he recognises that because there are new severe constraints on public sector funds it is the private sector that will have to be given the incentives to return to the inner city areas, he will never realise the massive change in public attitudes necessary to restore the strength of our inner cities.
    Mr. Shore: That is altogether too partial a view of what has happened in our inner cities. I believe that local authorities in inner city areas—I accept this point—have given, perhaps perfectly naturally, for the greater part of the postwar period absolute priority to housing needs, and have tended not to consider, to the extent that we would wish, the needs of employment and particularly of small firms in their areas. However, the hon. Gentleman must also realise that the inner cities have until very recently not had that extra increase in resources for dealing with their problems which I believe they have now been given, certainly since we started changes in the needs assessment of rate support grant which began in 1974. Secondly, local authorities have been tremendously impeded throughout most of the post-war period

    481
    by the appalling vagaries of land values and the high prices of land in their areas.

    Council House Building
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review his policy on future council house building.
    Mr. Freeson: We aim to make the provision of housing more responsive to detailed local needs. That includes maintaining a high priority for council house building programmes and concentrating activity where housing needs are greatest.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw to his attention the fact that unless building land is available now for councils to acquire, there will be a shortage of houses to rent in the future, when this land will not be available?
    Mr. Freeson: I certainly accept that there must be more advanced programming of land assembly for this purpose. My understanding of the position, which was examined very carefully most recently in the latter part of last year, but not for the first time, is that this was not a problem that was facing local authorities. If there are particular problems in my hon. Friend's locality of which he is aware, I shall be glad to receive details.
    Mr. Rossi: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use his influence to ensure that the report of the Building Economic Development Council, which the Secretary of State has in his possession, is published in full and without delay, as it apparently contains important evidence on the question of the subsidy cost of new council house building? Does he not accept that any suggestion of suppression or censorship of this report will be bitterly resented not only by this House but by those who are concerned with the truth underlying the real problems relating to housing in this country?
    Mr. Freeson: No doubt my right hon. Friend has heard the rather odd way in which that question has been put to him.

    Empty Houses
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what
    482
    is his estimate of the number of unoccupied houses in England and Wales.
    Mr. Freeson: The most recent comprehensive estimate of the number of empty dwellings is provided by the 1971 census, which recorded 675,880 dwellings in England and Wales—about 3·9 per cent. of the total housing stock-as "vacant on census night ".
    Information about vacant council dwellings in England and Wales is obtained annually from the Department's relets inquiries. The results for 1975 show that on 31st December about one-half of 1 per cent. of local authority housing revenue account dwellings—that is, approximately 25,000—were vacant and available for letting. About a further three-quarters of 1 per cent.—approximately 38,000—were vacant for modernisation, repair or conversion.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a large number, which causes considerable hardship in view of the long waiting lists, and is a waste of national wealth from the point of view not only of the deterioration of property and all that surrounds it but also of unused national assets, a waste that we can ill afford as a nation?
    Mr. Freeson: If properties of any kind in whatever ownership are left empty for any length of time, what my hon., Friend has said is correct. However, he will appreciate that the kind of figure that I have quoted or, indeed, the kind of figure that could emerge from a census taken at any point in time is, as it were, a photographic figure of the position at that time. It does not necessarily follow that the 675,880 dwellings empty on census night in 1971 were empty for the long time that would give rise to the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred. Many would be changing hands on the market. This is a very small percentage in national terms. However, I take the central point that my hon. Friend is making, irrespective of the particular figure. I am concerned about that, and we are seeking to do everything we can to encourage local authorities to undertake more than simply purchases of properties lying empty on the market and more speedy means of reletting and modernisation or repair of properties, and to undertake leasing arrangements.

    483
    [interruption.] This is not a question of relets. It is a question of the handling of properties that stand empty in local authority ownership and in the ownership of private owners. We are seeking to press and encourage them to undertake leasing arrangements, which they are doing in increasing numbers.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister understand that he is widely regarded as the most complacent Minister for Housing since the war? The fact that he can say to the House that the present situation, in which nearly 700,000 homes that would have been available for letting are now unoccupied, is something that he can take with equanimity is intolerable. His Government's policy is worsening the position in regard to houses available for letting, and his position at the Dispatch Box—" looking al this" and "talking about that"—is worsening the problem, about which he should be proposing action and not merely words.
    Mr. Freeson: A little more homework would not go amiss, I think, nor would a little less rhetoric in the form of questions. As a matter of fact, I have made no statement such as the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me. Let me make the point, for what it is worth, that the census figures that I have quoted were made available in 1971, and I do not recall that a Labour Government were in office then or during the two years that followed.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: I must be fair to others with Questions on the Order Paper. Mr. MacGregor.

    Community Land Scheme
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the allocation for land acquisitions under the Community Land Scheme in 1977–78 and the two subsequent years has been reduced from the levels previously proposed in Command Paper No. 6393.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): Reductions of £35 million in each of the years 1977–78 and 1978–79 were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on
    484
    15th December. A provisional figure for 1979–80 will be contained in part II of the White paper on expenditure published later this month.
    Mr. MacGregor: Do not these cuts, which are the result of very limited resources and which are likely to continue for years to come, mean that the Community Land Act simply will not have achieved the objectives that the Government set for it? if the Minister will not abandon the scheme altogether, as he should, will he at least consider raising and widening the limits for excepted development and urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the rate of development land tax so that private developers can undertake the rôle that the public sector cannot undertake?
    Mr. Barnett: My belief is that these cuts have not had any serious effect on the beginning of the scheme, which is building up steadily but building up well. The local authorities are, at the present stage, building up their staffs and beginning to operate the scheme. I do not think that the fact that the cuts have taken place at this stage is at all damaging to the scheme. It will provide a very good basis for the expansion of the scheme when market conditions are right.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that while we welcome the scheme we want to see more use made of it, above all in the North-East in the special development areas where we have been denied the use of it for industrial schemes in a rather worrying way?
    Mr. Barnett: I should like to have details from my hon. Friend of schemes where sanction has been denied. Local authorities are encouraged to submit proposals where they find them helpful in their own areas. One of the reasons why the scheme is not building up as fast as one might have expected is the present state of the land market.
    Mr. Speed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that neither house builders nor local authorities share his sanguine view about the scheme?
    Mr. Barnett: My sanguine view of the scheme is based on what we believe is likely to arise as soon as economic activity begins to get going.

    Holiday Caravans (Rating)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will order a review of the procedures for rating holiday caravans under a single hereditament per site in the Caravan Sites (Rating) Act.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: No, Sir. As far as I am aware, the procedures laid down in the Act are proving satisfactory in operation and are working better than the previous arrangements under which holiday caravans were rateable individually.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that that is not true and that a great deal of chaos is being caused as a result of the revaluation? Will he accept that the legislation we passed last year is being used as a front by many owners for unfortunate and regrettable behaviour in respect of the renewal of leases and collection charges? Will my hon. Friend agree to meet a deputation of Members from both sides of the House to discuss the matter, which is becoming a scandal?
    Mr. Barnett: I shall be glad to discuss with my hon. Friend the issues that he has raised in his supplementary question. I shall be glad to go into them with him. However, in general our evidence is that the Act is working reasonably well.
    Mr. Jim Lester: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the Act is not operating very well? I make the same offer to the hon. Gentleman as I made to his predecessor, namely, the chance to come to the East Coast with Members from both sides of the House to see for himself what is happening in the area. Is he aware that people are being charged a fee for the collection of rates, and that some are being asked to pay rates for 1977–78 before the local authorities have even fixed them?
    Mr. Barnett: I have heard reports of fees that I believe to be totally unjustified. I have already written to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection on this issue.
    Mr. John Ellis: Will my hon. Friend accept from me, along with other hon. Members who have asked supplementary questions, that all is not well in this
    486
    sector and that for a variety of reasons the caravan owner still lacks many of the basic freedoms that others enjoy? He is imposed upon under this heading and many others. It is time that we did something to give caravan owners the normal rights that are enjoyed by others.
    Mr. Barnett: I suspect that my hon. Friend is going a little wider than the Questions I think that he is raising issues such as security of tenure, which he may know is being studied as part of the mobile homes review. I take on board some of the points that he makes.

    Stansted Airport
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: The consultations on airport strategy for Great Britain, including the possibility of increased use of Stansted, will be completed shortly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will make a statement after there has been full consideration of the views expressed.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Essex Members are grateful to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade for giving them an opportunity of discussing this matter with him? Is he further aware that those throughout Essex and on both sides of the Chamber who won a battle in defence of the beauties and amenities of Stansted are resolved not to lose the war?
    Mr. Barnett: I am looking forward to meeting the Stansted Airport Action Group this week to discuss matters as it sees them from its angle. I cannot prejudge the statement that my right hon. Friend will ultimately make, but at present we are considering the views that have been expressed on both sides of the argument.
    Mr. Newens: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that opposition to the expansion of Stansted is based not solely on noise considerations but on wider planning considerations? Is he aware that there would be considerable problems about housing the workers if there were a large-scale

    487
    expansion, especially if Harlow were to fall foul of any decision relating to new town development in future? Although we are not opposed to a limited expansion, will my hon. Friend remember that there will be strong across-the-board opposition to a massive expansion on a site that we have discussed at great length in the past?
    Mr. Barnett: The views that my hon. Friend has expressed have been put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and myself in the consultations that we are undertaking. If my hon. Friend wishes to expand on those views by correspondence, we shall be glad to receive any information or views that he cares to give us.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his right hon. Friend's approval of Skytrain earlier this week means that there will be an automatic increase in the use of Stansted in the immediate future? Is he aware that there are many who would be prepared to consider a moderate increase in the use of Stansted but would be totally opposed to converting Stansted into a third London airport, either directly or, as some may fear, by stealth?
    Mr. Barnett: That view has been expressed to us. It is a view that we shall bear in mind in our considerations.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the prevarication that lies behind his answers this afternoon will cause the gravest concern among all the communities that thought that the issue had been finally resolved, as they will now find that it is apparent that the Government are reopening the issue?
    Mr. Barnett: I am absolutely astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are the first Government to have undertaken a national review of airport policy in full consultation with all interests involved. I do not think that we can be blamed in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The consultation is bound to involve delay. As a consequence, we shall come forward with a national airports policy of a sort that the hon. Gentleman would never have produced.

    Housing (Private Lettings)
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards securing a greater availability of houses to let in the non-local authority sector.
    Mr. Freeson: Government policy is to encourage a greater variety of social ownership and tenure. In the past three years the provision of dwellings by registered housing associations has trebled, to a rate of 30,000–40,000 extra a year. Shared equity schemes are now being sponsored by a number of local authorities and housing associations and there is an increasing number of co-operative housing schemes being initiated. A number of other initiatives are being considered in the context of our housing policy review and the review of the Rent Acts.
    Mr. Rodgers: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which has anticipated my supplementary question. Does he see a greater rôle for the utilisation of direct works departments by municipal authorities?
    Mr. Freeson: That matter is rather separate from the question of tenure. I ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of our proposed Bill on direct labour organisations in the not-too-distant future, when he will have ample opportunity of studying the details of what we have in mind.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the main reason for the non-availability of rented private houses is the continued operation of the Rent Acts since 1915? Will he also confirm that the lengthy review that he has instituted is no more than an elaborate attempt to prepare the ground so that he can persuade his party that the ridiculous prejudices that it has held so dearly over the years are wrong and are the principal cause of homelessness?
    Mr. Freeson: I think that I can safely leave the question of persuasion in the hon. Gentleman's hands, although I do not think that that will be very effective.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the main component of housing is housing finance? I

    489
    ask my right hon. Friend to make available to Members the findings of the various bodies that were asked to submit evidence to him in the general housing finance review.
    Mr. Freeson: I am somewhat at a loss, because it is my recollection that in every instance the bodies concerned published the evidence that they submitted to us, but I shall check on the matter. We shall ensure that the submissions that were made to us are made available to Members.

    Property Services Agency
    Mr. Copeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish an annual report and accounts for the Property Services Agency.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I do not consider that the preparation of an annual report for the Property Services Agency would be justified. Each year the accounts of the Agency are laid before this House and published, together with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The Agency is subject to all the normal methods of parliamentary control.
    Mr. Cope: Why should this Agency, which does essentially a commercial management job for the Government, publish less information than a private sector property company, because it uses taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Marks: It has a wider scope and is involved with defence and many other matters as an agency for other Government Departments. Unlike nationalised industries, the Agency has to reply to questions in this House through a Minister. Next week, the chief executive will appear before the Public Accounts Committee, and the Public Expenditure Committee is also involved with it.
    Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an enormous property empire? Certain of its overseas activities have been the subject of criticism by a Select Committee. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the way in which this body is accountable, because many of us believe that it is not adequately accountable and that this House is not enabled to look publicly in sufficient detail and depth at its activities in the way that we think suitable?
    Mr. Marks: As I have said, it is open to hon. Members to question this body and, as my hon. Friend said, members of the Select Committee have examined—which, I admit, is more than I have done—the overseas activities of the Agency. There is ample opportunity for the House to register an opinion and to question what happens in the Agency.
    Mr. Heseltine: What proportion of the PSA's activities and assets are involved in defence work?
    Mr. Marks: That is not a question that I can answer off the cuff, but if the hon. Member puts down a Question I shall answer it.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend take a particular look at the situation where the PSA buys up houses in the expectation of roads being built, and then vandalises them? Will he stop that from happening? Will he make it clear to the PSA that it should not vandalise houses, so that when decisions are taken which mean that the roads are not to be built the houses can quickly be made available for the homeless?
    Mr. Marks: We are acting as the agency for other Departments and must take advice when houses are needed. Frequently, when there is a possibility of roads being built, to assist those whose houses may be blighted there is purchase in advance. Wherever possible the Department concerned or the PSA lets the houses prior to the need for them to be demolished.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in a Written Answer in reply to my Question he said that the cost of preparing a report would be £25,000? In view of the wide interest, both in the House and outside, in the activities of the PSA, and as its net expenditure is £776 million, does he agree that £25,000 would be money well spent?
    Mr. Marks: Perhaps the best reply is that the former Ministry of Works, which preceded the PSA before it was created by a Conservative Government, produced an annual report but stopped doing so on the grounds of economy.

    Building Societies Association
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when

    491
    he next plans to meet the Building Societies Association.
    Mr. Shore: I had an informal meeting with some of the leaders of the Building Societies Association on 26th January. I am ready to meet them again whenever the need arises.
    Mr. McCrindle: I welcome the recent improvement in the inflow of funds to the building societies, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the first six weeks of 1977 are anything to go by, there will still be serious difficulties in obtaining a mortgage in 1977? Will he say what effect he thinks that is likely to have on housing policy in general and on the building industry in particular?
    Mr. Shore: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's words about welcoming the inflow of funds. He asks me, on the basis of the first six weeks of this year, to take a view about the inflow of funds a little later on. It is a little early to do so, but my hope and belief are that we shall see a return, as it were, to the far more normal inflow of funds that we experienced in 1976 and earlier. If that is so, as I hope it will be, I have no doubt that it will give considerable encouragement to the private house building sector.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When my right hon. Friend sees the Building Societies Association will he tell it to stop the practice of red-lining certain districts, which is distasteful to many people in the inner cities, particularly the immigrants living there?
    Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend about the undesirability of the practice of red-lining. We have made plain to the building societies our concern about this. In particular cases they have followed through our representations to them, and I believe that effective action has been taken. I am fully aware that there are still, and will continue to be, reports of such practices. I hope that they will be sent to me so that I can take them up with the building societies.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on the Building Societies Association that, as soon as funds permit, one of its first priorities must be to get interest rates down, which are usurious at 12¼ and 12½ per cent. in the case of the Halifax Building Society?
    Mr. Shore: It would be most welcome if we could get mortgage lending rates down. That would give great satisfaction to everyone, but I believe that the prior need is to restore the inflow of funds to societies.

    Planning Appeals
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that planning appeals are being dealt with by his Department as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I am satisfied that there has been a substantial improvement over the last three years.
    Mr. Clemitson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a considerable number of people are playing the system by knowingly not complying with the planning law and using the appeals system as a means of buying time so that they can continue their unlawful and often lucrative activities?
    Mr. Barnett: There is certainly one sphere in which the kind of complaint that my hon. Friend has made is particularly true. This is with regard to enforcement over land use. I was pleased that a Private Member's Bill introduced into the House on the subject a short time ago received a Second Reading.
    Mr. Sims: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increasing tendency of his Department to deal with planning appeals by written representation rather than a public inquiry deprives individuals and local organisations of the opportunity of ensuring that their views are adequately considered? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that policy?
    Mr. Barnett: The advantage of the written method is that it is quicker, and the original Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) is about trying to speed up the planning process—a suggestion which I strongly support, for many reasons. I think I am correct in saying that the decision whether to go for the written method or a public inquiry depends on the views of the people who are parties to the planning application, though others who have views—such as amenity societies—may be adversely affected, and I take the point.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider providing financial assistance to local organisations and citizens who band together and feel strongly about planning applications? They are at a grave disadvantage when they have to meet local authorities or my hon. Friend's Department which are represented by legal people. Ordinary people cannot afford that sort of thing. Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider whether, on certain occasions, financial help should be given for ordinary citizens to be properly and legally represented at public inquiries?
    Mr. Barnett: That point has been put a number of times. It is my evidence that inspectors go out of their way to ensure that groups of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend are adequately considered. I do not think that we could consider giving financial help during the present economic situation.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: The Minister will be aware of the general opinion that the delay in the Department from the date of an appeal hearing to the announcement of the Minister's decision is far too prolonged. Can he give any explanation for that and say to what extent he is taking into account the unreasonableness of the delay, which is generally acknowledged?
    Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Gentleman has any special cases to bring to my attention, I shall be glad to consider them. I am doing everything I can to speed things up, but from time to time exceedingly difficult planning appeals come to the Department and inevitably take longer. It is in those cases that the difficulty so often arises.

    Green Belt Land (Designation)
    Mr. John H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with metropolitan city councils and metropolitan district councils about his and their respective responsibilities for designating the green belt round major cities; and whether he will set up an inquiry concerning the proposal to build on the High Storrs Rough in the Hallam constituency, some of which is used for allotment gardening and was assumed to be green belt.
    Mr. Guy BarnettMy right hon. Friend has had no such discussions with metropolitan county councils or district councils. On the information at present available to him, he is not convinced that he should set up an inquiry into the proposal to build on this land.
    Mr. Osborn: Although strategic planning is the responsibility of the county council, is the Minister aware that the designation of the green belt around Sheffield has always been vague? What steps will he take to prevent further erosion of the green belt and countryside around Sheffield?
    Mr Barnett: My information is that the land to which the hon. Gentleman refers is within the area of the draft green belt proposal drawn up by the old Sheffield City Council in 1937 and never submitted to the Department. In such circumstances, our general view would be that such planning decisions are more properly taken locally, where, indeed, most planning decisions of that kind are taken.

MR. AGEE AND MR. HOSENBALL
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The House will recall the statement that I made on 18th November last in which I said that I proposed, under the powers vested in the Home Secretary by the Immigration Act 1971, to make deporation orders against Mr. Philip Agee and Mr. Mark Hosenball, whose departure from the United Kingdom I had concluded was conducive to the public good as being is the interests of national security.
I explained to the House the non-statutory procedure under which Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball could make representations to an independent panel whose advice I would take into account before coming to a final decision.
Both Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball elected to make representations to the panel. I have now received and considered its advice in both cases. I have also considered the various representations that have been made to me by Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball themselves, their advisers, right hon. and hon. Members, and members of the public. I have reached the clear conclusion that in both cases my original decision must stand. I have therefore made a deportation order against each man.
Hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is like Czechoslovakia.
Mr. Rees: These orders will now be served on them together with notices of restriction requiring them to report weekly to the police. Before directions for removal are given stating the destination, which would normally be their own country, the United States of America, I am prepared to consider, in respect of either of them, specifying another country of their choice, provided they can show by the beginning of next month that the country would be prepared to accept them. This is without prejudice to their statutory right of appeal against the destination finally named.
Hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. Whitelaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative Opposition's position will remain as I stated it on 18th November—namely, that this House is rightly jealous of individual liberty but at the same time the security of the State must be the primary consideration? On the evidence available to him and not available to others in this House or to any of the rest of us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] In terms of national security there are inevitably matters which are in confidence to Ministers and to no one else, and that must be the position.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must restrain themselves.
Mr. Whitelaw: In these circumstances, is the Home Secretary aware that we shall certainly not question his decision?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must make one point clear. What is at issue is whether the powers available to me under the separate code of the Immigration Act should be used against foreigners temporarily in this country, and when I hear cries of "Czechoslovakia" it is not an equation that I am prepared to accept.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is the same.
Mr. Rees: It is not the same. We are dealing with an important issue and nothing will be gained by my being shouted down. I am not prepared to be shouted down on the ground that some people are better Liberals or better Socialists according to the loudness of their voices.— [Interruption.] Those who are shouting at me have not had the access to the papers to which I have had access to.
Hon. Members: Why not?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be a thorough disgrace to this House—[HON.MEMBERS: "It is."]—order—if free speech were denied. Even if it is a view that hon. Members do not like, we must listen to it.
Mr. Rees: Under the law that I have to apply, I have information which I have to put before an independent panel, to which I have not spoken. The decision is mine at the end of the day, and

497
all I can say is that no Home Secretary could lightly disregard the advice that comes from the panel, and I am not prepared to say any more than that.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Home Secretary says that he has irrefutable evidence that these people have committed some of the most bestial crimes against the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He has said that he has irrefutable evidence that they have betrayed the lives of Britishers. He said so in his original statement. Let those who were not present look up that statement.
Mr. Skinner: That is right.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: If that is the evidence, should not the Home Secretary have these people tried in camera? There would be no need for the trial to be public, and if the two men were found guilty they should be sentenced severely. But if my right hon. Friend is going to deport them to the country of their choice, will they not be able to disseminate there all the information which it is alleged that they have? Is it not the case that the CIA has demanded this action, and that my right hon. Friend has given way to that demand?
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has not referred correctly to what I said in my original statement. I must make it abundantly clear that there has never been any representation from the United States Government or from any American agency. I am not interested in that. I am concerned with the interests of this country. Those who have been talking about the CIA and what happens in the United States are entitled to do so—and some of those who have spoken in that way are most curious people to have done so, but that is another matter. I am interested only in this country, and I have carried out the law as passed in 1971.
Mr. Hooson: Is the Home Secretary aware that we on the Liberal Bench find this whole procedure offensive and contrary to the traditions of fair play and justice in this country? Is he further aware that we in the House do not know whether an injustice has been done to either or both of these men because we have no means of knowing? Is he also
498
aware that although we may rely on his judgment, the whole procedure lends itself to the suspicion that that judgment may be very suspect?
Mr. Rees: I am prepared to accept that discussion of the procedures—which were discussed both in 1971 and on the earlier legislation in 1969—is important, but I am also sure that no one has yet been able to devise an alternative procedure which would both protect the sources of evidence and give the person concerned—[interruption.] I must tell my hon. Friends that I am not equating this matter with the Official Secrets Act. I am saying that I have put my mind to the procedures and I know of no other way in which the sources of information could be protected. Cases differ. I am quite sure that in this process there is the greatest difficulty, but hon. Members, who are quite properly worried about the situation, should not equate it with the CIA, because that is not my interest.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Despite the roar of approval that he received from the Tory Benches, will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is serious concern about this case because no one in the House, apart from himself, knows the evidence or knows whether these men have been treated justly and fairly? There is great concern that, in order to reassure the House, my right hon. Friend could have explained a good deal more about what they are alleged to have done. Before these men are deported, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a debate in the House so that the whole matter can be fully discussed, including the issue of the procedures?
Mr. Rees: The question of a debate is not a matter for me. But in this particular case I made the situation clear in the first instance. I have said to the House all that I can say, and on that I have to rest.
I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend, and he has every right to be concerned about the procedure. My hon. Friend worked at the Home Office and concerned himself with these matters. No one has yet been able to devise a procedure which protects sources of evidence. It is extremely important that that should be done.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As I understand it, the Home Secretary is merely telling these people either to go home to the United States or to go to a country of their choice. Has he any evidence that they will face political persecution at home, or have they applied for political asylum?
Mr. Rees: I have no evidence on the latter point. But at the end of the fortnight period if they have not gone to a country of their choice, and by virtue of the law, I would have to sign an order saying "Back to the United States". They have the right of appeal on this issue under the 1971 legislation.
Mr. Mellish: As one who has enormous regard and respect for my right hon. Friend's judgment and integrity, and in fairness to himself, may I ask whether it is not possible for him to convey to the country—not only this House—some idea of what these people are charged with so that we can see why my right hon. Friend arrived at his decision? I happen to be one of those who believe that my right hon. Friend would not have made a decision of such great importance unless the evidence was overwhelming and it was for the benefit of and met the needs of the country.
Mr. Rees: I did not repeat it again today, but in November, and on other occasions, I read the list which I think would meet the case about which my right hon. Friend is concerned. Mr. Agee, for example,
"had maintained regular contacts harmful to the security of the United Kingdom with foreign intelligence officers; had been and continued to be involved in disseminating information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom; and has aided and counselled others in obtaining information for publication which could be harmful to the security of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 18th November 1976; Vol. 919; c. 1567–8.]
That is what I am talking about.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: Before the right hon. Gentleman listens too closely to analogies drawn between this country and Czechoslovakia, will he point out to his hon. Friends that this country is probably unique as being the one country in which citizens can leave or enter at will with or without a passport?
Mr. Rees: Whatever analogies are made, I am talking about visitors to this
500
country who are free to come and go as they will. I have a responsibility, in the way that I have explained, for within this country.
Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the sense of grief with which we have heard him today comes partly because the deportation to a country of their choice was precisely what was offered last week to the Charter 77 leaders in Czechoslovakia, and we do see something of a parallel in these matters? Will he further accept that all of us who have become concerned about these matters are most concerned that when the two accused men faced the tribunal—which alone knew what the truth of the charges against them might be—it was seeking by interrogation to make clearer that the charges put to them were not such that they could have any possible notion of the full gravity of the offences with which they were supposedly charged.
In the case of one of the men, who has not yet been mentioned—Mr. Hosenball—the main interrogation hinged upon the so-called Cheltenham article which, it subsequently emerged, he did not write. It was written by a British subject. It would be best for this House, for Parliament and for the judicial procedures of this country if we were to set up a Select Committee to look at these procedures which are profoundly unsatisfactory, because I do not believe that they can be used again.
Mr. Rees: With regard to a Select Committee, or some appropriate way of looking at the working of this legislation, certainly if it is a matter of looking at the working of legislation—the procedures—I can understand the proposal. I realise the concern that people feel about this. But we are not talking about deporting people from Britain. We are not talking about Charter 77. We are talking about people who are visitors to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Foreigners."] The analogy is certainly not complete.
With regard to procedures, there is still the aspect that there is information which cannot be brought out in public without risking the lives of people who work for the State.
Mr. Amery: None of us who have had ministerial responsibility in intelligence

501
or security services can possibly ask the right hon. Gentleman, with any sense of responsibility, to disclose the evidence on which he has taken his decision. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that many of us on this side of the House think that when he was responsible for Ulster he showed, if anything, undue leniency. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the facts are strong enough to warrant deportation, that is good enough for me.
Mr. Rees: There have been curious analogies today. What I did in Ulster was to make sure that people who were involved in violence, and who were from Northern Ireland, were dealt with by the courts. I believe that I was right to do that. It is not a question of leniency. I believe that it was sense. I do not believe that there is analogy with this in terms of leniency. I have the law to carry out. It is a law that Parliament passed. That is all that I have available to me. On the basis of that, I believe that I have done the right thing. I have not done it on advice within the Department on a wide basis. There have not been Press releases which said this has been dealt with only because of my responsibility for the security services. Indeed, I am aware of my wider responsibilities in that sense because of what has gone on in other countries.
Mrs. Hart: Speaking also as a Minister who has had some concern with intelligence responsibility on at least two occasions, I have found that sometimes the information is not entirely correct. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great concern about the procedures under the 1971 Act? This is a hypothetical question, but sometimes Ministers can answer slightly hypothetical questions. If new procedures are found which are satisfactory to my right hon. Friend in terms of the urgency and the need to protect the sources of intelligence information, would he be prepared to look again at these two cases? Is he fully aware that throughout the whole of the local proceedings Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball were not allowed to know anything more about the charges against them, which the right hon. Gentleman had made public to the House, and there was no transcription or recording of the defence evidence?
Mr. Rees: Regarding the procedures, I have indicated on all occasions that, as happened in 1971, Parliament should look at them to see whether they are conducive to the public good and security. That is the right thing to do. But I certainly cannot have this case looked at again. Anything that happens in future might be looked at under new laws passed by Parliament. I did not take this decision lightly in the first instance. There are easier matters for politicians to deal with than this case. I believe that I was right in the decision that I took. If it brings out the kind of feeling which people have in that respect, I suppose it can be said that I knew in the first instance that it would do so, but I still feel I was right to take this course.
Sir A. Meyer: Is the Home Secretary aware that, despite a massively orchestrated Communist campaign to portray these two individuals as equivalent to the Shrewsbury pickets, the great mass of public opinion still remains of the conviction that he has leant over backwards to be fair?
Mr. Rees: There have been some curious analogies this afternoon. I should point out that not only Communists have been concerned. Civil liberties in this country are proper and important matters for this House to consider. People who are by no means Communists are concerned about this case, and I understand why. But, under the law, I had to take the decision. The matter went to the panel, which knew what it was looking for, but the decision was mine. All I can say in that respect is that I obviously took into account what the panel said.
Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a former Minister who had analogous but not identical security responsibilities for some time, I fully sympathise with him in the difficult decision that he had to make under the procedure.
Is he aware that, during a period when we had grave difficulty because people such as Fuchs and Pontecorvo were giving information to potential enemies of this country, there was a correct demand for a careful survey of a large number of people who might be a danger to the security of the country—namely, civil servants and others in industry in sensitive positions? The Government, with the

503
general support of the House, then decided that the only course was to select those against whom there might be a case, although they had not committed any crime, and to submit their names to a group of senior civil servants, called the three wise men, who were asked to investigate the background and history of those people in the same way as the people who investigated this case. At the end of the day those three wise men made a thorough investigation and reported their conclusions to me as the Minister responsible at that time, and in most, but not all, cases I had to agree with those people.
Although the procedure is regrettable, unfortunate and difficult, does my right hon. Friend accept—I hope that the House will also accept—that we could not devise a better procedure? There was a tremendous outcry by all liberal opinion in the country about the procedure, but at the end of the day no better procedure was suggested. I think that the outcome was satisfactory, because only those against whom there was real suspicion were sacked from their posts.
Mr. Rees: The "three wise men" procedure is precisely the procedure that I followed in this case.
Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people in this country will expect him to put the security of the State first? Is he also aware that most people believe that he has behaved as a true British Home Secretary should behave and that, furthermore, they have absolute confidence in his judgment and integrity in these matters?
Mr. Rees: I am always grateful for support. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me. My father was a collier and my family did not need to be told that they were true British. We have taken it for granted.
Mr. Rose: I should like to express my utter dismay and revulsion at the Home Secretary's decision, particularly in respect of Mr. Hosenball. Is he aware that, having attended the procedures which resulted in the order for his deportation, I can only describe them as a mockery of justice? How on earth can one answer allegations when one does not know what they are and when one can-
504
not cross-examine those who are making the allegations? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that he is guilty of double standards with regard to agents of totalitarian powers who have been brought to his attention and about whom he and his Department have done nothing for two years?
Mr. Rees: We must disagree on the procedure.
On the latter point, my hon. Friend is concerned about certain Koreans who have been involved in activities in the United States and in this country. With regard to the evidence of their being involved in security matters which would be to the detriment of this country, if I have information it will be dealt with in the same way.
Mr. Mayhew: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this House owes a duty to those who serve this country in the security services? In many cases it would be easy for a Home Secretary to neglect that duty by taking a course which would disclose their identity. Is he aware that, where he is backed by the advisory panel which thinks it is right to make use of the procedure, this country will always support him?
Mr. Rees: I must make it clear that the decision is mine. The panel is advisory. All I have said is that I obviously take firmly into account what the panel says. One matter which I take into account in terms of information is the danger to servants of this country, which is what any Home Secretary will have to do.
Mr. Litterick: In view of the recent and, it seems to me, colossal failure of the security services to detect a considerable arms traffic between this country and South Africa via the Channel Islands, which is illegal and illicit, can my right hon. Friend with any confidence assure the House that his intelligence information system has not been subverted by some other organisation for its purposes?
Mr. Rees: I do not know the facts of the case to which my hon. Friend is referring. I am satisfied that the information that I had was sufficient to deal with the matters which I put to the House and that that information was not subverted. If hon. Members look again at the statement that I made to the House in the

505
first instance, they will see that was what I was concerned with. I hardly see how it could be subverted by anybody from outside.
Mr. Hastings: Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to the television broadcast of the "World in Action" programme on 7th February which seemed specifically designed to further the interests of Agee and Hosenball together with their British supporters without a serious or fair attempt at achieving a balance? Will he look into the motives of those responsible?
Mr. Rees: I do not recall seeing the programme. As someone with responsibility in another way for the BBC, it seems to me that 50 per cent. of people think that any programme is biased in a manner contrary to their own views.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend realise that Labour Members, unlike Opposition Members, are not prepared to condemn individuals without evidence, albeit that they are foreigners, and that we are not prepared to leave such matters to the private and, in a sense, irresponsible decision of a Home Secretary? With due respect to my right hon. Friend, he will not be the Home Secretary for the next 10 years. It may be a Member from the present Opposition, who will not have the confidence that we have in my right hon. Friend. Will he now give a categorical assurance that he will put in train a review of the procedures so that evidence against an individual can he heard and refuted, that the procedures will be open and accessible, and that we shall not in future have a slur cast on our system of justice and our proud tradition of individual liberty?
Mr. Rees: I fully understand the problem. There are 9 million visitors to this country in a year. I have the responsibility which I indicated to the House for people visiting this country. The procedure is not a slur on British justice.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's final remarks about evidence being made available generally. One of the difficulties in this case was that the slightest information would have put at risk, and made it very easy to identify, the people from whom we get information.
Mr. Speaker: I have given a very good run on this subject, and I propose to allow two more questions from each side. I remind hon. Members that there is another statement to follow and two applications under Standing Order No. 9. I honestly believe that I have given the House a fair opportunity to question the Home Secretary on this matter.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the Home Secretary, without wasting the time of the House, simply publish a list of the European countries in which there is a right of appeal against deportation of foreign residents? This is something unique in this country. The Minister for the Interior in France can deport someone as and when he pleases—just like that! Perhaps those hon. Members on the Left who are complaining about this incident should look at France.
Hon. Members: That does not make it right.
Mr. Rees: I think it is a unique situation that people who are visiting this country have the right of appeal against deportation. It needs to be looked at very firmly from time to time because of the power that is put in the hands of the Home Secretary. I have carried out the law as it is, and I believe that I made the right decision.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend even begin to justify a system under which an accused person has no indication of the evidence against him, and in which he then has to throw out random questions to the assessors in the hope that through a twinkle in the eye he may get an indication of that evidence? The nebulous statement that my right hon. Friend has just read out was typical of statements from totalitarian countries when they are meting out similar punishments.
Mr. Rees: My action would be reminiscent of a totalitarian country if I were taking a British citizen with whose views I disagreed and deporting him out of the United Kingdom. But I have no power to do that. I am dealing with the problem of people visiting this country. They can come here as visitors, and I have to exercise my discretion over what is conducive to the public good. I had to consider that when Mr. Thorsen

507
arrived at a port the other day. My hon. Friend's analogy with totalitarian countries is not on all fours at all.
Mr. Adley: Would the Home Secretary agree that while some concern may be expressed by well-meaning people, we can expect in the next few days that those who shout loudest will be those who had the loudest voices when Lord Home expelled 105 spies to Russia?
Mr. Rees: Only a couple of days ago I let someone out of prison and although I was not in the House I read in Hansard the reports of what was said. The comments made then depicted me as something of a flaming radical. Two days later I am being portrayed as a flaming reactionary. You pays your penny and takes your choice.
Mr. Spriggs: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of us wonder why two people either with work permits or who were visitors to the United Kingdom are being deported with information which is prejudicial to the safety of the State? Why is he not taking proceedings to prosecute these people here in the United Kingdom where they are alleged to have committed offences? Has the Home Secretary seen the Early-Day Motion on right of information to this House? Will he consider the position put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) in deciding cases of this nature?
Mr. Rees: On the second point, of course under the Immigration Act 1971 the House has the right to look at procedures which it gives to the Home Secretary to carry out. On the question of work permits, I will give information about that in each case, of coming here as a visitor, extending the stay as a freelance writer, and so on. On the question of information which it may be possible to publish from abroad, this illustrates the point that I have no power to stop people from saying what they like to say. It is a question whether they should say it as visitors to this country.
Mr. Alexander Lyon Mr. Alexander Lyon rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) can pursue his application under Standing Order No. 9 after the next statement.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall report to the House on the meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) on 14th and 15th February 1977. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary led the United Kingdom delegation.
The Council agreed on a Community regulation on fisheries conservation, subject only to a reservation by the Danish Minister, which I hope he will be able to withdraw in the next few days.
As I have frequently explained to the House, it is vital that we retain the right to introduce national conservation measures in our sovereign waters as a safeguard, should the Community fail to act effectively to preserve fish stocks. I am pleased to tell the House that our right to do this has been restated in a Community regulation.
Among the other provisions of this regulation are a ban on North Sea herring fishing during March and April and a review of the situation thereafter, an immediate reduction in the allowable by-catch of protected species taken in industrial fishing from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. and a further reduction to 15 per cent. at the beginning of 1978, agreement that the Commission will make proposals on the rules governing mesh sizes by mid-March, and the establishment of a closed area for the fishing of Norway pout in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland from 21st February until 31st March. The latter will help to protect valuable stocks of immature white fish, particularly haddock and whiting, which are otherwise at risk.
Our concern at the earlier failure to reach agreement on an effective EEC conservation measure in this area led the Government to place an order before the House last week creating a closed area for Norway pout fishing. The Council has now agreed, subject to the withdrawal of the Danish reservation, to the boundaries we proposed for the closed area. The Commission will make proposals on the basis of scientific studies on further Community action from 1st August.

509
The agreement on conservation represents a major advance since the Community has accepted the need for the measures for which we have pressed; and the right to take national action, if necessary, has been retained.
My hon. Friend again raised in the Council the need for Community action to correct the present unfair method of calculating pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts. The Commission is considering this, and I hope that an early solution can be found.
Mr. Gundelach presented to the Council the Commission's proposals on agricultural prices for 1977–78. The Commission proposes an average increase in Community support prices in units of account of about 3 per cent. and for changes in green currencies, including a devaluation of the green pound reducing the sterling monetary compensatory amounts by 8 percentage points.
My hon. Friend made the United Kingdom's position clear. It is essential that the settlement contributes to food price restraint and to the reduction of structural surpluses. We, therefore, found it hard to justify any price increase for products in structural surplus, in particular milk.
On the green pound my hon. Friend once again made clear the Government's position that any change would be made only in the overall national interest.
The discussion on the prices proposals was very much a preliminary one and will be resumed at the next Agriculture Council on 14th-15th March.
The Council also agreed to extend the suspension of the common customs tariff on new potatoes until 31st March and on maincrop until 15th April. This will help to keep down shop prices.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important and welcome statement on fisheries. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is much to be congratulated on having brought home with him a useful agreement. I am in no way qualifying what I said when I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to acknowledge the understanding shown by other members of the Community of the real concern that this country feels on these issues.
510
May I raise two points on fisheries? What point have we now reached on the question of the 50-mile limit? Secondly, I am concerned about enforcement. The more we go into details on this matter over the greatly extended areas with which we are now dealing, the more enforcement seems to me to be a very complicated and difficult problem which is much easier to talk about than to achieve.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the green pound. Am I right in thinking that he is slightly changing his posture here? Secondly, on the pigmeat mcas, will he acknowledge the present unfair method of calculation? I have asked the Minister this question before. Am I not right in thinking that he could have secured a revision of this unfair method had he agreed to a marginal devaluation of the green pound three or four months ago?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for his initial remark on fisheries. My hon. Friend and I tried to build on the work which was started by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and we did so in the knowledge that we have— and I have not hesitated to make this point in Brussels—the whole House with us on this question.
As I have told the House before, the question of the 50-mile limit is not germane to the immediate question of the necessary conservation measures to be taken in February. But we have not lost sight of that limit. We have these initial conservation measures, and I hope that they will be followed up by others. They are only a start, and we can now direct ourselves to the other important question which the right hon. Gentleman raised.
Enforcement will be difficult. I acknowledge that from the start. I think that I acknowledged it when we were passing the Fishery Limits Bill. That does not mean that it should not be done, however. There is an almost unique historic development in that the Soviet Government have sent representatives to Brussels to negotiate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be taking his part in those negotiations.
I turn now to the green pound. I am not quite sure that posture is the right

511
word to use, but if it is, my posture has been exactly the same since my maiden speech as Minister of Agriculture on 22nd October last year, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who heard the speech, God help him, and who is present now, can corroborate. I said then that there was nothing mystical about the green pound. I do not say that it is good or bad, simply that it exists. Since it exists it must be used in the national interest. That remains my position.
When my hon. Friend made the point about the pigmeat mcas in the Council chamber yesterday he was supported by the French and Irish delegates. He did not stand alone on this issue. The pigmeat mcas are based on a total miscalculation. It may be true that had I given way on the green pound I might have got the Council at that stage to be generous in the fair recalculation of mcas. Equally, if I had perhaps offered the Council the Crown jewels it would also have done so. However, this is a fair and equitable change that we are suggesting, and we intend to abide by it.
Mr. Jay: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on the firm attitude that he is taking on these crucial matters, may I ask him to reaffirm his basic assurance that until we have a real reform of the CAP involving lower prices he will not agree to a devaluation of the green pound?
Mr. Silkin: The assurance that I will give my right hon. Friend—and I am not evading the question because this is obviously one of the facts to be considered—is that I believe that we have a strong position on the green pound, and that that is, in the way that these things are, a negotiable instrument. I shall wait to see what I am offered for it.
Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his care to preserve in formula and in deed our right to protect our own sovereign waters is both noted and widely appreciated? Will he use the same methods when he comes to the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy in order to secure what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) calls the understanding of our partners in the Community?
Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman once gave me the excellent advice that
512
every house had both a front door and a back door. The wise negotiator uses both.
Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the proposition that if we were to continue to allow nations like the Danes to undertake industrial fishing as they were doing there would be no fish left for our own fishermen in our own waters? Hence, although no one would dub my right hon. Friend a chauvinist, is he aware that we applaud his nationalist stand on behalf of our own people, and that if he can continue in that we shall be very happy indeed?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If there were enough fish for everyone in the world there would be no argument. We start with the basic necessity of conserving fish stocks in our sovereign waters.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I should like to congratulate the Minister on being able to persuade the other Council Ministers that there is a need to conserve our fishing industry and a need for measures to that end for this country. I am delighted that he was able to do that.
Will he give an assurance to the pig producers in this country that the mcas will be changed in the near future? Does he honestly believe that the 8 per cent. devaluation of the green pound will restore confidence in the livestock sector of the industry, particularly in beef?
Mr. Silkin: On the main point, I think that my position has been stated so often that I would be wearying the House if I engaged in otiose repetition. It would be a splendid thing if I could make all the decisions on pigmeat mcas by myself. I am sure that they would be very good and very wise decisions, but the hon. Gentleman, in being kind enough to mention my negotiating skill, as he put it, knows that I have to deal with eight other countries and the Commission.
Mr. Robert Hughes: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the fish conservation measures? May I also express the hope that the congratulations he has received from all quarters of the House will not go to his head? Will he proceed on the important issues of limits with the same degree of vigour

513
and tenacity as have won him this big breakthrough in the present negotiations?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I can assure him that the congratulations will not go to my head. I have had other receptions from other hon. Members and they never went to my head. I shall keep in mind what he said about limits.
Mr. Watt: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his considerable achievement in securing some measure to conserve our stocks. Will he not concede that the fishermen know best and insist that having a 50-mile conservation zone round our shores from which we can exclude our EEC partners with the small mesh nets is the most effective way of conserving stocks?
Is the Minister aware that the measures he recently took to help pig producers have had no effect? Does he believe that either the CFP or the CAP will ever be fair to the British producer or consumer?
Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a triple-barrelled question. I am very much aware of the views about the 50-mile limit. I have tried to deal with the question before. It is of use to me in Brussels that the House is so unanimous on this issue. After all, in a sense we have to win back something that was given away in the Treaty of Accession.
This is only the second week in which the pigmeat subsidy has been operating, but I understand that 80 per cent. of the subsidy is going to the pigmeat producers. I had that checked before I came here, and that does not seem to me to be a bad average.
On the third point, we shall all have to do our best, shall we not, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: That is what I was about to suggest. Right hon. and hon. Members know that I am very jealous of the rights of the House to question in detail what goes on in the Council of Ministers, but I should be helped in this matter if hon. Members would try to make their questions as brief as possible.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my right hon. Friend take it that he deserves our congratulations on the strong stand which he
514
has taken on behalf of this country in all matters affecting the EEC, and he is, indeed, a mitigating influence against the patent disadvantage of our having joined the EEC? May he go from strength to strength.
Mr. Silkin: I note my hon. Friend's approbation. I intend to go from strength to strength.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I suggest that the Minister does not answer every compliment?
Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister acknowledge that the costs of production of British agriculture have risen alarmingly, and will he agree also that home production is falling fast? Do his announcement today and the stand which he is taking help home food production or not?
Mr. Silkin: I have very much in mind what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I agree that there has obviously been a rise in costs in Britain as well as throughout the Community in general. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that there are two transitional steps to be taken this year which will raise costs, which were in the Treaty of Accession.
Mr. McNamara: Now that we have got out of the way the congratulations for what he has done for the inshore fleet, will my right hon. Friend recognise that we are still deeply concerned about the prospects for the deep-water fleet? When can we hope to have something done about that? Second, with regard to the green pound, is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government are to have any success whatever in their negotiations over wages policy or any other such policies, it is essential that there be no acceptance of any of the argument put forward by other members of the Community or by the Opposition to affect the present value of the green pound?
Mr. Silkin: I take what my hon. Friend says about the green pound. The question of deep-water fishing remains still very much with us. This is in part where the negotiations with third countries, for example, Norway in particular, come in. The matter of Iceland still remains some-where in our consciousness. I hope that

515
these matters will be resolved in the near future.
Mr. Bowden: I can give the right hon. Gentleman only one cheer out of three, but I nevertheless congratulate him to that extent. Will he accept, however, that there is still a long way to go on conservation and that time is of the essence of the matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties of the South Coast, with the overfishing and illegal fishing which is still going on, and will he not again consider the possibility of bringing in a ban on beam trawling to allow time for this area to recover?
Mr. Silkin: There are many conservation measures which, had I had the time or had it been tactically right at this moment to introduce them, I should have recommended to the House. All the measures which people are now talking about generally are well under consideration.
Mr. Gould: Did my right hon. Friend ask why CAP prices are fixed in terms of an agricultural unit of account which is aligned to currencies in the snake as opposed to the average of all EEC currencies, and did he point out that the effect of this distortion is to push up EEC prices 19 per cent. higher than they should be and also to disguise the fact that the green mark—to say nothing of the green guilder, the green krone and the green Belgian franc—is substantially more out of line than is the green pound?
Mr. Silkin: Much of that is true. As my hon. Friend knows, the original method of calculating the green currencies was as he put it; it bore no relation to the snake.
Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his attitude to the mcas in relation to pigmeat calculations borders on the smug and self-satisfied? Will he recognise that pig producers are still bitterly concerned about their industry, in spite of his temporary subsidy, and will he maintain the full force of argument for recalculation in relation to these compensatory amounts?
Mr. Silkin: I hope that I am not being smug or complacent about it. It is a very difficult problem about which I care a great deal. We are doing our best. That
516
was why we introduced the national subsidy in the first place. But the long-term solution must be a recalculation of mcas, and I am doing my best to ensure that that is so.
Mr. Prescott: My right hon. Friend's statement represents a notable achievement on which I offer my congratulations and the welcome of fishermen in my area, but is it not a fact that it does not enshrine the principle of exclusive coastal State control and conservation, a principle which was developed in a formula worked out by the European Socialist Group in the European Parliament? We envisage this as a permanent part of the European policy, but my right hon. Friend refers to it in his statement as temporary. Will he comment on that?
Mr. Silkin: I was talking about the immediate conservation measures which it was necessary to introduce in this month of February if we were to protect certain fish stocks—I regarded those as absolutely minimal—and that is why they came ahead of time. But perhaps even more important than that was the need to safeguard the right of national action if the Community's conservation measures were not good enough.
Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister agree that farmers' costs have risen by nearly £1,000 million this year through inflation and other factors, and will he say, either in percentage terms or in money terms, how much of those costs are being recouped by this agreement?
Mr. Silkin: I do not quite know what agreement the hon. Gentleman means. If he means the proposals of the Commission—they are rather detailed— they will be available in the Vote Office tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman can make his calculations. I am being a little cagey about this because there are two slightly different calculations made on both sides.
Mr. Torney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, but will he agree that devaluation of the green pound would not necessarily help pig producers because it would force up the price of pig feeding stuffs? Further, will he take it that the great majority of British housewives are extremely concerned about the continuing rise in food prices, and he will

517
have widespread support from housewives in his fight against the attempt of the Common Market to force up the price of food in our shops?
Mr. Silkin: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have pointed out to the House that a devaluation of the green pound—unless one removed the whole of the green pound, which no one is advocating—would simply have an equal effect on the increase in the cost of feeding stuffs.
Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that the Common Market Agriculture Ministers whom my right hon. Friend visits are not representative of consumers in the Council, and, if they are not, can he tell the House who is? Second, reverting to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), if prices in the EEC are 19 per cent. higher than they ought to be by calculation, why is there a need shortly to increase them anyway?
Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is putting much of the argument which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was putting yesterday. With regard to his first point, I thought it very encouraging that Commissioner Gundelach himself talked about the consumer and for the first time gave an equality between consumer and producer. As I see it, my job as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to keep the balance between all those three parts of my Department.
Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Parliamentary Secretary, who speaks for Britain on these matters in these few months, to stick firmly to the line that it would be the height of madness to lead to price increases where there are structural surpluses, and will he try to explain better than he has done that an across-the-board devaluation of the green pound of any significant size would be as damaging to sectors of the agricultural industry as it would be to the consumer?
Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is quite right. But I have made that point about the damage to agriculture, though not all sectors of it are affected in the same way.
As for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, he stuck very firmly to the text given him by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action that he has taken to defend the interests of British farmers and consumers. However, rather than seeking to amend or to reform the common agriculture policy, will he seek the ending of it altogether, bearing in mind that it works very much to the disadvantage of the long-term interests of our farmers and increases prices to consumers?
Mr. Silkin: I shall occupy the Presidency for the next four and a half months. My hon. Friend gives me too much weight in that assembly. I do not think that it can be done in four and a half months.

POST OFFICE (MAIL DELIVERIES)
Mr. Tebbit: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, of which, Mr. Speaker, I have given you prior notice, and which is so urgent that it should have precedence over the business of the House already set down for consideration; namely,
"the failure of the Post Office to release mail held at the Whitechapel sorting office since the beginning of the recent unofficial dispute."
That the matter is specific cannot, I think, be disputed.
To establish its importance, I regret that I must refer briefly to the cause of the dispute. It was an unofficial dispute which arose when the Post Office sought to alleviate unemployment in East London by recruiting additional workers, a move which would have had the effect of reducing the amount of overtime available to those already employed. It was settled in a manner which did not resolve that matter and by an agreement which has not been made public. Nor did it resolve the problem of how the backlog of mail would be cleared. The only clear part of the settlement was that disciplinary proceedings against a trade union official, a Mr. Taylor, would be dropped.
In fact, the Post Office has not been able to bring in additional staff to deal with the backlog of mail. Millions of letters are now locked up, although newly posted mail is being dealt with normally. This is important because, clearly, if

519
letters posted today are being dealt with normally whereas those posted a week or a fortnight ago are still locked up, the mails are being illegally held back and delayed in defiance of the Post Office Act.
It is also important and urgent to my constituents. One company has told me this morning that it is giving notice of lay-off to its employees because money and orders posted to it have not been received. Others, not only from my constituency but from the constituencies of other hon. Members, have told me of similar difficulties.
It is urgent because jobs are at stake as well as because personal distress is being caused.
Finally, it is urgent because it is possible that legal action may soon be brought to secure the release of the mails and, as you, Mr. Speaker, and this House know, that might again involve the risk of confrontation between the Attorney-General and the law of the land.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely
"the failure of the Post Office to release mail held at the Whitechapel sorting office since the beginning of the recent unofficial dispute."
As I have told the House before, it is not for me to pronounce on the importance of an issue. My task is merely to decide whether the business of the House should be changed and that the matter in question should have precedence.
Under Standing Order No. 9, I take into account the several factors outlined in the Order, but I am not required to give the reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

MR. AGEE AND MR. HOSENBALL
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for
520
the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the proposed deportations of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball."
The urgency and importance of this matter cannot be doubted since these men will be deported in a very short time without any debate in the House unless this procedure is adopted.
Since the matter is well known to you, Mr. Speaker, I need delay the House only to argue two matters. The first is that, when the House took away the right of appeal in these cases in 1971, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), said, in introducing the new procedure of "the three wise men", that he felt there was a difficulty if it appeared that these decisions were justiciable legal decisions; they were executive political decisions subject to the House of Commons and not to the courts of law. In the light of that assurance, it is right that the House should consider whether, in this case, these two men have been treated justly and fairly.
It has been argued here today that they are visitors to Britain and not British subjects. But, even as visitors, they have some rights.
The security of the State, though an important consideration for us all, is only as important as that which we are trying to protect, which is the nature of our democracy and the way in which we treat people who are minorities.
The second matter is perhaps even more important. This is the first contested case since 1971 when these new procedures were introduced. Because of that, there is great concern about the way in which the procedures have operated in this case. It is clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that the intention was to operate these procedures in a way very different from that which has been operated in this case. I submit, therefore, that the House should consider whether these procedures should continue and whether they have been operated properly in relation to these proposed deportations.
I urge, therefore, that this is an appropriate matter for consideration under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the proposed deportations of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball."
I listened with great care to the exchanges in the House earlier this afternoon, and obviously I know of the strong feeling in the House. But I have to take into account the several factors set out in the Order and to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations of the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  DOGS (CONTROL OF NUISANCES)
  Mr. Peter Viggers presented a Bill to make further provision as to the powers and functions of local authorities with respect to the control of nuisances caused by dogs; and for connected purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY
4.39 p.m.
Mr. Tom Litterick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to further the free interchange of opinion in the United Kingdom by providing for greater public access to official information; to safeguard the privacy of personal information collected and retained for official purposes; to make provision with respect to the keeping, disclosure, correction and dissemination of such information; to make further provision for the content and accuracy of certain official documents; and for purposes connected with the aforesaid matters.
It seems peculiarly appropriate on a day when the House has been advised that two people are to be deported on the basis of, to them, unknown and unknowable information that such a Bill as mine should be brought before the House. The Bill seeks to fulfil two major purposes. In doing so, I should advise the House that it owes much to long-established practice in America and Sweden.
Its first major purpose is to open up the stores of public information held by Government Departments and to make them available to the public, with certain specified exceptions relating to, for example, military, security, police and other information. Its second purpose is to protect the individual citizen. In fact the largest clause—Clause 2—is devoted to the protection of the individual from the potential power which the State hold over him merely by its collection and storage of individual records.
Just today, for example, I was told by a former patient of the Central Middlesex Hospital that he had, quite by accident, come into possession of his hospital file. Access to such files is strictly forbidden to patients. To his horror this man discovered that in his file he was described as a homosexual and an atheist. That man is in fact a deeply religious and heterosexual man. Had he been allowed the right of access to those records as they were being compiled, or after they had been compiled, a travesty of justice such as this would not have occurred and this inaccurate and damaging information would never have been compiled. Such a record could not have been created if we had a fair and open system of record-keeping.

523
There can be few hon. Members who are not painfully aware that the processes of government in this country are too secret. This has much to do with growing public dissatisfaction with Governments of every political description. As Members we are only too aware of our great disadvantage in our dealings with the Executive. That disadvantage results from the disparity of information available to us, information which the Executive commands and releases only selectively and for its own purposes. Those purposes are not necessarily the purposes of this House, or the purposes, needs and demands of the British people.
Information is power. We are all aware of that. But we are talking about the power of the State over people. Executive secrecy is justifiable only in specific circumstances, in my opinion, and I think that this is probably the opinion of the majority of hon. Members. Executive secrecy is justifiable only in specific circumstances. Our traditon of government is the opposite—that all official information is secret and that the revelation of publicly held information is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances.
This seems to be the reverse of political common sense. It is contrary to the spirit of democracy, and the longer it persists, the greater is the risk that we aggrandise the power of the Executive at the expense of the democracy and so bring the State into disrepute in the minds of reasonable men and women.
Many proposals have been made in recent years to revitalise our democracy. Most hon. Members are aware that the body politic is not as well as it should be. We have had such measures as the Employment Protection Act, and a measure based on the Bullock proposals may shortly come before us. In the not-
524
too-distant past even the Conservative Government's Industrial Relations Act specifically referred, as did the Employment Protection Act and the Bullock proposals, to the disclosure of information by powerful organisations such as employers and Government Departments to individual citizens—recognising in doing so that this readjustment of the balance of power between the individual citizen and the State is vital and urgent.
Information is the staple diet of democracy. The exploitation of public ignorance is the key to the demagogue's success and is the enemy of democracy. If we do not meet the people's right to know, and do not do it soon, those who follow us will inherit a degenerated political system in which democracy is a faded and pathetic memory.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tom Litterick, Mr. Andrew Bowden and Mrs. Margaret Bain.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY
Mr. Tom Litterick accordingly presented a Bill to further the free interchange of opinion in the United Kingdom by providing for greater public access to official information; to safeguard the privacy of personal information collected and retained for official purposes; to make provision with respect to the keeping, disclosure, correction and dissemination of such information; to make further provision for the content and accuracy of certain official documents; and for purposes connected with the aforesaid matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th February]
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

New Clause 40

  REFERENDUMS IN SCOTLAND AND WALES
  4.46 p.m.
  The Chairman: Before I call Amendment (o) in the name of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), I wish to point out that the hon. Gentleman has let me know that he wishes to move the amendment with the omission of the last two lines of the text. The amendment appears on page 1730 of the Amendment Paper. The last two lines read:
  "and each question shall be decided by a majority of valid votes cast in the referendum before any order is made under section 114 of this Act".
  Their omission will be in order.
  With Amendment (o) we shall take the following amendments:
  (e) leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert:
  'referendums in all parts of the United Kingdom to determine whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act'.
  (1) in line 3, after 'and' insert:
  '(2) Whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom'.
  We are also to discuss the following amendments to the new schedule—Referendums in Scotland and Wales—

  (kkk) in line 4, leave out from 'Act to end of line 6.

  (lll) in line 8, leave out 'referendums' and insert 'referendum'.

  (nnn) in line 11, leave out 'Scottish'.

  (ooo) in line 13, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.

  (ppp) in line 15, leave out 'in Scotland'.

  (qqq) leave out lines 16 to 20.

  (rrr) in line 22, leave out 'Scottish'.

  (sss) leave out lines 25 to 27.

  Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I think that when you referred to Amendment (1) you meant Amendment (i).
  The Chairman: I apologise to the Committee. My eyesight is at fault. My copy of the provisional selection list is not very clearly typed. We shall take Amendment (i) in line 4, after second 'and', insert 'the English referendum' with the other amendments, not Amendment (1).
  Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. That point of order was not the one I had originally wished to raise. May I now raise the other one, which concerns your selection? You have been good enough to select my amendment (1) to the new schedule. Unless my eyes deceive me, a number of others are grouped with it. We have to read a preposterous number of letters of the alphabet before we get the matter right. With Amendment (1) is selected Amendment (mmmmmm), among others, and since that raises a different issue in substance from that which is raised in Amendment (1), although it is no doubt convenient to debate them together, should not Amendment (mmmmmm) be taken to a vote separately?
  The Chairman: Perhaps I may reply in general terms. The list of selections is provisional. Should any hon. Member have points about its details to raise, I shall be happy to discuss them with him in the period, which may or may not be prolonged, before the amendments are called. Perhaps that will give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. George Cunningham: We cannot go on for weeks and weeks, Mr. Murton, with amendments with letters such as (m m m m m m).
  The Chairman: An alternative arrangement is being considered for use at an appropriate time which will make it easier for everyone and possibly prevent me from making a mistake as I did just now, even though that was only a single-letter amendment.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I simply suggest, Mr. Murton, that as some amendments have to be debated with the main one, we use the continental device of numbering them "1.16", "1.1000" and so on.
  The Chairman: That will be borne in mind.
  Mr. George Gardiner: I beg to move Amendment (o), in line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  '(1) There shall be held a referendum in all parts of the United Kingdom on the questions—

  (a) whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act establishing an elected Assembly and Executive in Scotland, and

  (b) whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act establishing an elected Assembly in Wales;'.

  The reason for the omission of the last two lines of the amendment as it appeared on the Order Paper is that it was drafted as an amendment to the original New Clause 40, since when the Government have made a concession to the effect that they will subsequently make the referendum consultative, not mandatory. In those circumstances, if we had retained the last two lines they would obviously have taken on a significance that was totally unintended when we drew up the amendment.
  The purpose of the amendment is to hold a referendum on the provisions of the Bill not only in Scotland and Wales but throughout the United Kingdom—in England and in Northern Ireland, too.
  I must start by recording the strongest objection to the cavalier way in which Englishmen and Ulstermen have been treated ever since the Bill was introduced. From the very start there has been the pretence that other parts of the United Kingdom are not affected. Each day's debate, particularly the debate on representation in this House, has demonstrated most clearly that they are. Now this sin is being compounded by the attempt to shut six out of every seven United Kingdom citizens out of a consultative referendum on a major piece of constitutional legisation that may be passed by this House. If this is allowed to happen it will be a travesty of democracy, for which Parliament, the Government and the new Assemblies—if they ever come into being—will pay a bitter price. The Lord President must stop treating England and Northern Ireland in the way that Lord North treated the American colonies.
  I refer here specifically to the United Kingdom. I am aware that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) tabled other amendments seeking to extend the referendum to England
  528
  alone. I am sorry that for other reasons you did not select one of his amendments for debate, Mr. Murton. I have taken United Kingdom citizenship as the test because I do not believe that we can logically argue that the referendum proposed for Scotland and Wales should be extended to England and still draw a line between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If there is to be consultation by referendum, all United Kingdom citizens should be consulted, because this is a United Kingdom matter. Constitutionally, this is most certainly so.
  In our previous discussions it became very clear that the issue of devolution is inextricably bound up with that of representation in this House. Those on the Government Front Bench may pretend that they can keep those issues separate, but none of us is under any illusion that they can be kept separate for very long. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has pointed out before, with great clarity, the English are being asked to accept a situation in which their Members of Parliament are to have no say over matters devolved to a Scottish Assembly, and yet a band of Members from an over-represented Scotland will continue to decide on equivalent issues for England.
  In those circumstances, how can it be suggested that this does not affect the relative influence that the English have over the government of their country, or, for that matter, that the Northern Irish have? This problem is widely recognised. I think that it can be said without much contradiction that if the Bill reaches the statute book in anything like its present form a future Conservative Government will be under immense pressure and will have the strongest grounds to set about the reduction of Scottish and Welsh representation in this House, as was recommended, in the case of Scotland anyway, by the Kilbrandon Commission.
  There are already provisions in the Bill for changing United Kingdom legislation. We have referred before in our debates to Clause 18, whereby Scottish Assembly Acts may amend or repeal provisions of Acts of this Parliament, Acts which cover England and Northern Ireland. Then there is the infamous Clause 44, which we have yet to reach, giving the Government power to amend United

  529
  Kingdom laws by Order in Council as a consequence of Acts passed by a Scottish Assembly. Further on, when we come to the small print in schedules and so on, we find innumerable United Kingdom institutions that are affected by the proposals in the Bill, the latest evidence to land on our desks coming from the various English tourist boards.
  To anyone who disputes this I would put the test of involvement, by asking what would be the situation if all this were the other way round. What kind of argument would we confront from the Scots and the Welsh if it were proposed, instead of a Scottish or Welsh Assembly, to set up only an English Assembly, but still to bring the full number of English Members to this House or even to increase their number proportionately, to continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters, which, in the case of England, had already been devolved to an English Assembly? We know very well that there would be uproar in Scotland and Wales. The people there would legitimately see such a proposal as profoundly affecting their constitutional position and changing the very nature of the contract that binds us all together. We know that in those circumstances the Scottish Isolationist Party and the Welsh Isolationist Party would be leading the outcry.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, do we understand that he represents the English Isolationist Party?
  Mr. Gardiner: Most certainly not. All the arguments presented by my hon. Friends earlier in these long debates prove that we see ourselves as defending the United Kingdom, obviously in marked contrast to the hon. Gentleman.
  Constitutionally, there can be no doubt that this is a United Kingdom matter upon which we are legislating. Therefore, it is a matter upon which United Kingdom citizens as a whole should be consulted.
  Mr. James Sillars: Does this point that constitutional matters are United Kingdom matters mean that, in the view of the hon. Gentleman, the next time that there is a border poll in Ulster on the question of Ulster's future the Welsh, English and Scots should also have a vote in it?
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gardiner: The poll in Ulster was held on the issue of separation. It was not about changing the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. That is the real difference.
  Constitutionally, the case is proved. Economically, it is certainly a United Kingdom matter. Under the Bill, money will be voted each year for devolved services and for payments into loan funds. That money will come from the whole of the United Kingdom and not just from Scotland or Wales. There is also the question of the cost of the Assemblies. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has extracted the information that it will cost about £39 million to establish the Assemblies and to run them in the first year and also to conduct a referendum on the lines proposed. The Scots will be paying something towards this 39 million and the Welsh will be paying towards it, too, but the English and the Northern Irish will be reaching into their pockets to pay as well. How dare the Government hold a consultative referendum and yet not consult everybody on these matters?
  In the English regions there are no illusions that they will not be affected by the measure. All hon. Members have been circulated—this has been referred to before in our debates—with the views of the Tyne and Wear County Council, which has said:
  "It is the Council's belief that if the Scotland and Wales Bill is enacted it will bring about an economic imbalance favourable to Scotland at the expense of the North East and other English regions and will inevitably lead to the break-up of the fundamental unity of the United Kingdom."
  That view has been put forcibly by hon. Members representing North-East constituencies, including the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). North-east England knows full well that it will be affected by the measure, and yet in the consultative referendum the North-East will be gagged. The same feelings are held on Merseyside, as we know full well from what has been said by the hon. Member for Walton, yet they are also to be gagged on this issue. Again, I ask how dare the Government hold a consultative referendum and yet not consult the regions?

  531
  There is a further element to the argument. I am aware that it is touched upon in subsequent amendments that have been proposed for the new schedule and selected for debate. An important part of the argument for a United Kingdom referendum concerns expatriate voters. I and many other hon. Members have received a volume of correspondence, not only from constituents but from other Scottish and Welsh-born people now living in England. From this bundle I have selected just a few letters, because the sentiments expressed in them convey the arguments more clearly than I can. The first one reads:
  "I will have no vote on the Scottish devolution issue whereas thousands, without any Scottish background or historical interest will vote purely on the grounds of their currently living in Scotland. … If you fail, you will be incurring increasing resentment from Scots everywhere who, like myself are temporarily away from their homeland."
  Another letter reads:
  "One of Scotland's claims to greatness is the fact that her brains and industry have spread far beyond her own boundaries. Are these people, bound by affection and loyalty to their homeland and passionately interested in her future, to be allowed no voice in the deliberations on devolution?"
  Another letter says:
  "I find it strange in the extreme that some parts of the United Kingdom should be prevented from speaking with our votes on the future of our country, and wholly unacceptable that Scots should be unable to vote on the future of Scotland."
  A letter from a Scot in my own constituency reads:
  "Scotland is our native land and we should, I think, have as much of a say in what is proposed for its future as sassenachs who happen now to be in Scotland and who will have a vote in the referendum."
  Yet another letter says:
  "It … passes belief that a vote of this kind, on a matter so close to the hearts of so many Scotsmen who have never questioned their status within the United Kingdom, should be closed to them simply on the grounds that they have moved … by force of circumstance or of their own choice, across a frontier which has had no serious significance since 1603".
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the hon. Member by any chance received a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland complaining that he would not have a vote in the referendum or a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)?
  Mr. Gardiner: No, but I greatly look forward to receiving such representations from them.
  There should be no doubt on the Government Front Bench about the strong feelings that exist on this matter. The letters from which I have quoted have all come from Scots, but I know that Welsh people living in this country nurse similarly deep feelings.
  Of course, there are difficulties. I know that the Minister of State, when he turned his mind to this question on, I think, Thursday of last week, said that he thought that a special register—a point that is covered in subsequent amendments—was untenable in both principle and practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) expanded on that during the debate last night. The Minister of State also said, last Thursday:
  "Precisely because ours is a United Kingdom we have no legal concept of Scottish or Welsh nationality,"—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1805.]
  I accept that there would be difficulties in having a special register for expatriate voters, but so many innovations are introduced in the Bill that I cannot understand why we could not have one more. If Ministers do hold strong views that such a register would be impractical and untenable in both principle and practice, the obvious way out would be to hold a total United Kingdom referendum. The expatriate voters would then automatically be enfranchised and able to deliver their view. The view would be given on the measure as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom as well as on how it affects Scots and the Welsh.
  The argument has been put forward that to have one referendum throughout the United Kingdom, with separate declarations in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, could mean different verdicts between one part of the United Kingdom and another, and that that would impose a tremendous strain upon our constitution. That argument has been seriously advanced as an objection to having the referendum on a United Kingdom basis.
  Not long ago, when the referendum on the EEC was under debate, the same difficulty was raised—that is, what would happen if the Scots voted "No" and the English voted "Yes"—but in the event.

  533
  as we know, all the component parts of the United Kingdom voted "Yes". The Government did not think that there was a sufficiently great danger of different verdicts being given by different parts of the United Kingdom for them not to proceed with a United Kingdom referendum on that issue. Those who put forward the argument that our constitution would be brought under still greater strain if different verdicts were returned should turn their minds to that point. I ask them to reflect upon it and also upon the consequences of deliberately excluding six out of every seven United Kingdom citizens from a consultative referendum on such a constitutional issue.
  Now that it is to be a consultative rather than a mandatory referendum, the argument for taking into it all parts of the United Kingdom is vastly stronger. The Government argument now is that the Scots and Welsh people should decide finally on the fate of the Bill and that before Parliament finally decides it should know what those people think. But in reaching its final decision, should Parliament deny to itself the evidence of what the citizens of England and Northern Ireland think of this measure? Those who object to this course and raise the great danger that is inherent in conflicting verdicts should consider that they are saying that if there is an objection from England or Northern Ireland to such a constitutional change it is far better to stifle it, to pretend that it is not there, and to carry on regardless, rather than to allow it open and proper expression. That is the most dangerous argument of all.
  If that feeling is there, it must be allowed expression, if only to protect whatever Assemblies may eventually come into being. If the Bill is passed in its present form, we all have grave fears of a bitter backlash of resentment in many parts of the United Kingdom. I have already referred to the overwhelming pressure that will build up for an adjustment of the Scottish and Welsh representation in the House. That groundswell from the people of England or Northern Ireland will be all the more angry if they know that they were deliberately denied a voice in the consultative referendum.
  534
  In these circumstances, all defences against an English backlash would be removed, because the Government could not tell those people that the issue had been put to them in a consultative referendum and that they had accepted it.
  The Government are proclaiming that their purpose in the Bill is to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. I can think of no better way of destroying that integrity than by gagging the people of England and Northern Ireland in what is now to be a consultative referendum on a proposal that directly affects them. I appeal to the Minister to think again.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) seeks to extend the referendum to the whole of the United Kingdom. I oppose that idea and I think that the referendum should be curtailed. When I voted in the early hours of this morning in favour of a referendum for Wales it was a reluctant vote.
  I admire the contributions of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I particularly admired his stand on the Common Market. His speech yesterday—and particularly his exchanges with the Leader of the House—illustrated the bogus nature of the call for a referendum.
  On 5th February, The Times in its second leader dealt with the pros and cons of the referendum and made one point which was particularly appealing to me. It said:
  "no referendum should be held until there is a valid constitutional reason for doing so".
  There is a vast difference between the proposals for Scotland and those for Wales and, with the benefit of hindsight, I think that it would have been better if they had been dealt with separately.
  The proposals for Scotland are far more fundamental and I have been guided in considering them by the majority of my Scottish colleagues and the voice of the whole Scottish Labour movement. We know that the unity of the United Kingdom is at stake there and the argument for a referendum justifies the criteria set out in The Times editorial.
  I am all for the unity of the United Kingdom, both economically and politically. Separatism for Wales is not on

  535
  the agenda at all. There is no constitutional reason for a referendum in Wales. All the hysteria which has been artifically whipped up has been unnecessary and unjustified.
  Let me justify my view by reminding the House of the proposals for Wales. The Welsh Assembly would be the top tier of local government in Wales. As a spokesman for the Law Society in Wales said on BBC radio on Monday morning, the Welsh proposals are for a county council. The idea would be to have one tier of local government under the Assembly and I think that it was the dreadful reorganisation of local government by the last Conservative Government that gave the impetus to a Welsh Assembly as a top tier of local government in Wales.
  5.15 p.m.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing in the Bill to justify what he has said?
  Mr. Hughes: It is a matter of opinion. I suggest that the Assembly will be the top tier of local government in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales has said on many occasions that the first task of the Assembly will be to draw up proposals for the simplification of the structure of the local government in Wales.
  On 3rd February representatives of the three old county boroughs of Wales—Cardiff, Swansea and Newport—commented on the relationship of local government to the proposed Assembly. Cardiff City Council's chief executive, Mr. Henry Mansfield, said:
  "In order to make a concerted attack on a city's inter-related problems you need a unitary authority—to restore, in effect, the old county borough system. Of course in Wales the prospect of reorganisation is linked with the setting up of a Welsh Assembly."
  The secretary of the council of our second city, Swansea, Mr. Brian Meller, said:
  "We hope that unitary authorities are brought about as a result of devolution."
  A third comment came from the representative of the local authority in my constituency, Mr. Tony Clifford, the deputy chief executive. He said:
  "Most people would agree that reorganisation as far as Newport was concerned was little more than a disaster".
  536
  Those are the kinds of ideas that are floating about in Wales on the creation of a Welsh Assembly. Hon. Members might think that I am being parochial, but it is a parochial issue in Wales.
  Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Will you ascertain whether the hon. Member is speaking to New Clause 40 or the amendments that we are discussing?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) is developing his argument on the amendments that are now under discussion, but I hope that he will closely relate his argument to the substance of the amendments.
  Mr. Hughes: I have tried to point out that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) is seeking to extend the principle of a referendum. There is no need for a referendum in Wales.
  An Assembly would result in the democratisation of many of our nominated bodies. There is also the question of the Welsh Office itself. So many of its functions and so much of its decision-making is now done by the Civil Service. Those functions should be democratised and those decisions should be made by elected representatives. Any reasonable person would agree that the simple and basic proposals for Wales do not justify a referendum. Every month Parliament passes legislation of far greater consequence.
  An Assembly for Wales was a clear and specific promise at the last General Election. That promise was made after a unanimous request by Welsh Labour hon. Members. We had two years of meetings about it and eventually on 6th November 1973 we came to a unanimous decision. A total of 26 Welsh Labour hon. Members were present at that meeting. At the time we boasted that we were ahead of the Scots because we had made a clear decision. Some Opposition English Members seemed not to notice what we were doing, but that was not our responsibility. Welsh hon. Members at least are irrecoverably committeed to the proposals and had that commitment been honoured there would be no need for a debate about a referendum in Wales.
  Mr. Julian Amery: I sometimes wonder whether we are in

  537
  wonderland or looking in the looking glass. We have reached a stage which is close to absurdity. Originally the Bill was put before the House as something on which the House of Commons had to make up its mind. Then, in response to pressure, the Government accepted the idea of a mandatory referendum. Having considered the implications of that for the sovereignty of Parliament, they then agreed that the referendum should be consultative. I can think of no way in which one could undermine the sovereignty of Parliament more effectively than by a consultative referendum. It could well put Parliament and people at loggerheads.
  To get round that, the Government decided to limit the referendum to two sections of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales. That might overcome a clash between Parliament and the United Kingdom people but it remains an illogical device. Nevertheless, subject to what may come on Report or through amendments in another place, Parliament has now decided that that is the way in which we should go forward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) has made the logical proposal that if we are to have a consultative referendum—and I think that that is folly—it had better be United Kingdom-wide. No one can deny that the Bill has implications for the whole of the United Kingdom, for its Parliament and for its people, both economically and sentimentally, and for the people of Scottish and Welsh descent who live in England or overseas.
  It is optimistic to say that the Bill is designed purely to give more efficient government to Scotland and Wales. Yet, even so, there would be far-reaching implications for the United Kingdom in economic and perhaps in social terms.
  But there are widespread apprehensions that the Bill may be the beginning of the slippery slope to separatism. No one can deny that that is possible because that is what Scottish National Party Members and to some extent what Welsh Members have said about it. One cannot get away from the fact that this has enormous implications for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  We are not dealing with a problem of local option. It is not a question of
  538
  whether the pubs in Carlisle should be municipally or privately owned. We are dealing with something that affects us all and that involves a fundamental change in the government of the United Kingdom.
  Hon. Members on the Liberal Benches would like to see a federal constitution. I am not in favour of that but I can see the administrative logic in it. But this Bill is not concerned with administration. It represents a clear concession to the nationalist feeling in Scotland and Wales. We are therefore making a fundamental change in the unitary constitution of the United Kingdom as it has existed for the best part of two and a half centuries.
  I do not know whether people have thought through the implications of a consultative referendum. Let us suppose that the result in Scotland is 51 per cent. in favour and 49 per cent. against. From opinion polls taken in England we see that the great majority of English people would think differently. Is the future Who would be that 1 per cent.? I under-of Scotland to turn on that 1 per cent.? stand that there are more than half a million people of Irish descent living in Scotland. There are also not a few people who have their origins in Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Africa and West India. Is the decision to turn on their vote rather than on the vote of millions who live in this country and who are of Scottish origin? It really seems very peculiar.
  5.30 p.m.
  The question of the Ulster referendum has been raised. There was a referendum in Ulster on the question of separatism. The result was clear to me. I think that if we had another referendum there we should find that the people of Ulster would be in favour of the revival of something like Stormont, yet this House of Commons is not prepared to concede that because it does not wish to see a majority possibly oppressing a minority.
  Are we to say that a majority of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. will allow the Scottish nationalists to dominate those in Scotland who still wish to see the unity of the United Kingdom maintained in its present form?
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Will the right hon. Gentleman explain a little more clearly his reference to people of Irish descent and people of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origins living in Scotland? Is he suggesting that in some way the votes of people of Irish descent, perhaps three generations old, or the votes of the people who have come more recently from the Indian subcontinent, are qualitatively of less value than those of people of Scottish descent?
  Mr. Amery: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because he has played into my hands. As I stand here, I deny that there is such a thing as a Scottish nation, or a Welsh nation, or an English nation. The fact that one happens to live north of the border or west of Offa's Dyke does not constitute nationality. There is a Scottish tradition, a Welsh tradition, an English tradition and an Irish tradition, of which we can all be proud—and a Bangladeshi tradition, a Pakistani tradition, a West Indian tradition and a West African tradition, of which we can all be proud. However, the fact that one happens to live in a particular area of the country does not make one a Scotsman and does not entitle one to talk about or to advocate the separation of a particular geographical area from the rest of Britain.
  There is a British dimension. That is what we want to hold on to. If the people of Kent were tomorrow to ask for separation, would the hon. Gentleman come to the House of Commons and recommend to us that we should let Kent split off? Or Cornwall? Of course not. There are economic and security considerations.
  I am not saying for one moment that because of a man's Irish origin or his more exotic origin, his vote is worth any less than that of another man. What I am saying is that he is not a Scotsman who can in any way be identified, except by place of residence, and he has less right to determine the future of Scotland than Scotsmen living in England, perhaps millions of them. From looking at the telephone directory, I get the impression that there are more Scotsmen in England than there are north of the border.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there
  540
  is no such community as the Welsh nation. I invite him to come to the National Institute in Cardiff on 5th March and repeat that statement.
  Mr. Amery: I am myself at least one-quarter Welsh in blood. I am very proud of the Welsh tradition. The whole of England is filled with people from the Welsh country. I believe that the family of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) came to the Midlands from Wales originally. We can all be proud of the Welsh tradition. The right hon. Gentleman sits for an Irish seat, is of Welsh origin and his family moved into England. We are all mixed up.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: You are.
  Mr. Amery: However, no one is as mixed up as the Minister of State.
  This is the central point, and it is why my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate was right to move the amendment.
  The idea that a photo-finish consultative referendum in Scotland should be accepted by the House of Commons as the basis for taking a decision on a proposal that affects the entire future of the United Kingdom seems totally absurd. The Lord President has led the House sadly astray and has brought about the degradation of Parliament by making this concession. Of course, he has been driven from pillar to post in his search for a majority for his long-sought guillotine. However, we ought to have the courage to make up our own minds.
  If we have a referendum—as I say, I think that it is wrong—let us make it a United Kingdom referendum and let everyone in this country have the chance to express his views, particularly those who are proud of their Scottish or Welsh descent, in so far as they have that.
  I have English, Irish and Welsh blood in my veins. My wife is of Scottish descent. I have sat in Governments in which Scotsmen were practically a majority of the members. Once in Fiji I was asked whether I had Scottish blood. I said that I did not think so. The big Fijian chief who was talking to me said that he had Scottish blood. I said "How come?", and he said "My grandfather ate two Scottish missionaries."

  541
  We cannot all claim that degree of consanguinity. However, we have the right to stress the importance of the British dimension.
  After all, the Act of Union was a contract drawn up between Edinburgh and London. This contract cannot be broken, in my judgment, except by agreement between Edinburgh and London. It could be broken by decision of the House of Commons. What I think none of us can admit is that is could be broken by a decision of the House of Commons supported, if it were to be supported, by a referendum in Scotland and Wales, without a similar referendum— consultative or mandatory; although we are now discussing consultative referendums— being taken of the people of England, who are parties to the contract as well.
  Since the Act of Union, the population of this country has grown from about 5 million to about 55 million. It has grown as a result of an enormous movement of population. Scots and Welsh have come to England. Englishmen have gone to Scotland. There has been an immense degree of intermarriage, and a very important Irish element has come too.
  The British dimension is the point to which I return, because, after all, it is not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish alone who have been responsible for Britain's achievement, an achievement that has blossomed to its greatest heights since the Act of Union. The creation of the United States of America, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand has been the work of the British collectively, not of any one element of them.
  In my judgment it is a blasphemy to try to cut up the living organism of the British nation. In each one of us such a mixture of blood flows in our veins. The Government are trying to cut up the nation on artificial geographical boundaries, not for the better government of the country but to appease minority nationalist movements, and that with only one purpose— to maintain their own ephemeral majority in Westminster at present.
  Mr. Dalyell: I was only reflecting that the Committee can be just a little thankful that when the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) men-
  542
  tioned that a Fijian had eaten two Scottish fishermen—
  Hon. Members: Missionaries.
  The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Common Market fishermen?
  Mr. John Smith: Meat, not fish.
  Mr. Dalyell: I was about to remark that it was a matter of some relief that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was not present in the Committee. Ribaldry is a formidable weapon. However, I was about to register a disagreement of a rather profound nature with the right hon. Member for Pavilion on one issue. Some of us should make it clear that whatever differences we may have with the Government Front Bench we are basically united with my right hon. and hon. Friends in supposing that anyone who is on the electoral roll, be he the latest arrived resident in Scotland from Bangladesh, Pakistan or anywhere else, should be entitled to vote. Surely that cannot be a matter of dispute. I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that.
  Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I am not saying that such people should not be entitled to vote. I was trying to say that it seems curious and inappropriate that they should have a voice in deciding the future of Scotland when people of Scottish descent living south of the border are not to have one. I was making an argument in support of a United Kingdom referendum. I was not saying that those to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred should be excluded but that all of us in the United Kingdom should be included.
  Mr. Dalyell: In a sense that reveals the dangers that we are getting into when we become involved in these ethnic arguments. Indeed, that is one of the very deepest reservations that I have about the whole subject of devolution.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) made a revealing intervention when he invited the right hon. Member for Pavilion to the rugby match at Cardiff Arms Park on 5th March. If we are to continue to confuse the sort of fervour that we all feel either at Hampden or Murrayfield, according to the shape of

  543
  the ball that we follow, with political decision-making, it seems that we shall be in terrible trouble.
  I have no doubt that much of the background reason that we are discussing the Bill is that the sort of fervour and the sort of reasoning that is entirely extraneous to politics but which is aroused at Hampden or Murrayfield is being applied to political matters.
  It cannot be repeated too often that the interruption that the hon. Gentleman made reveals that the problem for Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party in respect of electoral success cannot be solved by having 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh or 80 in Cardiff. A totally different set of reasons apply. One of which is to disentangle sporting patriotism from politics.
  Having registered a disagreement with the right hon. Member for Pavilion, I register an agreement. In many of the amendments that have been moved the issue is the dismemberment of the nation. The issue is the mismantling of the United Kingdom and the end of Britain as we have known it. Therefore, there is prima facie an overwhelming argument that all citizens of the United Kingdom should be involved.
  Having said that, and before my hon. Friend the Minister of State anticipates me, I realise that it is almost impossible to disentangle those who can claim to have a particular connection with Scotland. The process would never end. It would be a rolling programme. New people would come on the roll and others would pass away. It would be an impossible task. What we must discuss is whether all people in the United Kingdom should take part, not only those who in some way can claim a Scottish connection, be it near or far.
  5.45 p.m.
  I must ask my right hon. Friend about a factual matter that should be established. I shall not blame the Government Front Bench if it has not made the calculations but I wish to ask about costs.
  First, what is the cost of a one-question mandatory referendum in Scotland? Secondly, is there any difference in cost between a one-question referendum and a two-question referendum? I suspect that the difference is marginal but it
  544
  is a question worth asking. I am quite willing to be told that there is no difference.
  Thirdly, if there is to be a referendum arising out of new clauses upon which I shall not trespass now, some of us would like to ask many other questions. For example, at a moment when the Prime Minister is urging, rightly, that priority should be given to manufacturing and productive industry, some of us would like to ask whether as a priority we really need an expensive shake-up in our form of government.
  Supposing that the referendum is to be consultative and not mandatory, how much more costly is it to insert 10 questions or even 15? If we are to have a consultative referendum, there are many things that some of us would like to ask rather than a "Yes" or "No" question. If there is to be consultation, it should be in some depth.
  Part of the trouble with this entire argument is that it has hitherto been conducted too much in terms of slogans and slick headlines. At any rate, that was the position before it came to the House of Commons. In adopting that slick approach we have not dealt with the realities. Now, as a result of debate, the same issues are dawning in the country.
  I take some issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), who temporarily has left the Chamber. My hon. Friend made the assertion that the whole of the Labour movement in Scotland is behind the proposal for Assemblies. First, that was never true. Secondly, as the weeks go by it is becoming less and less true.
  I strongly repudiate the suggestion that there has been any indication of filibustering during the nine days that the House of Commons has been considering this matter. I accept that there have been long speeches. There have been two or three long speeches but they may reflect more on the loquacity of those who made them rather than any attempt to hold up the House of Commons. Filibustering is engaged in with the intention to hold up the House of Commons for a particular reason. There are some of us who have made long speeches—I may be long-winded from time to time—but those speeches have not been made with an intent to filibuster. I hope that that will be accepted. The rumour has been put

  545
  around that the House of Commons is filibustering this measure. That is not the fact.
  I return to the change of opinion. The truth is that as people know more and more about what is going on they begin to change their minds. Surely that is natural. If we had been asked some months ago "Do you want more say in general terms in your own affairs?", most of us would have answered "Yes". If that question had been asked in Huntingdonshire, the answer might have been "Yes". The same comment could be made about Aylesbury, or even Wrexham. But if the question became "Do you want more say in your own affairs?" in the full knowledge that that could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, in the full knowledge that we should have to dip into our own pockets and to pay a good deal of money for it, there may well be a very different answer.
  The fact of life is that opinion has begun to change right across the political spectrum. That has happened as the issue has reached the top of the in-tray and as people have had to apply their minds precisely to what the House of Commons is now discussing. The litmus paper has begun to change colour.
  I make no apology for saying in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small), who is one of the sponsored AUEW Members, that a resolution has been passed unanimously by the Edinburgh Divisional Committee of the AUEW, incorporating the Edinburgh, the Borders, Fife, Dundee and Falkirk area, which states:
  "That this union, recognising the great dangers to working class unity inherent in the proposals to create Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, instructs the Executive Council to urge the Government to withdraw the devolution Bill currently before Parliament."
  I have a vague suspicion that when the national executive of the AUEW meets in May there will be a change of mind. It will have before it that resolution from the second biggest Edinburgh division of the AUEW, reinforced by the views of AUEW members on Tyneside as a result of the Tyne and Wear County Council meeting. In addition, it is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows
  546
  from the preparations for the meeting on 4th May, that many AUEW members on Merseyside share the doubts that he so eloquently voiced. I repeat that when the AUEW meets in May it may change its policy, and if that happens other unions might follow suit.
  The Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. Member. He is straying rather wide of the general question. I have been fairly indulgent both with him and with previous speakers. We are dealing with an amendment about a referendum in all parts of the United Kingdom. I think that the hon. Member was referring to the Bill as a whole, and I must ask him to come back to the amendment.
  Mr. Dalyell: I have many shortcomings, Mr. Murton, but I am instantly obedient to the Chair.
  Believing, as I do, that primary sources are the most telling, I propose to read some of the comments made in letters to me. I shall quote from only three letters out of more than 50 that I have received spontaneously—without any prompting—on this topic. The first letter is from Hertfordshire, and the writer says:
  "Dear Mr. Dalyell,
  I wonder if Scots living south of the border will be considered if there is to be a referendum —which there should be—on devolution.
  Although I am living in Hertfordshire I hope to retire up to Skye where I have a croft house, so I am naturally concerned myself and feel very strongly that it should not all be rushed through without proper thought."
  The next letter comes from Isleworth, and the writer says:
  "My father was born in Scotland—my mother although born in England also spent a lot of her childhood in Scotland—and I, as a second generation Scot—and proud of my northern blood"—
  she says—
  Mr. Timothy Raison: The interesting thing about the writer of the letter is that she is eligible to vote in the referendum because she own a croft in Scotland. That will be the great triumph of the wicked absentee landlords about whom we used to hear so much.
  Mr. Dalyell: She hopes to own a croft in Skye. She does not yet do so.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: This Bill will be an incentive.
  Mr. Dalyell: I note the appearance on the Front Bench of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon). I must beware, because he is a man of instant wit.
  The writer of the third letter says:
  "My family … has been Scottish for generations and I understand that because I now live in England, I will have no vote on the Scottish devolution issue, whereas thousands without any Scottish background or historical interest will vote purely on the grounds of their currently living in Scotland."
  One could go on and on. If, in an interruption, I appeared to be snide about the Secretary of State for Scotland, for living in England, I did not mean to be.
  There are many people who have every right to take part in this kind of referendum but who, because of their work, for understandable reasons, will be unable to do so. This will give rise to a sense of injustice that could be pent up and become dangerous. Although the counting may be done separately, serious consideration should be given to holding a referendum throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. David Crouch: I have listened, as I have so often, to another speech from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He has argued the case cogently, strongly, with a great deal of sincerity, and with a lot of evidence to support his argument that, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), it is unjust, unfair and wrong that if referendums are to be held, they should be held only in those parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales—where the result of the decision of Parliament and the referendums will have the greatest effect.
  I accept the argument that the rest of the United Kingdom—England and Northern Ireland—is very much affected by what is intended by the Bill, but, as the House knows, we voted last night to have a referendum. We passed a new clause to have a consultative referendum. The House did not accept my advice. I opposed the idea, both with my observations and by my vote, and the more I listened this afternoon to the arguments put forward sincerely and well by all those who have spoken so far on why we should widen the franchise for these referendums, the more I became convinced that they were wrong.
  548
  If we are to have referendums, we can have them only in the way proposed in the Bill. I am against a referendum. The more I hear about the use of referendums in connection with the Bill, the more I realise the complexity and difficulty of the problem.
  I hear the argument advanced that Scots and Welsh people who will be temporarily absent from Scotland and Wales will write to Members of Parliament and protest that they will be denied a vote affecting their country, or their part of the United Kingdom if it is better to put it that way, and what might happen to that part of the United Kingdom. I can understand that protest, but where does one draw the line between those who are absent from Scotland and Wales and living in another part of the United Kingdom for a short period and those who have removed altogether and have become resident in England or Northern Ireland and have little or no intention of ever taking a croft in the Outer Isles or anywhere in Scotland or Wales? Why should someone who has emigrated from Glasgow to London and has no intention of moving from Watford or Hendon have a special say in what takes place in Glasgow and what should happen in Scotland?
  My hon. Friend is not proposing to extend the franchise in that way. He has proposed something much wider, and I shall come to that in a moment.
  If one considers the possibility of extending the franchise to all those Scots and Welshmen who have left Scotland or Wales, either temporarily or for ever, I contend that no electoral officer will be able to determine how that can be done.
  We have to be practical. The hon. Member for West Lothian said that nobody had been filibustering. I agree with him, but the more one considers the Bill in all its complexity and, I say, in some way in its idiosyncracies, the more one realises that it presents so many problems that in the end it is like an engineering operation: the design has to be frozen and the structure has to be built.
  We could go on talking not for weeks but for years. This could be the greatest "chat-in" that Parliament has ever known. I have listened to nearly nine days of debate. I have, of course, been

  549
  absent sometimes, because we all have other things to do.
  Mr. John Stokes: The debate has been of a high standard.
  Mr. Crouch: I agree. It has probably not been Parliament at its best, but it has been Parliament showing its proper concern.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It was at its best when I spoke.
  Mr. Crouch: I did not quite hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think he was confessing that he was not at his best. He was deliberately trying to throw me, but I shall deliberately not be thrown.
  The more we consider the complexity of how we might improve this device of having referendums and how we might widen the franchise, the more we run into trouble.
  6.0 p.m.
  I believe that there is only one solution if we are to have the referendums—that is to place the responsibility on those who are on the electoral register at the time it is decided to hold the referendums in Scotland and Wales. I have already tried to persuade the Committee that it would be ridiculous to extend the voting to Scots or Welsh living temporarily, either for short or long periods, outside Scotland or Wales in other parts of the United Kingdom, perhaps even outside the United Kingdom altogether, since all the pragmatic difficulties are too difficult to contemplate.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Since my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) represents a constituency near mine, he will know that the local St. Andrew's Society and the Welsh Society meet regularly, and I see no practical difficulty in their producing registers of their members so that they could take part in the voting.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) was chastising the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch).
  Mr. Rees: I am asking his views, Sir Myer.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman turned his back completely on the Chair. He addressed the hon. Member for Canterbury without any regard for the Chair. That is why I said that it looked as if he was chastising the hon. Member for Canterbury.
  Mr. Crouch: If my hon. and learned Friend was chastising me, Sir Myer, I shall seek an interview with him, because I am a constituent of his.
  He has suggested that it might be possible to allow such votes, but I do not think it would be practicable, and certainly I do not think that, when examined by the Home Office and the electoral returning officers, it would be found to be practical and fair to consider that all those who had a claim to some blood connection with Scotland or Wales could properly and fairly be deemed to be voters in this very important matter.
  Mr. Onslow: There is a subsequent amendment touching on this point, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend then about the exact difficulties he foresees. But surely it is up to any citizen who wishes to vote to be assisted and not opposed by the Home Office. I am sorry that my hon. Friend appears to think that because there would be difficulties people should not be allowed to vote.
  Mr. Crouch: I will not be drawn into a future debate now, but I have already expressed my views on the subject. When it is argued that the franchise should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom, I ask how that will solve the problem of whether Scotland and Wales are to get what it appears they want—a form of devolution and a form of home rule. That is what we are considering. That is why the Government have produced the Bill.
  Mr. Fred Evans: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to be on record as giving a mistaken impression. He said that this is what the Scottish and Welsh people want, but that is not so. Many of us are convinced that it is the last thing that the Welsh people in particular want. But it is what the Government want and are determined to foist on the Welsh people.
  Mr. Crouch: I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I thought that I said that the Scots and the Welsh appeared to want devolution and that that was why the Government had brought forward the Bill. I think that it would be wrong to extend the decision to the whole of the United Kingdom, but I do not see why it should be wrong to ask only those in Scotland and Wales to decide the matter. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) knows Wales better than any English Members do. A referendum is to be held there, and the Welsh people can surely speak for themselves and say whether they want such a measure. I believe that it is right that the referendums should be confined to the Welsh and Scots to decide for themselves.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Since these are to be consultative referendums, as English and Northern Ireland Members will be required to vote on the matter at the end of the day, why should their constituents not have a say? Why should not the people of St. Albans have the same right as I have to have a say in this matter?
  Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has listened to my argument—

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I apologise both to you and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), but I have a prima facie breach of privilege to report which, I am told, I must raise at the earliest convenient opportunity. The opportunity is at this moment.
  A group of parliamentarians were invited to go to the Chrysler Corporation, and they accepted. The Chrysler Corporation arranged to convey them at a quarter to six this evening in a coach. A number of us have been waiting downstairs—[Laughter.] My Front Bench should not laugh. There is a junior Minister who is laughing. I am more concerned with the privileges of Members of Parliament than with junior Ministers. We waited from a quarter to six to six o'clock. The group included Members from both sides of the House.
  552
  Lo and behold—[Laughter]—this is no laughing matter; it is serious—we were told that the Whips' Office, without consulting us, had cancelled all the arrangements. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I am interested in the rights of Members of Parliament.
  You, Sir Myer, and I know that no one is entitled to prevent Members of Parliament from doing their duty, and if hon. Members are going on a commission such as this, no Whips have the right to cancel the arrangement without notifying or consulting any of the hon. Members concerned. I claim that this is a breach of parliamentary privilege.
  Hon. Members can laugh as much as they like, but I am not having Government Whips or Ministers telling me what I can do and what I cannot do. Therefore, I have raised this as a prima facie breach of privilege, and I ask you to have an investigation made into the matter to see who cancelled the arrangement and by what right in order to try to prevent me from carrying out my duties, together with other hon. Members from all parties. If hon. Members want to laugh and jeer they may do so, but this is a serious matter.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have enough trouble with the Scotland and Wales Bill in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) has raised a question of a breach of privilege. I have listened carefully to him and what I have to consider, as Chairman of the Committee at this stage, is whether what he has raised affects the working of the Committee. I am sure that he will agree that it does not affect the working of the Committee. He has observed the Standing Order in giving notice as soon as possible of his submission, and therefore it is recorded that he has done so and he will be able to pursue the matter tomorrow with Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I am afraid that it is not a question of interfering with the Committee but of the working of Parliament and the rights of hon. Members. This Committee is only one small facet of Parliament. I have raised the matter now, the first opportunity, because it is

  553
  in the rights of Members of Parliament that I am interested.

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL
  The First Deputy Chairman: I call the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) to resume his speech.
  Mr. Crouch: Thank you, Sir Myer. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) had addressed a pertinent question to me—whether I would confine voting in the referendums to those resident in Scotland and Wales. He made the point that there were people in constituencies throughout the rest of the United Kingdom who felt that they, too, should be consulted about a matter which would affect them. I accept that that is an argument, but I believe that to consult the whole of the United Kingdom would not produce the answer we are trying to get. The answer that I believe we are to trying to get—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.
  Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman is saying what?
  Mr. Powell: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman wanted the answer "No".
  Mr. Crouch: I am trying to get a word in. The question I want answered is whether the people of Scotland and Wales want the measure of devolution which is proposed by the Government, namely a form of home rule and a directly-elected Assembly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That may be true, but many English Members and many English people will give the thumbs-down to it. Maybe the great majority of members of the Government will give it the thumbs-down because they feel that it would disadvantage the United Kingdom and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, it would produce a disaster which would dismember the United Kingdom.
  I do not hold to that view. As I said last night, I could no longer support the Bill because I felt that it had become a shambles. I do not hold the view that a measure of real home rule for Scotland
  554
  and Wales is a disaster for the United Kingdom. I do hold the view that it is a progressive move towards a wider democratic devolution which is what we should be aiming for. We should not be afraid of it. We should not be afraid of such moves. It seems that the country has become so entrenched in its history and heritage that it is afraid to look ahead and do some of the things that it was not afraid to do in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend comment on two points? First, how would acceptance of the amendment invalidate getting a clear answer from Scotland and Wales? Second, surely it is not correct to accept a referendum in such a form as to get the answer that we want.
  Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend is quite correctly stating a point of view which is held strongly and sincerely. All the views that have been expressed in the debate have been expressed sincerely and with a certain amount of passion. As the Committee knows, I am not an exception. What I am saying is that I believe we should be moving towards some form of wider democratic solution of our system of government in this country and that there is nothing wrong in what is proposed. But I do not like the method. The Bill has become a hotch-potch of old and new and right and wrong. I should like to see the parties in the House of Commons getting together and proposing an all-party solution and removing the political elements which have crept into the Bill.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have not followed my hon. Friend's argument about why the referendum should not be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. Many Welsh and Scots people living and working outside Wales and Scotland will be returning to Wales and Scotland, yet those people will have no say in the future destiny of their particular parts of the United Kingdom. Is that fair?
  Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend must have missed the earlier part of my speech. I tried to cover that point, and it would be wrong to delay the Committee by going over it again.

  555
  This is a matter which should properly be decided by those who are now resident in those parts of the United Kingdom. To go wider could produce an answer which would be unjust and unfair to them. I am taking account of the fact that the rest of the United Kingdom—the English and the Northern Irish people—are affected. But I believe that the effect on England by the measures for devolution which we are proposing can be overstated.
  It may be thought that this Parliament no longer has any power to redress the balance between what is achieved in Scotland and Wales after devolution and what might be achieved for example, in North-West and North-East England. I am talking about economic assistance and aid. It is quite wrong to assume that we in the House, and the Government here at Westminster, no longer have the power to produce this for the rest of England. That has been overstated. I leave my argument at that.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Sillars: I always find it strange to hear a politician argue that one should extract politics from a particular issue. I do not really draw any distinction, because at the end of the day the political system has to function on a party basis.
  I shall not enter into the argument that we had at length yesterday about whether there should be a referendum. I am opposed to referendums in principle and I voted against a referendum last night. The number of issues raised this evening illustrate the sad fact that we have engaged in a negation of responsibility and are sinking further and further into a constitutional and political quagmire.
  It can be argued that it is almost impossible to set a fair referendum whether it is on an industrial issue or on a constitutional issue. In terms of the Common Market referendum, it is clear that the Conservative Government of 1970–74 found that when they came to deal with the national executive of the NUR, which set a question in its own industrial referendum, it almost guaranteed the 61 majority vote in favour of the executive.
  However, we now have to argue within the bounds of the decision made by the House last night. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) appeared to pay
  556
  no regard whatever to the tact that in a country with an unwritten constitution it is perfectly permissible and, indeed, sensible to take the political process into account when one is talking about constitutional change.
  There are those who have argued that there should not be a referendum covering the whole of the United Kingdom on a matter affecting the nations of Scotland and Wales. Here I immediately differ from the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who believes that there are no such things as a Scottish nation, a Welsh nation and an English nation. I believe that all three exist.
  In pursuing his argument, the hon. Member for Reigate portrayed an ignorance of how the Union of the United Kingdom operates in political reality. That political reality was recognised in Ulster. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is not present, because he argued that there is no such thing as small nations, or component nations, inside the British nation. Therefore, if we are to accept the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, we would have to accept that there is no such thing as the Ulster nation. Yet he was prepared to allow a component part of the United Kingdom to determine whether it separated itself from the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is on an important point. As he says, it is a question of whether what we are dealing with are nations. In the case of Northern Ireland, however, the referendum was properly put to the Northern Ireland electorate as to whether they wished to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. That, by its nature, can only be put to and decided by people whose withdrawal is under question. But as regards the form of government in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friends and I—and the overwhelming majority of people in Ulster—have always been not merely content but insistent that it is in this House of Commons, since it is an integral part of the United Kingdom, that the government of Northern Ireland should be determined.
  Mr. Sillars: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it should be determined in this House of Commons. But the right hon. Member for Brighton,

  557
  Pavilion was arguing in the context of a referendum. I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said contradicts my point of view. If we were faced with a poll about the restoration of Stormont, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this was a matter for the Ulster electorate principally rather than for the United Kingdom electorate as a whole.
  Mr. Powell: I should argue that it would be a matter in the first place for this House of Commons as a whole and for the whole of the electorate of the United Kingdom as represented in the House. I do not see how it can be argued that the form of government in Scotland should be decided by the majority of English Members in the House of Commons but not decided by those whom the majority of English Members in the House represent.
  Mr. Sillars: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has a logical sequence to his argument. I accept that that is his view, but it was not the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who argued, on the one hand, no nationality and, on the other hand, that Ulster was a special case. My point was that the whole exercise in relation to Ulster was in the light of the political reality in that part of the United Kingdom. The political reality determined the nature of the Government's response at that time.
  We should attend to the political reality rather than to the nice constitutional arguments between, say, Members from Kent and those from Inverness. The political reality is that it is not beneath the Conservative Party on occasion to stimulate Scottish national feeling when it suits its electoral purposes. The Conservative Party was the first of the United Kingdom parties ever to publish a separate election manifesto specifically for Scotland. It did that in 1970. In fact, it boasted about doing it in 1970. The Conservatives were hell-bent on getting as many Scottish votes as they could garner. After the declaration of Perth in 1968, it was not a bad thing to make obeisance to what was regarded as the special Scottish dimension in the British body politic. The Conservatives tested
  558
  Scottish opinion separately in June 1970 and were separately rejected.
  When the Conservative Government came in, one of their first acts was to introduce fee-paying in Scottish local authority schools. They could not claim to have had a mandate for that proposal. The people covered by the English Conservative Party manifesto were not asked that question. It was posed only in the separate Scottish manifesto which the Scots rejected. Nevertheless, we did not have any English Back Benchers on Second Reading of that measure saying that that was a disgraceful undemocratic act on the part of their Government or demanding that that legislation should be put aside and planted in the next all-British Conservative Party election manifesto to see whether reasonable English Conservative voters wanted fee-paying in Scottish local authority schools.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Does the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument lead to the position that, if on a count of heads by regions in this Chamber it should be found that English Members, or those who must be assumed to have voted for them, did not accept a specific proposal in the Labour Party's manifesto, it should not be introduced into England by the Government which he used to support but perhaps no longer does?
  Mr. Sillars: If the Labour Party published a Kent election manifesto distinctly different from the manifesto covering the rest of England, the Labour Government would not be entitled to impose upon Kent a decision which the Kent people had said they did not want.
  The point is that the Conservative Party posed for the people north of the border a separate manifesto outlining the terms of reference for the democratic argument. I did not do that. It was the Conservative Party which did it, and the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) was happy with that political reality at that time. The Conservative Party recognised that there was a Scottish dimension in the British political system.
  The political reality is that the Scots tend to debate matters essentially in the Scottish forum. If the argument is about housing, it tends to be about the number of houses built in Scotland rather than the United Kingdom tally as a whole.

  559
  As regards unemployment, there is concern about the United Kingdom position, but, because of the position of the Scottish TUC and the Scottish element in the CBI, much of the argument is about the Scottish situation. It is always the Scottish point of view that is argued in that political forum. That is so with the Conservative Party as much as with the Labour Party.
  If at the end of the day a referendum is held in the whole of the United Kingdom in which people in Scotland rather than the Scottish people, because the electorate consists of the people in Scotland, vote massively "Yes" in favour of the Government's proposition, as they will without question—it may be about 56 to 32, which would be landslide terms—and if the people of England vote "No" by whatever the majority, those who argue in favour of the amendment must accept that the logic of their argument is that the answer is "No" to the Scottish Assembly that the people of Scotland have declared they want. If anyone wants to blow the Union to pieces, that is the best way to set about doing it.
  The United Kingdom is a multinational State, and the quicker that is understood and realised the better for the continuation of the Union. The United Kingdom is made up of small nations. I do not propose to argue whether Ulster is a nation on its own, but certainly it does not qualify by my personal definition. Many of us agree that there is a Welsh nation, a Scottish nation and an English nation—two small nations and a very large dominant nation. The test for the large dominant nation, if is wishes to retain the Union, is to be magnanimous enough to make the concession demanded by the minority.
  There is no point in having a referendum which demonstrates that one Scottish vote can never equal 10 English votes. If anyone wants to give the Scottish National Party the best propaganda weapon that it has ever had, it would be to roam Scotland saying that one Scottish vote can never equal 10 English votes.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, because he fears that the English vote may be a massive "No", English voters should not be allowed to
  560
  give a view on the subject? If they gave a massive "No" and the Scots gave a massive "Yes", I think that English Members of Parliament and the English nation would agree to the separation of Scotland, unlike the union in America which did not agree to the confederate nations separating. Why should not English people be asked for their view on this fundamental matter? That is what the hon. Gentleman has not answered.
  Mr. Sillars: I do not think that the Government are proposing separation. Whatever else they are proposing, they are not proposing separation. There can be arguments about the consequences of their action, but that is not what the Government are proposing. If the proposition is separation, it is a matter of self-determination for the Scots and the Welsh, and in my view the English have no say as such. If the English wanted separation and self-determination, that would be a matter for the English.
  I think that a number of hon. Members should recognise the political reality of the consequences of some of the statements made and attitudes adopted in this Chamber during the debates on the Bill. A great deal of frustration and anxiety is building up in Scotland which could manifest itself if the slogan were that one Scottish vote could never equal 10 English votes.
  I am not in favour of the referendum. It is just another expedient to help us towards the necessary guillotine at the end of the day. However, we are stuck with the referendum. Therefore, we should try to pursue a referendum which does the least damage to the affections between the peoples of the United Kingdom. If the amendment were passed, it would do most damage to the peoples of the United Kingdom.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) may or may not have been reading my notes. I suspect not, but I agree with a great deal of what he has said. If I may amplify his point, there are in round terms 33 million people who cast their votes in England at the October 1974 General Election. At the same time, just over 3½ million cast their votes in Scotland and fractionally over 2 million did so in Wales. What the hon. Member says is

  561
  true. If we are to have a referendum throughout the United Kingdom on this question, and the votes are to be cast, counted and balanced on the basis of the United Kingdom as a whole, it will not take much imagination to realise that a small turn-out in England of perhaps 20 per cent. could easily overcome a large turn-out—say 80 per cent.—in Scotland.
  What question does my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) wish to put on the ballot paper in England? According to his amendment, English people will be asked whether they think that the Scotland and Wales Bill should be put into effect. But nobody as yet has thrown any bricks through my window demanding a say in the referendum. It is extremely unlikely, if these questions are posed in a referendum in England, that constituencies like mine, for example, will get more than a 20 per cent. turn-out. In that way, a small vote in England percentage wise could overcome a very large vote statistically in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) inadvertently gave this away when, referring to the attitudes of people in England compared with those of people in Scotland and Wales, he said that the great majority of people in England took a different view. I suspect that the great majority of people in England take no view at all.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Since my hon. Friend referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is out of the Chamber, perhaps I may put this question on his behalf. Surely the Committee is entitled to take account of the vote. If there was a low turn-out in England, we could take account of that. Ultimately the decision rests with us in the House of Commons and we would have to take account of a number of factors, including the respective turnouts in England and Scotland.
  Mr. Adley: I take my hon. Friend's point. Possibly he agrees with me that this is a bad Bill which is trying to do something that should be done but is attempting to do it in a bad way. None of us knows exactly what the Scottish and Welsh people want. We should try to find out, and the referendum machinery is the best way of ascertaining what the
  562
  people want. If, however, the franchise is increased to include the whole of the United Kingdom, it will become apparent to the people of Scotland and Wales that their views are in danger of being submerged numerically by those of the people of England. That will drive more and more people into the arms of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.
  The whole Bill is an exercise in shadow boxing. None of us really knows what the Scots and the Welsh people want. We all make assumptions of what we believe they want. As long as people in England continue to give the impression that we in England with our 50 million people can tell 5 million in Scotland and 2 million or 3 million in Wales—
  Mr. Iain Sproat: I think that my hon. Friend is getting into deep water by talking about English people and Scottish people. We are all British. I stand as a British Member of Parliament, not as a Scotsman. Already English voters tell Scottish people what to do. During the last Conservative Administration the majority of Scottish people voted for certain Socialist policies, but because there was a Conservative majority throughout the United Kingdom the Scots had to lump it.
  Mr. Adley: I respect my hon. Friend's view. As he is a Member representing a Scottish constituency, one must defer very strongly to his point of view.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The argument could be carried further. One cannot think that all Scots live in Scotland and all English people live in England. There are more Scots living in England than in Scotland and there are certainly more Welsh living in England than in Wales. What voice do they have in the future of their country?
  Mr. Adley: If my hon. Friend would add his name to my amendment and do me the courtesy of reading it, he will see that I have covered that point.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I have read it, but I am unconvinced.
  Mr. Adley: In the almost seven years that I have been a Member of the House of Commons, we have had to make a number of difficult decisions. One that

  563
  I regret most was being dragooned into the Lobby to vote for the creation of a monster called Strathclyde. It gives me no pain whatsoever to think that in future decisions of this sort will be taken by an elected Scottish Assembly rather than by this House of Commons.
  We should try to defuse the atmosphere and look at the proposition. We are trying to bring about some form of devolved government through the various regions of the United Kingdom. We have made a start with Scotland and Wales, and, who knows, in future, despite opposition from the County Councils Association, we might discuss—as the Liberal Party would like—some form of devolution for England. I believe that the decision on the future of these Assemblies should be made by the Scottish and Welsh people. That is why I say in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) that I have put down amendments which seek to give Scots-born and Welsh-born people living elsewhere in the United Kingdom an opportunity to vote in the referendum. I agree with my hon. Friend 100 per cent. I believe, however, that when we are dealing with this issue it inevitably raises the question of nationality irrespective of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) may say. We must find a way of broadening the franchise.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I realise that my hon. Friend is trying to bring a little logic into a totally illogical situation. Where is the logic and common sense in giving a vote in the referendum to someone who is a Pakistani by birth but is living in Cardiff, or to an Englishman living in Glasgow, but denying it to Scots and Welsh people living in England? This is a monstrous measure and I urge my hon. Friend not to tinker with it because, the people of this country up with it will not put.
  Mr. Adley: If my hon. Friend gets a transcript of the "Today" programme for one morning last week, he will see that I said that there was no reason why a Ugandan Asian from Kampala living in Glasgow should have the vote when a Welshman living in England does not get it. This is a perfectly legitimate point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will now agree with me. I agree that one
  564
  has to try to draw logical conclusions in an illogical situation.
  If hon. Members will look at Amendment (ss)—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is correct that the hon. Member has tabled the amendment. I can give the Committee the information that the hon. Member is referring to page 1743 of the Paper, where Amendment (ss) appears, but I do not think that we are going to discuss that amendment at this stage. I have, however, given the information.
  Mr. Adley: In that case I shall not go into the question of my amendments, Sir Myer, but I am sure that my Front Bench will be able to thumb through this copious document and find them.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that it could and should be possible to find a way of enabling people to vote. Many countries are broadening their franchise, and if we believe in democracy we must find ways of doing that to take account of individual circumstances. I agree very much with the point raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, and that is that the sort of colonial attitude which one hears put forward so often on these questions will only help the SNP to achieve its aims.
  I close by reminding my right hon. and hon. Friends that in 1968 Lord Home was invited by the then Leader of the Conservative Party to look into the question of devolution. Along with many others before and since, he was not all that dogmatic in believing that he had found the answer to the question. But he believed that, if we were concerned for the future unity of the United Kingdom, we were more likely to retain that unity by providing some form of administrative devolution for the people of Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is all very well to quote Lord Home, but the relevant point is "believed" and not "believes", because Lord Home is among many people who are changing their minds rapidly and are asking for the withdrawal of the Bill.
  Mr. Adley: I thought I had made clear that I regard this as a completely bad Bill. It is a bad way of achieving something which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) described

  565
  as a reasonable advancement in the democratic development of our country. I know that Lord Home believes this to be a bad Bill. I have done my best to keep abreast of his views on the subject. I close by setting out what I believe to be Lord Home's position. If one is trying to retain the unity of the United Kingdom, it is a toss-up whether one is more likely or less likely to achieve that by providing some form of devolution or by denying it. Lord Home's view is that we are more likely to retain it by providing some form of devolved government for Scotland and Wales, and on that basis we in the Conservative Party would be unwise totally to forget that we went into the last General Election with a commitment to an elected Assembly.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: During our debates on the Bill a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that sometimes, and perhaps often, we seem to be in some confusion. That is true. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) cut his way through some of the confusion. One of the reasons why occasionally there is confusion is that we seem to assume that in Westminster parliamentary terms Scotsmen, Welshmen and Englishmen are equal. In simple arithmetical terms, however, they are not equal. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) pointed out the dangers of the slogan of one Scottish vote always being overcome by the 10 English votes. There is that danger. It is, therefore, crucial to begin to appreciate the whole question of the minority issue, and part of the point of the Bill is to deal with that issue.
  6.45 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) criticised the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) when he intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) challenging the right hon. Gentleman to repeat in Cardiff Arms Park the statement he had just made in the Committee that there was no such thing as a Welsh nation, a Scottish nation or even an English nation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was critical of the intervention on the grounds that somehow it was introducing a kind of
  566
  racial element and that politics should not differentiate between Scotsmen, Welshmen and Englishmen in Britain. This is absolute nonsense. There are in Wales issues of considerable importance there, but which have no real importance in the House of Commons and serve only to create considerable boredom.
  I will mention only one aspect, although I could refer to many. It is the issue of the Welsh language. That is a controversial issue in Wales. I do not think I do anybody in this Committee an injustice if I say that ordinarily it generates a certain amount of boredom. It is of no fascinating concern to the average English, Irish, or Scottish Member, but in Wales it is of great importance. Over a period of years, because of English dominance—and I do not mean that in any nasty way, because it is a simple arithmetical fact, perhaps because of the English hegemony—there has not been for any period of time sufficient attention to certain important issues which concern Welshmen who in Britain represent the minority, but who in Welsh Wales are the majority.
  In Wales over the last 10 years hundreds of young Welshmen have served jail sentences for breaching the criminal law because of the language issue. They may or may not be misguided, but they have been sufficiently steamed up to make the issue one of some importance. Because of the continuing outcry it has seemed very often, in the arguments in the courts in Wales, between the bench and the dock, that there has been a monopoly of wisdom on justice from the dock and a monopoly of wisdom on the law from the bench. However, there have been gradual changes. Because of this arithmetical imbalance, however, a disservice has been rendered over a long period of time to an important group of people who live in Wales, who speak Welsh, and who, in their area, represent a majority.
  I do not pay a great deal of attention to this question of minority and majority as such. I have always believed the people who say that they are only a minority are using a silly argument. After all, there are more fleas than men in the world, but one would hardly put fleas above men because of that. The whole argument about minorities falls to the ground on that kind of logic. The

  567
  minorities have their rights, and that is the issue that we are discussing on the Bill.
  If Scotland and Wales were to receive a measure of devolution it would affect Scotland and Wales incomparably more than it would affect England. To that extent, therefore, it seems to me that people in Scotland and Wales are much more entitled to express a view as to whether Wales and Scotland should receive a measure of devolution.
  Mr. Powell: Has the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) not realised that in this Committee, as in this Kingdom, we are all minorities? This Committee is a representation of a totality of a large number of minorities. The hon. Member has mentioned only some of them.
  Mr. Ellis: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point absolutely. We are a representation of a vast number of minorities. I go much further and say that it is precisely because of the change in the social structure in the United Kingdom in recent years that the old nineteenth century system, which was sufficiently rigid and hierarchical to submerge all the minority interests so that they were neglected, has been changed so that minority interests are increasingly having to be heard and be given representation. We therefore reach the stage of trying to change from the nineteenth century type of structure, which is quite outmoded and useless, to what I would like to regard as a genuine, democratic United Kingdom. This is the basic argument for a measure of devolution.
  Like many others, I am not an advocate of referendums—I do not believe in them—but we are to have a referendum so we have to make the best of it. To make the best of it, because the question affects England far less than Scotland and Wales, clearly it should be confined to the people of Scotland and Wales. There is an enormous amount of argument about who exactly are Scotsmen and who exactly are Welshmen. There are whole liberaries written on the question of nationhood and the definition of nationhood. I do not think that anyone could give a precise definition, but to deny the existence of such a thing as an English nation, a Scottish nation or a Welsh nation is absurd, and to proclaim the
  568
  recent creation of the British nation, as one hon. Member did, is equally absurd.
  I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the amendment out of hand.
  Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), for whom I feel myself to be a bit of a stand-in on this issue, may I put this to my hon. Friend, who has a distinguished record because, as we know, he achieved the release of a Breton prisoner through his work in the European Parliament? Could he not carry his argument a little further and say that his belief is far distant from the Government's Bill, and he believes in a Europe of the minority races, run centrally? This is what he has argued so eloquently in The New Europe, and it is totally different from the proposition before the Committee.
  Mr. Ellis: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I accept that there is a great deal wrong with the Bill. Many hon. Members who are intending to support the Bill say that they also see a great deal wrong with it. I believe that it was brought forward in the first instance for the wrong reasons. I do not believe that it has been thought through, and I sometimes question the conviction with which it is being pushed through. But it is the only Bill that we have, and, therefore, I am bound to accept it.
  I should have liked to have seen a simple Bill on similar lines to the proposals for Wales—no more than that—and a commitment to developments in the long term, to federalism or whatever it might be, in a natural and gradual way. To have such a precisely defined Bill as this is nonsense.
  Sir David Renton: I am sure that it would help the Committee to know whether the hon. Member agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) that it would have been better if the proposals for Scotland and Wales had been put before the House separately.
  Mr. Ellis: No. I do not think that it would have been better. I am not sure what this has to do with the amendment, when we are discussing whether the referendum should take place in England or whether it should be limited to Scotland and Wales. I think that Scotland and

  569
  Wales should have been combined in one Bill, and I am glad that they have been. My criticisms are not connected with the fact that they have been combined together in one Bill.
  I am sorry that I have taken a little longer than I had intended. I hope that the amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made a highly relevant point this evening when he said that the Government do not yet seem to have fully realised all the implications of changing to a consultative referendum. For instance, if the referendum is to be consultative it would be proper and helpful to ask the people several questions rather than only one. Similarly, I hope that the Government will have had some new thoughts on this Amendment by the time the Minister replies to the debate on it. The change to a consultative referendum opens the doors to the validity of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner).
  I confess that when I first saw the amendment, when we were talking of a mandatory referendum, I was impressed with it, but I had cold feet because of the question of the diplomatic problems which could arise in a mandatory binding referendum, in which there was a poor turn-out in England, if a majority of English voters outvoted the totality of votes for the Bill in Scotland or Wales. Since, however, the referendum is to be consultative, and since this amendment is therefore itself bound to be so amended—as the Chair announced this afternoon—it seems that it becomes irresistible. If a consultative referendum throughout the United Kingdom produced an apparently embarrassing result, with the English verdict different from the verdict in Scotland and Wales, I am confident that the House of Commons would be well capable of dealing with that result in a responsible and common-sense way.
  Since it is this Bill which is to be subjected to a referendum, with so many features that the Government seem to have included deliberately to make it a United Kingdom issue—for we are discussing not some proposal for Scotland and Wales to be hived off in a loose or remote form of federation but a Bill
  570
  constructed on a United Kingdom basis—it would be peculiarly perverse if the Government persisted in taking a view that it had nothing to do with the people of England and Northern Ireland.
  Several features of the Bill emphasise the importance of this measure to England and Northern Ireland, particularly the question of finance for Scotland. Since the Government have not provided for a separate basis of taxation, the Bill at once becomes a matter affecting the pockets of the people of England and Northern Ireland. I am not suggesting that those consulted in a referendum in England would be mean or ungenerous, but at least they would have a vote on something which affected their own money.
  The question of representation in this House of Commons, a subject which has already been well debated this afternoon, is of the utmost consequence, and might eventually be of consequence to all English citizens if an issue arose in which the tangle of representation at Westminster itself became an important issue.
  It is not only constitutional matters that will exercise a considerable number of English voters. Many people resident in England, for example, are afflicted by the same residual problems resulting from the Industrial Revolution which also transformed the industrial belt of Scotland. There are millions of these people who have suffered for generations, English, Scottish and Welsh alike—and Wales has suffered as much as any—and they feel that arguments on the totality of all these appalling industrial, housing and other problems can at present be brought to bear in this Chamber. But in many respects, if the Bill is passed, the problem will, unfortunately, be fragmented. This is a deep concern in my own area, which is among the oldest power-driven industrial areas in the world. They are able to impress Parliament by the totality of the United Kingdom problem. If the Bill is passed, however, the English constituencies will be left with only a fragment of the problem—an important fragment, but still only a part—and will, therefore, lose the impact that they would otherwise have in trying to persuade Westminster.
  Mr. Dalyell: I recall that the hon. Member made a speech in which he referred to the "soggy" English. How long

  571
  will they take to wake up to what is happening?
  Sir Bernard Braine: They are tumbling to it slowly.
  Mr. Wainwright: If I have your tolerance, Sir Myer, it is my intention to refer to the soggy English eventually, before finally sitting down.
  There are these problems which are not simply the province of the constitutionalists but which are the real bread and butter problems, like housing, which exercise a great many minds in England and in Northern Ireland in relation to the Bill.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentle man referred to housing. If it were true that the representation of the housing problems of all parts of the United Kingdom in the House of Commons were effective, would we not expect a similar level of housing improvement performance throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? How does the hon. Gentleman explain that the housing position in Wales and in the north-west of England is substantially worse than in any other region or country of the United Kingdom?
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Wainwright: That is not for me to explain, especially as I am speaking from this Liberal Bench which has not had much responsibility for these matters in my lifetime. I am not saying that bringing the totality of these problems to bear in this Chamber has achieved anything like the best results. However, many of my constituents feel that by bringing the whole weight of the problems here they have been more satisfactorily debated, considered and tackled by Governments than if only the English part and the Northern Irish part of the problems had been left as a residue to be dealt with in the House. Short of a referendum on separation, there can be no excuse for taking the opinions of some of the people rather than of all the people.
  As for the soggy English, I grant that the Government might get away with it if they were able to get on very quickly with the Bill. I do not think that they are the sort of people to accept the temptation, but they might be able to trap the soggy English into accepting this monster of a partial referendum for the time
  572
  being. But I have no doubt that, if they persist in that unwise course, eventually it will catch up with some future Government and that, on some important constitutional issue, English opinion will turn sour and English people will say "We were not consulted, and we should have
  been".
  Sir Bernard Braine: Will the hon. Gentleman pursue his argument about the soggy English? Is it not a fact that leaders in the regions in the north of England have already begun to ask who picks up the bill for this and are already speaking out, without any reference to party allegiances, because they realise just what this Bill will mean for their own people? What the North thinks today, the South will think tomorrow, and some of us will make it our business to see that it does.
  Mr. Wainwright: I would never suggest that northern leaders were soggy. As a total Yorkshireman, with no other blood in my veins and with no missionaries having been consumed, I regret the slow political consciousness of Yorkshire people about matters other than their food and football. But this is only a matter of slowness. It is not a permanent fault. It is not fundamental. It is simply a slow reaction compared with the admirable volatility of the Welsh and the Scots. Therefore, I say to those in the Government that, if they cynically exploit the boredom or sogginess of the English and try to pull a fast one with this partial referendum involving only one in seven of the people in the United Kingdom, eventually a future British Government will come sorely to regret such a transparently wrong decision.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall take up one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in a moment. First, however, I want to counsel him on his general line. Some of us in Scotland are trying to prevent the kind of international feeling that we see developing, and we are not helped in that by some of the speeches that we hear from the Opposition Benches and sometimes from a few Government supporters.
  The proposals in the Bill are to give an already devolved Scottish Administration some other aspects of democratic control. It does not attempt to break

  573
  down the basic totality of the industrial life and resources of Britain. On the contrary, some of us are doing our best to preserve it, and sometimes it would be helpful to have speeches from Opposition Members—recognising that many of them fear the Bill—which were a little more careful.
  I want to refer to some of the arguments which have been advanced about the right of Scots living in England and Wales to participate in the referendum. One argument which is put forward on their behalf is that we require this amendment providing for a referendum also to be held in the rest of the United Kingdom—and, since it is already to be held in Scotland and Wales, that means England—to enable them to vote on this question. That is an extraordinary proposition to advance. It is one thing to argue that Scots living in England should have this right. It is another thing to say that, because they are here, the whole of England should vote.
  One of the letters read by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred not just to a Scots person living in England but to a second-generation Scots person living in England. With respect, it seems to me that that argument would have come much more succinctly from the mouths of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, because it is part of a kind of "blood myth" argument.
  The reason why we say that these referendums should be held in Scotland and in Wales is precisely that it is the people living there who will be affected by the forms of government that we establish there. They should be administered in terms of their health, education, law, social services, planning and economic planning by the forms of government established there. That is a democratic proposition. It is those governed by an Administration who should elect that Administration, and that Administration should be responsible to them.
  Scots people who live in England, including my own son who lives and works in London, will fulfil neither of those two requirements. As long as they remain here, they will not be under the Administration set up in Scotland, and that Administration will not be responsible to them in. England. To argue otherwise is
  574
  like saying that Labour supporters from Colne Valley who now live elsewhere in England should, in the event of an election, be able to go back there and vote out the present Liberal Member.
  That is the first element of nonsense in saying that the referendum should be extended to England because there are some Scots and Welsh living in England. But, more importantly, that argument itself is fundamentally unsound, instead of being a democratic argument. It is an argument against the disastrous intervention made earlier by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) who, I notice, is busy nodding in agreement. He made the obnoxious remark that it was intolerable that a Scotsman who had left Scotland and come to live in England should not have a vote in the referendum but that a Ugandan who had gone to live in Scotland should get one. I do not find that intolerable at all. If a Ugandan or Pakistani, or even an Englishman—I treat them equally—has gone to live and work in Scotland, since he is to be administered by the form of government to be established there, he has a right to a say in its establishment.
  I remind the Committee of what that good Englishman Colonel Rainborough said in the Putney debates:
  "… every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself tinder that government.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has a great reputation for fairness and objectivity. However, he is beginning to depart from it. He knows that my theme is not that Scotsmen and Welshmen alone in England should have a voice. My theme is that everyone in the kingdom concerned with the future of the kingdom should have a voice, and I hope to have an opportunity to develop that argument before too long.
  Mr. Buchan: My argument dealt not merely with the proposition about Scots and Welsh living in England but with that about the people of England, on the democratic parliamentary basis. I took that argument on board in my usual fair and partial way. If we look at the proposals in this way, we have another example of what will come from them.
  If the whole of the United Kingdom is to vote in the referendum, Scotland

  575
  will be voting on whether Wales should have a Welsh Assembly. The people of Scotland, very properly, will say that this is a matter for the Welsh to decide. The Welsh will be voting on whether Scotland should have an Assembly, and I am sure that they will say that that is a matter for the Scots. The only question bothering Scots about Wales is whether Phil Bennett will be picked.
  The opposite argument becomes a political point. The political reality is that those hon. Members who say that the proposal is a means of preserving the unity of the United Kingdom will be seen by the Scots, no doubt incorrectly, to be saying "We shall give you the vote, but we shall make sure that the larger population of England will vote too, in order to negate your vote". That would be politically disastrous. Even if it did not happen, the suspicions would feed those forces to which hon. Members claim to be opposed.
  If there is a danger of a for-and-against situation, of two contrary votes, what do we do? What do we do if hon. Members succeed in their argument and we fail to convince the English that we are not harming them but are bringing the Administration under more democratic control, so that there is a "No" vote to an Assembly for Scotland or Wales? The amendment proposes an Assembly not for England but for Scotland and for Wales. Do we agree with the people living in England—that is, with their "No" vote? If we do not, we deny them the right that we have apparently promised by holding a referendum, so our decision will be antagonistic to the people of England, too. If we agree, we say to others "You will not be allowed to choose this because of a vote elsewhere". It is an illogical nonsense and a political danger, and it should be dropped.
  The fear has been expressed by many people, including the hon. Member for Colne Valley and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, that there will be an immense economic advantage to Scotland and Wales. This can be dealt with not by a referendum but by the Bill. If we are discussing the amount of grants for all parts, we should try to lay down the necessary guidelines to ensure that there is not an excess grant for industry in South Wales compared to the perhaps
  576
  worse-off north-east of England. All United Kingdom Members will be participating and voting on the content of the Bill, and that is how fears can be allayed.
  The other fear expressed has been of separation. The proper course of action is to submit the Bill to the will of the Scottish and Welsh people. They are facing not one problem but two—the Bill and the political situation. If the Bill is to be killed off in the House of Commons, or ground into the sands, the Scottish people will see this as a further example of the final ineptitude of a Westminster Government. That view may be unjustified. In their own interests and on the basis of their own argument, hon. Members should be in the forefront in getting the Bill through, supporting the necessary parliamentary measures to help it through, and stopping the illogical nonsense which we have heard from so many of them today.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has analysed the proposals in a way which I find unacceptable. He starts from the premise that a referendum will be about an Administration in Scotland or Wales and that those who are currently resident in Scotland or Wales must be regarded as permanently resident there. I think that both propositions are false. [interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West will allow me to develop my argument.
  My analysis of the referendum is different. The proposals in the Bill go far wider than the form, content and complexion of an Administration in Scotland or Wales. It is equally fallacious to assume that those who may happen to be registered in Scotland or Wales at the date of the referendum are necessarily permanently resident there, or are representative of Scottish or Welsh sentiment, I would approach the referendum in a slightly different spirit.
  Even if the Lord President had shown scrupulous concern for constitutional proprieties and the delicate regard for party balance which he showed in the dog-days of 1968, I would still approach the referendum proposals with the deepest mistrust. This has been almost a common theme in all the speeches today.

  577
  There has been a frigidity towards and a repugnance for these proposals.
  The unworthy suspicion has been left with me, as with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), that these referendum proposals are nothing more than a squalid manoeuvre designed to attract a little support for a waning Bill and to pave the way for a guillotine. We shall see whether they achieve the support they are designed to secure, and we shall see next week or thereafter whether the Government have the nerve to introduce a timetable motion.
  Whatever one may feel about the principle of a referendum, constitutionally or otherwise, the closer one comes to the details of these proposals the less attractive they seem. I fervently support Amendment (O). I cannot see how the Government can justify on any grounds the exclusion of the majority of voters from expressing their views on a matter which must affect them, their children and their grandchildren.
  I would not be so bold as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to assert that there is no Scottish nation or no Welsh nation. At the end of the day, I suspect that the difference between my right hon. Friend and myself is not so much a question of blood—like him, I must confess myself to be a mongrel—but one of semantics.
  How one defines a nation in this context may be a matter of delicate debate and dispute, but what I assert with considerable confidence is that if there is a Scottish nation it is certainly not confined to the area north of the border, and that if there is a Welsh nation it is not confined to the area west of Offa's Dyke. Anyone who has had the privilege of attending the functions of a Caledonian Society on St. Andrew's Day in Dover or Deal, or maybe in Calcutta, Brisbane or even Belfast or of attending a function of a Welsh Society on St. David's Day way outside the Principality will know my proposition to be true.
  There has also been a reverse flow. It is one of the grotesque coincidences of politics that the two major members of the Government Front Bench who have lent their credit and support to the Bill have mixed backgrounds. One, the
  578
  Prime Minister, has, I dare say—but it is a matter of speculation—an ancestry which derives from County Cork. He owns broad acres in Sussex, and no doubt he will be entitled to vote in the referendum, if it is approved in its present form, in Cardiff. The Lord President is, I understand—although I have not questioned him on this—a man of Cornish descent and he now has the privilege to represent a seat in Monmouthshire. I regret, Sir Myer, that the Chair has not selected Amendment (b) in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) which provides for a separate referendum in the county of Monmouthshire.
  All this demonstrates that we are a mongrel race in these islands. The diaspora of the Scots and Welsh has taken them very far from their original borders. It is only the Celtic separatists who sit on this Bench for the moment, but perhaps not for long, who have attempted to play on these slightly spurious emotions They have tried to introduce into our debates the tribal sentiments which may be exhilarating at Cardiff Arms Park or Murrayfield but which are inappropriate in our debates here at Westminster on great constitutional issues.
  If I turn briefly to face the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) I hope that I shall not be accused of disrespect to the Chair or of chastising the hon. Gentleman, as I was accused not so long ago of chastising my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I wish to tell the hon. Gentleman that transcending these nations' history, however real the sentiments that animate those who claim to belong to them, there is a British nation that has undoubtedly, existed for more than 250 years, a British nation of which many people who may be of Welsh descent, like me and perhaps the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), none the less are proud to claim themselves members.
  After all, the British nation has a historical existence that far exceeds that of, for example, the German nation or the Italian nation. We belong to a nation which has been on the whole, until recent years, a success. Its history has been marked by triumphs and achievements of which I at least am proud to boast, as I hope other hon. Members are.
  Mr. Powell: Perhaps I may support the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman for the existence of a British nation by saying that those who sent my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and me here, and who are the majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, are Unionists not because they belong to the English nation but because they belong to the British nation, the nation of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Rees: It would be a travesty of the truth for me or anyone else, whatever his precise ancestry, to claim that the inhabitants of the ancient Province of Ulster are English. Of course they are not. They have never asserted it, and I would not assert it. They are component parts of the British nation—
  Mr. Powell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Rees: —just as the Welsh, whether they are to be found in Aberystwyth or Deal, are part of the British nation; just as the Scots, whether they are to be found in Dundee or Westminster, are part of the British nation. Indeed, for the hon. Member for Dundee, East to pretend, as he sometimes affects, that he and his hon. Friends alone represent the Scottish nation is a travesty of the truth.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. and learned Friend also agree that what has bound together the constituent elements making up the kingdom is common achievement, shared experience and common sacrifice? When in two world wars we fought alongside one another we did not ask whether we were Welshmen, Scotsmen or Englishmen. We felt that we were British and that we were fighting for our country and in some cases laying down our lives for it.
  Mr. Rees: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not wish to be drawn too deeply into the question of what makes a nation. That great French patriot and statesman General Charles de Gaulle was very much of the view that what creates a nation is shared experience, shared history and shared sacrifice. It is our duty to speak for Britain and not only for the individual nations to which we may claim to belong, the individual areas from which we may hail, or the individual con-
  580
  stituencies which we may be privileged to represent.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: While I am prepared to accept for the moment this concept of Britishness, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it should not subsume individual characteristics of Scottishness and Welshness?
  Mr. Rees: How could I deny that proposition with my name, which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt recognise as one that comes from the Principality? I am proud to claim that ancestry. The enduring strength of this country and our political institutions is that we have in great measure recognised the individual idiosyncrasies of the various parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall go on doing so. I shall come later to the damage that the Bill is likely to do to the enduring concept of British nationhood.
  The touchstone, the basis on which we must judge the referendum, is how far the proposals in the Bill affect the British nation as a whole. One can approach this matter in various ways. I wish first to approach it in the very way that the Chairman of Ways and Means recently ruled. You will recall, Mrs. Butler, that on Wednesday 9th February he ruled that the main purpose of the Bill was
  "to create other authorities which will enjoy a concurrent competence"—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1678.]
  He must have meant, of course, a concurrent competence with that currently enjoyed by this Parliament. Therefore, on the very ruling of the Chair, the proposals in the Bill must affect the sovereignty, the functions and the rôle of Westminster. I give this to the right hon. Member for Down, South, although he and I voted in different ways on the question of the Common Market. Tested by the ruling of the Chair, these measures—on which, on the Government's proposal, only those currently resident in Scotland and Wales are to be invited to express their view—are likely to affect the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Digging a little deeper into the proposals of this unattractive Bill, I believe that they go beyond that and that they will affect perhaps fatally the delicate balance of power, the web of political and administrative relationships between Cardiff, Westminster and Whitehall, between

  581
  Edinburgh and Westminster and Whitehall. More profoundly and significantly than that, the Bill is designed to give a separate political identity to two parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that anyone speaking in favour of the Bill could deny that proposition.
  If that is true, the very concept of British nationhood must be at risk. If that is true, the British nation as a whole should be able to take part in the referendum, wherever the individuals who make up that nation happen to be living. I say at once, although this is not enshrined in the amendment, that I believe this to be a case that those living and working temporarily in the Persian Gulf, India, Australia or Africa should also be entitled to a vote, because the matter goes to the very political framework of the country which they left and to which they perhaps hope to return to settle and die. If there should be a photo finish, if there should be a majority of 51 per cent. on a 30 per cent. turn-out in Scotland or Wales, surely there are other factors that the Government must take into account.
  7.30 p.m.
  The Government's case for limiting the referendum to Scotland and Wales has been fatally undermined by the concession that the Lord President made a few days ago. If the referendum is not to be mandatory but consultative, the crude argument that can be deployed against the case that I have made today—that it would be wrong for the views of Scotland and Wales to be overridden by English votes—falls to the ground.
  According to the concession made by the Leader of the House—and I should have preferred to see it in a new clause or an amendment before we attempted to debate these provisions and amendments—the referendum will be consultative and the ultimate decision will be taken by the House of Commons. Surely, when the House makes the ultimate decision, as the Leader of the House has promised, it will be entitled to know the views not only of those electors who return Scottish and Welsh Members to the House but of the whole of the United Kingdom and of all the electors who return Members to the House.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is completely wrong. Con-
  582
  trary to what he says, the concession made by the Leader of the House lessens the argument for a referendum in England. If it were a mandatory referendum and if the views expressed in Scotland and Wales were to be carried out, there would be no problem—although perhaps a problem could arise with one country voting "Yes" and the other "No". But if the referendum were consultative and the larger population living outside Scotland and Wales were involved, that would enormously enhance the suspicions that may be created about the Government's intentions. The real facts of the situation are the opposite of what the hon. and learned Gentlemen has suggested.
  Mr. Rees: If there are any suspicions about the measures that may or may not be introduced as a consequence of the referendum—and I infer from the hon. Members' intervention that suspicions will be held by his constituents, for example—the hon. Member will be able to point out that, if the vote is taken county by county or constituency by constituency, due weight can be given to particular views. The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and myself is purely designed to bring about a United Kingdom referendum. The question of how the count should be done can be discussed separately. Following the precedent of the Common Market referendum, the count should be carried out county by county. It may reassure the constituents of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, as it would be easy for us to determine how Renfrewshire voted on the issue.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Surely that is essential knowledge if the referendum is to be a consultative one. If Parliament is to make a binding decision, Parliament must be able to take every factor into account. If all the English counties are to be left out, how can it do that?
  Mr. Rees: Of course, I agree.
  Among the factors that we shall wish to weigh will be how the various regions, counties and nations of the United Kingdom express their view during the referendum. If the Government are sincere in their anxiety to consult the people affected by their proposal—and there will be some who will unkindly doubt the

  583
  Government's sincerity, which will be tested soon—and I hope that the Minister who speaks tonight will accept my analysis that this is not just a mere regional problem or a question of equipping Scotland and Wales with no more than an enlarged county council. It is something that will go to the root of our constitutional being. If the Government are sincere in their anxiety, then in honour and in logic they are bound to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Paul Channon: I agree strongly with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). The Committee faces this problem whenever a referendum is proposed. Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has been opposed to a referendum because there difficulties are inevitably bound to arise when it is decided to proceed by way of referendum rather than by allowing Parliament to decide such great issues in the way that has traditionally and rightly been the way of dealing with all such great issues except one—and I shall come to that one in a moment.
  A point that flows from that and makes our discussion more difficult is that we have not yet been told by the Government what will be the form of the referendum. We were told yesterday that it would be consultative and that there would be some further process once the referendum was over, but the Government have, so far, been unable to put down amendments to tell us what that process will be. If the Minister could tell us that—if not tonight then at an early stage in our discussions on the referendum—he would be doing the Committee a service. Will there be an Order in Council or further legislation? What further parliamentary process do the Government propose? My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) says that the Government do not know, and he may be right. If so, that is an example of the way the Bill slides from one difficulty to another and with none of the difficulties being properly thought out. My hon. Friend may well turn out to be right.
  Since we are to have a referendum and since the Committee decided last night to give the new clause a Second Reading by a large majority, we must ask who will be affected by the measure and who
  584
  will be entitled to vote. I understand that some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, argue that it is a matter for the Scots and the Welsh only. I disagree strongly. The Bill, if it passes into law, will have a fundamental effect on the whole government of the United Kingdom. It will have a fundamental effect upon the government of England and of Northern Ireland as well as that of Scotland and Wales.
  Let us examine some of the issues that will inevitably arise as the years go by if the referendum takes place. We shall have to discuss the composition of the House of Commons and discuss how many Members should be sent from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That decision will be seriously affected by the powers given to the Assemblies and is strictly relevant to what is decided on the matter.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Does my hon. Friend think that the English will be happy to have a Scottish or Welsh Prime Minister in the future?
  Mr. Channon: That is indeed a thought. We may well be happy to do so—because we are a tolerant race—provided that the Prime Minister represents an English or Northern Irish constituency. It will be doubtful whether in future there will be many Scottish or Welsh Ministers because they will be put in a different position. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It will be the exception rather than the rule for that to be so as the years go by.
  There will be other issues to be settled. If the composition of the House is to be unchanged, we shall have to discuss issues that have been talked about before—for example, by Mr. Gladstone with the Bill of 1893. If the Assemblies are set up we shall have to consider whether Scottish and Welsh Members should have different voting rights. That will have a profound effect on England. Would a Government of a particular party political persuasion, and with a bare overall majority, be entitled to remain in office with the support of Scottish Members who would have their own Assembly? It might be that the representation in the House of England and Northern Ireland would be of a different political persuasion.

  585
  These issues will have to be faced They will not go away. There are no ideal solutions. If the Bill passes into law there will be a continuing and long process over many years of changes in the government of the United Kingdom. The government of not only Scotland and Wales but of England and Northern Ireland will break down into its parts. If I am right in that contention—and I think that some hon. Members support me—then surely the English and the Northern Irish are as entitled to be consulted over the change as are the Scots and the Welsh. It is essential that the views of the people of England and Northern Ireland about the Bill should be obtained.
  Some hon. Members have likened the Act of Union to a contract. That contract is being changed, and, whether we like the new one or not, both parties to it have a right to a say in what the future contract should be. The argument is all the more compelling because the referendum is no longer mandatory. The Committee cannot, therefore, escape from its responsibilities; nor should it.
  It will be Parliament's responsibility to enact or fail to enact whatever parliamentary process the Government eventually bring forward on the conclusion of the referendum. If Parliament is to have that responsibility and we are to have that information given to us, why should we not have all the information? Why should we not have the views of the English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people expressed on the basis of counties? I was against that in the Common Market referendum, and I was wrong. We benefited from knowing the division of opinion in various parts of the United Kingdom, and I believe that the same would be true in the devolution referendum.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: There is one point which has not yet been touched on. How could we shake out from the county reporting in England those people who are, in essence, of Scottish or Welsh breeding so that they can be added to the voting in Scotland and Wales to make up a total census of the people in those countries in favour or against the devolution Bill?
  Mr. Channon: That problem is insoluble. Perhaps we can discuss on a later amendment whether it is a problem that should be solved, but I do not think that there is any solution. I imagine that there will be many people qualified to vote in at least two of the countries concerned, if not three or all four.
  We are setting out on a long and difficult road of constitutional change which will have profound effects for this Parliament and the United Kingdom and for England and Ireland as much as for Scotland and Wales. I do not believe that the people of England and Northern Ireland can be denied the right to vote in the referendum.
  The people of England and Northern Ireland may not have woken up to what is going on, but they are beginning to wake up jolly fast. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that they were already beginning to wake up in his part of the world and we know that they are beginning to wake up in the North-East and in other parts of the country. Even the sleepy South-East will wake up one day and will not like what it sees. It is better that people should not wake up with a feeling of having been cheated, and that something they do not understand has been enacted.
  It is a terrible pity that the Government have chosen the road of the referendum, but it is better that they should face from the start all the difficulties and problems and the possibility of England and Scotland reaching different views, rather than wait, and find that all these problems become far worse later.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said. It is true that the people of the fair county of Buckinghamshire are not exactly demonstrating on the streets about the Bill, but they are learning fast and are beginning to realise what is going on. If it were not against the rules of the House of Commons, I should be tempted to send copies of today's Order Paper to all my constituents so that they could see amendments which are numbered with, for example, six Zs.
  Mr. Cormack: It would not be against the rules for my hon. Friend to do that.
  Mr. Benyon: It would certainly cost the country a great deal of money, although it would bring home the irrelevance of what we are discussing all these long days and nights.
  7.45 p.m.
  The amendment that we are discussing raises a matter of vital importance. I welcome the Government's rejection of the mandatory referendum. It would have been a constitutional disaster. I should rather that we had no referendum, but it is apparent from last night's vote that if the Bill goes through we shall have a referendum. As it is to be consultative, I must follow my hon. Friends who have spoken earlier and ask why the people of England should not have a vote. If it is to be consultative and if we are to take the final decision, why should we be denied information about how our constituents feel about the Bill? We shall know how the Scots and the Welsh feel. Why on earth should we be denied knowing how our own constituents feel?
  I disagree with those who talk about the problem of expatriate Scots and Welsh people. It would be impossible to separate their votes and it is important to remember that if they vote in English constituencies, they will be taking part in the consultative process as British people.
  When the Act of Union was entered into, it was a union of two independent and free parties. It is not a scrap of paper that can be torn up. It has been interwoven into the fabric of our society for more than 200 years. If the Government are saying that one party now desires home rule, the other party surely has the right to say how it feels about the proposals.
  If I may be party political for a moment, I look forward to future hustings with great anticipation because, on top of all the other misdemeanours of the Government, it will be possible for me to appeal to the sense of injustice that my constituents will increasingly feel if they are not given the opportunity to make known their views on this matter.
  That sense of injustice will arise from the fact that. Scots and Welsh Members will still come here and tell me and my constituents what must be done in England on various subjects which have been
  588
  devolved for Scotland and Wales. There will be a sense of injustice because my constituents will realise increasingly that the Scots and Welsh are grossly overrepresented in this House and there will be a sense of injustice because, strangely enough, many people are still proud to be British and regard themselves as part of one nation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) said that a future Conservative Government will be under strong pressure to rectify the balance of representation of Scotland and Wales. The people who put their hands to this plough must realise where it will end up. If the Bill goes through my constituents and I will be pressing further. These arrangements belittle and demean the whole concept of Great Britain as a nation in fact. The result will be binding if the Scottish and Walsh nations vote by a very large majority.
  Mr. Cormack: Not on me.
  Mr. Benyon: My hon. Friend is entitled to say that but, speaking for myself, I should find it difficult to deny the results of a massive vote. But, if the result is evenly balanced, that is another matter and one would take into account the views of the rest of the country. I shall find it difficult to ignore a massive vote and that does not diminish the importance of knowing what everyone else is thinking.
  There is a strong and rising feeling in my part of the country, and I suspect in other parts as well, that the Bill is really a pandering to the nationalist minorities and that it will not solve the great issues of bad housing, inflation, unemployment and the whole problem of national prosperity. It is only a national policy covering the whole country which will put those things right. Therefore, we in England and Ulster—and that is the whole point of the amendment—have the right to vote on a proposal which would emasculate those national policies, set one part of the country against the other and weaken our voice in the world.
  When the consequences are fully appreciated there will be great bitterness and scorn in England and in Ulster because these arrangements have been forced on the majority of the country. I beg the Government to draw back while there is still time and to let the kingdom

  589
  as a whole have a voice on these proposals.
  Mr. William Small: I shall make some comments on Amendment (o) which I regard as the alpha and omega of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that there has been no filibustering but as I look at the Order Paper, which the hon. Member for Buchingham (Mr. Benyon) wishes to send to his constituents, I find that it is parliamentary erotica. It is all in the mind and the Order Paper represents a searching for expression in the minds of hon. Members.
  Aristides was the first man to write six books on erotica, which were translated into the Latin. They were a great sell. In Plato, in a discussion between Socrates and Ion, there was a discussion on the mind and what made poets, which was repeated to Hypocrites by Phidias, the sculptor of the gods. They believed that one must go elsewhere for inspiration. These amendments have a similarity—one has to go elsewhere than the Order Paper for inspiration. It is so confusing that I think that we should throw it away. There is the story of an old woman who went for medical treatment which, like a referendum, is an intrusion. She swallowed a snake, and that snake went into the Bill.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Joyce Butler): I hope that the hon. Member will come down to the amendments under discussion.
  Mr. Small: I am dealing with Amendment (o) about which I could give a litany in Latin. What is happening is that this snake has got into the minds of the people. It is time that the doctor gave the patient an emetic and got rid of the thing altogether.
  Mr. Stokes: I relish the opportunity of speaking for the first time on this long Bill, having listened for many hours and many days to the voices of other Members. As many Members will know, I loathe the Bill and all that it stands for, but I have come to respect the speeches on the Bill. I respect the debates particularly because some of them have cut across party lines and because hon. Members have spoken exactly as they feel
  590
  I have never been bored and, except for one or two occasions, possibly because of Government Members, I have never heard any filibustering.
  The more we discuss the Bill the more one must agree—and one can see it from the anxiety on the faces of Ministers—that we are getting into a quagmire. I have always opposed referendums, because they weaken Parliament and take away part of our responsibility. I do not believe that anyone felt until recently that referendums would become a common feature of British constitutional life. But the past was sold when it was decided by the then Labour Government to have a referendum on the Common Market. Now we have got on the referendum treadmill and we cannot get off it even if we want to. [Laughter.] Where will this process end?
  Mr. Ridley: The laughter came because somebody suggested that it was lavender-coloured ballot paper.
  Mr. Stokes: Throughout the course of the Bill I have wondered why the referendum should be confined to Scotland and Wales when the constitutional balance and future of the United Kingdom and of its peoples is at stake. Nothing that I have heard from the Benches opposite has caused me to change my view.
  Apart from a brief intervention of mine, no one, for obvious reasons, has mentioned the American Civil War, fought over a century ago to preserve the union. Nobody suggests that anybody should fight anyone here. But are the English and Northern Irish people to say goodbye to Scotland and Wales if they wish to leave the United Kingdom? Are they not at least to be allowed to have a voice in this great matter?
  As has been mentioned already, now that the referendum is to be consultative and not mandatory there is an even stronger reason for us all, particularly English Members, to know and sound the views of our own constituents. Why are the Government so opposed to that? It is because they fear that a referendum in England will result in an enormous vote against the Bill. That is the reason why they do not wish the English people to have a referendum.
  8.0 p.m.
  If Scotland and Wales really wish to become independent and so express that

  591
  view in a referendum, I very much doubt whether either English or Northern Irish people would wish to stop them. But let us suppose that the vote is much closer. Let us suppose that the vote is "No" in Wales and "Yes" in Scotland. I am so glad that at least we in the House of Commons will once again be able to exercise our general judgment on the whole subject and will take the referendum into account but will, in the end, vote according to our consciences.
  I very much hope that there will be a second question on the referendum form—whether separation is really wanted. This, I believe, would bring people up with a jolt. The Government are playing with fire in starting these referendums and their cynicism in tinkering with the constitution for political ends may well in the end rebound to their disadvantage.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) seem to feel that at least their constituents, in the South-East and the South, do not care a rap about the Bill or about the profound constitutional changes that are envisaged. I am very surprised about that. I have not found any other Member on my side or elsewhere in England whose constituents are not becoming daily more aware and more concerned about the dangers of the Bill.
  I certainly feel that I can speak for not only my constituency of Halesowen and Stourbridge but the great mass of the people of the West Midlands, including the many thousands of Welsh people who came there in the depression and who made such a tremendous contribution to our life. I think that they are deeply worried and disturbed about the Bill. They will look to me and other Members in England to speak up about their doubts and fears. I warn the Government now that those of us who are closely in touch with our constituents at the grass roots know the swirling feeling that there is in England about the Bill. That feeling may become a tide in time which could overwhelm the Government and the Labour Party.
  The whole notion of devolution as expressed in the Bill is a piece of nonsense. There is a case, of course, for a federal system, but not a case for the proposals in the Bill. People want less government and better government,
  592
  whether they are in Cornwall, Pembroke, Argyll or Worcestershire. Devolution is a smokescreen for preserving the Labour Party's supremacy in Scotland and Wales. Everybody knows that there would hardly ever be a Labour Government in the United Kingdom except for the seats that Labour holds in Scotland and Wales.
  These debates, particularly if the Bill is passed, will have been a shameful period in the history of Parliament. I have been proud to hear, as English of the English, that we are all part of the British nation—at least, we have been for over two and a half centuries. Quite clearly, as we discuss this muddled, confusing and dishonest Bill, day after day and night after night, the one thing that strikes one is that it is in fact an attack upon the whole British nation. Instead of this Parliament, at this time of economic trouble and inflation, getting down to the real business of bringing this country back to its former greatness, we find ourselves fooling about with the fundamentals of our parliamentary system.
  Foreigners stare at us in amazement. The British constitution was, and is, the envy of the world. Now that we are economically down and almost out, we are starting to knock the constitution about.
  Apart from being wrong in principle, the referendum proposals are absurd in detail. We have heard a lot today about the rights of English, Scottish and Welsh people to vote. The only way that that can be satisfied is by there being a referendum throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, we had from the Labour Government in the late 1960s the gerrymandering of the constituency boundaries. Now, I fear, we have a very much more serious gerrymandering of our whole constitution.
  Mr. Raison: Like many other hon. Members, I can never quite make up my mind whether I dislike the Bill or the referendum more. However, I suppose that we must face the fact that if the Bill goes through we shall have what the Government call "referendums". In other words, "referendums" are now like what they would no doubt call "agendums".
  I wish to make two points. First, when I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate, I was not quite sure how my

  593
  feelings would go. It seemed to me, however, that the argument was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) with very persuasive force, and it has been put by other hon. Members since then. It is quite simply that now that the referendum has become consultative rather than mandatory in its effect, in all logic this means that there is a very powerful case for finding out the views of constituents from all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: Assuming that the referendum were held over the whole of the United Kingdom and assuming what might well be a likely result, that there was a substantial majority in England against any devolution proposals, and assuming the equally likely result that there was a substantial majority in Scotland for the devolution proposals, what judgment of Solomon, in its wisdom, would the hon. Gentleman advise the House of Commons to make?
  Mr. Raison: I shall not advise the House of Commons now to make a judgment on that perfectly possible eventuality. If and when the time came, I should try to do my duty and try to vote as I believed proper. I believe that that is what hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons would do. It is entirely in keeping with the traditions of Parliament.
  One of the refrains in our debate today, as indeed in earlier times, has been the question of how far the proposals that are ostensibly for Scotland and Wales affect the United Kingdom as a whole. In other words, do the proposals for a Scottish Assembly and Scottish Executive and a Welsh Assembly have a significant impact on England and Northern Ireland?
  This is a very important part, perhaps an essential part, of the argument. I shall not put at length the case for saying that these proposals have an important impact on the rest of the United Kingdom, because that case has been put very powerfully in several earlier debates. All that I shall do is quote the words of the Government themselves on this issue.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has now taken over on the Government Front Bench, will listen very
  594
  carefully to the words of his own Government on the question whether the proposals for Scotland and Wales have an important impact on the rest of the United Kingdom. I refer to the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy", which was produced by the Government, in which they set out their proposals and which still remains the main statement of the Government's views on the whole matter.
  In paragraph 5, on page 2, it is said,
  "The Government recognise however that these proposals concern the whole of the United Kingdom. Two issues are of particular importance—achieving a sound and stable distribution of responsibilities between Westminster and the devolved administrations; and ensuring that the proposals meet the reasonable needs of Scotland and Wales, while maintaining a fair balance between their interests and those of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government now want to see full public and Parliamentary consideration of the proposals. The issues are extremely important for all the people of the United Kingdom; the arrangements proposed are novel; and in constitutional matters, where frequent change would be harmful, there is a need for the widest possible basis of agreement on the essential features before legislation is enacted which will inevitably be very complicated."
  It is not possible to find a stronger or more clearly expressed argument for the case that the proposals that the Government are putting forward for the government of Scotland and Wales have a very direct effect on the government of the rest of the United Kingdom. Those words are the Government's own words, I ask the Secretary of State to pass on to the Minister of State, Privy Council Office—I presume that he will be replying to the debate—the fact that I have quoted those words, and perhaps he will see whether he can provide any kind of logical answer to that statement.
  I ask for one more message to be passed on. What was meant when the Minister of State made the audible interjection "Not yet" when it was being said that the Bill does not allow for separation? We should like to know what he meant.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I understand, Mrs. Butler, that according to the provisional selection of amendments we are taking with Amendment (o) Amendments (e), (i), (kkk), (lll), (nnn), (ooo), (ppp), (qqq), (rrr) and (sss). I believe that that is right.
  The Temporary Chairman: Yes.
  Mr. Hamilton: I thought so. The whole purpose of the amendment is to prevent the Government from getting into a bigger mess than they are in already. In more than a quarter of a century in this place I have never seen a bigger shambles. Nothing whatever can now salvage the dignity and integrity of the Government. They are now sitting back because tomorrow they will announce the guillotine—
  Dr. Colin Phipps: We hope.
  Mr. Hamilton: They will. They are not quite sure of the arithmetic—in fact, they are still working on it. Whatever the result is, nothing can save the Government. They are almost universally condemned in the country for what they are trying to do.
  Many of us had reservations about the introduction of the principle of a referendum at the beginning. I recall how it happened. 'The present Secretary of State for Energy sought to get our party off the hook and he introduced a Ten-Minute Bill on a referendum. I recall having a cup of tea with him in the Tea Room afterwards. My right hon. Friend said "It does not matter very much, but it will get us out of a difficulty." At that time there was hardly any support for the principle of a referendum in the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party but my right hon. Friend won it around. That was the origin of the referendum for Europe. It was to be a one-off exercise.
  But now the Government have introduced the referendum as a rearguard action, not at the beginning of the Bill. It was not the Government's intention to have a referendum. That was quite proper. It was brought forward as a means of buying off some of the opposition that they were encountering in their own party among their own supporters.
  We are to have a further retrograde step. We are to have a regional policy on referendums. We are to have first-class citizens and second-class citizens in the United Kingdom. Before they start the Government are conceding the principle of separatism, the principle that somehow Scotland and Wales should be given preferential treatment. They say that only they should be given the vote
  596
  on a Bill that manifestly affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
  I am an Englishman representing a Scottish division and I shall not have a vote in the referendum. I shall be advising people in Scotland how to vote but I shall not have a vote. I shall make a judgment here when the result is known, because it is a consultative referendum, but I shall not be allowed to vote. However, I shall be allowed to take part in the campaign, as will every other English Member. I hope that they will do so in their hordes.
  But who will foot the bill? Is the IMF to be consulted? Were the IMF people told that we were to engage in additional expenditure consequent on referendums in Scotland and Wales?
  The Government are pursuing a course of monumental tragedy for themselves and the whole democratic process. How can they defend saying to Scotsmen who are resident in England, either permanently or temporarily, that they will not be able to vote? Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not have a vote. How can my right hon. Friend justify that? After all, my right hon. Friend is on the electoral rôle.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: My right hon. Friend is not complaining like other Scotsmen who live permanently in England.
  Mr. Hamilton: He should be. That is one of the difficulties.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Government are not producing the Bill for any matter of principle. We all know why it is being introduced. It is 99 per cent. of the trouble that they are not convinced of the merits of the Bill. They are merely going through the motions. We are being pressurised from Scotland to vote for the guillotine tomorrow, or whenever the damned thing comes, but we shall not yield to that pressure. We shall not yield to that sort of blandishment. I should be less than honourable if I pretended that I was going to yield to it.
  I say to my right hon. Friend that if he wins his guillotine next week that will not be the end of the story. It will be only the beginning of the story. It may well be that the Bill will get through

  597
  this place but there is another place. I think that I shall be very much in favour of Second Chambers. I am changing my mind about them. It seems that they have their uses. I hope that the other place will use such powers as it has. Do not let the Government pretend that if the guillotine motion is accepted that that will be the end of the story. In any event I do not think that they will survive. I am sorry to say that. I do not think that the Government can possibly survive the farce in which we are now engaged.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: I have listened carefully to everything that has been said so far in the debate and we have not had any suggestion and we have not been vouchsafed by any signpost as to what the Government intend to do in respect of the amendment. I suppose that there have been one or two hints as certain shades have come across the faces of the occupants of the Government Front Bench from time to time during the course of our deliberations.
  But it is true to say that the argument against the amendment seems to be on three different grounds. It is said that the people in England and Northern Ireland do not really care whether devolution occurs. That was the "soggy English" argument advanced from the Liberal Benches earlier. As some have already said, that argument is already beginning to sound a little stupid. It is also said that England and Ulster have no right to be consulted. It is said that the matter has nothing to do with them. It is said that the Scots and the Welsh who have moved into another part of the United Kingdom have cut themselves off from the right to utter on the future of the part of Britain from which, perhaps, they are only temporarily exiled.
  A third reason has cropped up once or twice during the debate—namely, that it would be difficult if a referendum were held and there was a low percentage turn—out in certain parts of England. It was also argued that if such a referendum were permitted and every citizen in the United Kingdom was entitled to vote, the answer would not be what people wanted to hear. I am bound to say that that is the weakest argument of all. Surely
  598
  we do not ask people to take part in a referendum only because we think that they will answer in the way we want.
  I hear someone from the Government Benches say that we do. I think that that is a disgraceful suggestion. When we approach the citizens of this country with a suggestion to hold a referendum we must do it sincerely and honestly because we genuinely want to know what they think about the subject. I do not like referendums. I would not support them, and one saw the slippery slope on which we were embarking when we began this whole rigmarole, but if there is to be a referendum it cannot be right that it should be adopted for only certain parts of the United Kingdom.
  Of course people care about this matter. They care because of the deep constitutional significance of the break-up of the United Kingdom. They care because, as has been said, people have fought and died for the concept of Britain. Patriotism still exists, and it is no bad thing. Only a couple of years ago there was a "Back Britain" campaign. It was not a case of backing Chipping Sodbury, or England, or Woking, or anywhere else. It was Britain in which we were interested, and people care greatly about the concept of the United Kingdom and of being British citizens.
  There are others who feel that the Bill gives benefits to Scotland and Wales that will lead to an imbalance of power. That is why they care, and that is a perfectly fair point to make. I received a letter from a constituent who said that if the Bill goes through it will be intolerable that any Scottish Members in the House of Commons will vote on the education or housing problems in my area, and a real understanding is beginning to grow that if the Bill ever becomes law unfair powers will be given to Scotland and Wales.
  Some people feel strongly that it is grossly unfair that the number of Scottish MPs will be undiminished if this measure becomes law. There are, of course, other arguments against the Bill, and I turn to one that is advanced by the energetic and hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who wote:
  "On the basis of £100 of public expenditure throughout the United Kingdom, someone in Scotland could get £119, while someone on Humberside could get only £87. That would

  599
  not be tolerated by the English regions which face problems that are as great, if not greater, than those in Scotland."
  People do care about this matter. People are suspicious of the motives behind the Bill. They are right to feel suspicious. There are those in this House who not suspect, but are certain that there is one reason only for the Bill.
  Mr. Cormack: Panic.
  Mrs. Knight: Well, two then, for the reason that I was going to give was expediency. The Government's motives for presenting the Bill to the House are not worthy of them or of Parliament. People care about that, too, and they want to make their views known.
  I maintain that England and Northern Ireland have a right to be consulted on this matter. It is a constitutional right. Reference has been made to the money that they will have to find. At the beginning of the debate this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) mentioned a figure of £39 million, but that is only the beginning.
  Mr. George Gardiner: One year.
  Mrs. Knight: Yes, one year.
  There are many other aspects of expense that are troubling people outside the House of Commons. I have here a letter which talks about the amount of money that the tourist authority will be obliged to spend from its funds to promote Wales and Scotland. That is another matter about which people have every right to be concerned, because there is no doubt that the Bill expects the rest of the United Kingdom to put its hands in its pockets, and the real point is that if there is to be no say, there should be no pay. The British people as a whole have a right to be consulted, especially when they are to be charged.
  Was any warning ever given to Welsh or Scottish people that if they dared to leave their part of the United Kingdom and live somewhere else they would not be consulted about what is to happen in the land where they began and to which they may return? In many parts of England one finds societies. There are those who bite the leek, and there are those who spear the haggis. They do it with full hearts because they care very much about their country of origin. If the amendment were adopted they would
  600
  have a vote with everybody else, as they should have. All of us in this House care about this matter. We all believe that we have a right to hear what people in our constituencies think about what is proposed.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said that people in Scotland talk about Scottish affairs and about housing as it affects Scotland. Does he think that no other part of the United Kingdom adopts that practice? People in Birmingham talk about Birmingham industry and about Birmingham housing, and I am sure that people in other constituencies speak about their areas. We speak about our constituencies, and the people in our areas speak about their areas but that is no reason to break up the United Kingdom. But, having decided to try to do just that, it is not right to say that only certain sections of our land shall be given the right to express views about what is proposed. The Government ought to want to know what everybody thinks.
  Finally, I ask the Government two questions to which I hope they can provide good answers. Why is it that they do not want to know what other people think? Why are they deliberately so separatist in their policies? I warn them that when this subject comes up at future elections, as it will, I shall make full play of their intransigence if they do not hear the plea for justice and agree that there are those other than the Scots and Welsh living in Scotland and Wales who want to be consulted about the Bill.
  Mr. Erie Ogden: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that she was making a plea for justice. My father always told me never to claim justice—a kind of unreal thing—but to make sure that I claimed my rights. When we come to the right of someone to take part in a referendum, that is a right conferred by Parliament, and it is conferred in different ways. That is what we are debating tonight.
  Like that of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), this is my maiden speech on the Bill. It will not be a Second Reading speech, which I have complained about others making, but will be related strictly to the amendment.

  601
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that people care. I do not think she would suggest that the people on Merseyside are less caring than those in any part of the United Kingdom. The facts of geography place us on the north side of the boundary of Wales, make us the gateway to England from Ireland, and give us very strong Scottish connections. Therefore the people of Merseyside by race, as it were, by customs and by culture are a mixed group. They are proud of whence they came and of their links with other parts of the United Kingdom, and they are proud to be British. I am told that there are even some English people living in that part of the country equally with everyone else.
  The people of Merseyside care as much about the United Kingdom as do the people of any other part of the country. I think that they care even more because they know very well that Merseyside is interdependent with every other part of the United Kingdom. We could be no more independent on Merseyside than pigs can fly or people can plait sawdust, and we do not try. Some of the people of Scotland and some of the people of Wales are claiming that they could be truly independent, and they might be constitutionally independent, but we doubt whether any part of these islands could be economically independent of the other parts, just as this country cannot be independent of Europe economically.
  8.30 p.m.
  Our complaint about some members of the nationalist movement is that, whereas we believe that we have a responsibility for Scotland and Wales, all too often it seems that some Scottish Members, and perhaps even some Welsh Members, claim that they have no responsibility for any part of Merseyside. But this must be a two-way traffic—something that hon. Members in the Scottish National Party might bear in mind from time to time.
  The question in the amendment is whether the people of Merseyside or any other part of England should have a say in the referendums. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge and the hon. Member for Edgbaston say that their constituents are concerned and angry that they are not to have a voice. I have to put on record the simple fact
  602
  that my information brings to me that, as far as I am aware, my constituents could not care less about the Bill.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Genlteman should consult the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
  Mr. Ogden: I consult my constituents.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is not in touch.
  Mr. Ogden: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I went to Liverpool, West Derby, it was a Tory seat which had been held by a former Lord Chancellor and that it now has a 12,000 Labour majority. One does not get that kind of majority by being out of touch.
  I have done my best to find out the situation from the normal information which comes to a Member, and as far as I am aware there is no interest on Merseyside in the contents of the Bill and no demand that the people there should have a voice in the referendums. I agree that there should be, and I have tried to stimulate it, but whilst I have had, like other hon. Members, a stream of letters about a Bill which is to come before the House on 25th February I have not received one letter about this issue from Merseyside since the presentation of the Bill. There have been no meetings about it, although, of course, we have discussed it in the Labour Party itself.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston suggested that the Bill was soggy and careless. I suggest, on the contrary, that it is generous. There is at least one little piece of poetry which might be appropriate—
  "Let them go
  Let them tarry"
  I should not, perhaps, go on to say
  "Let them sink or let them swim",
  but that is, in fact, the attitude that I have found not only on Merseyside but in other parts of Lancashire and also in the London area.
  In other words, when I have tried to get discussion going about the Bill and its importance to the whole of the United Kingdom, people have said to me "If that is what the Scots and the Welsh want, let them get on with it". I have doubts about the wisdom of bringing this kind of question to the English, principally, in the first place, because I do not think that we have learned the lessons of

  603
  the referendum process. The referendum is a most important constitutional innovation, but I do not think that we have altogether understood as yet the power it gives or the changes that are brought about.
  If the Bill included a decision that the degree of self-government proposed for Scotland and Wales was also to be judged in England, I would forecast—and it would be as likely to be wrong as any other forecast—that we would get a lower vote in England than we get in local government elections, and that the result could be interpreted in about 50 different ways. If, however, that English vote were to be the crucial factor in close decisions in Scotland and Wales, that would simply complicate the situation.
  I am not opposed to the English people being asked whether they want to vote. At the moment, however, it is a fact that those whom I represent on Merseyside have said "That is your job to sort out. That is what we sent you to Parliament to do." That is an argument against a referendum, but that is what they are saying. It might be useful to my hon. Friends who claim that the English want a say if I tell them that from all parts of the United Kingdom I have had no indication that they want, would welcome or would take part in having a say.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has just said and in particular about the absolute interdependence of this country and Scotland. All hon. Members must be aware of the deep implications in any form of separation. We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) for introducing the amendment, because as well as giving us a chance of discussing this vital constitutional issue it also gives many Back Benchers an opportunity, which was denied to us last night, of discussing the referendum. We waited here until 1.30 a.m. without success and I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend.
  I am sure that the House appreciates that the measure we are passing, in spite of its title—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We are not passing it. We are chucking it out.
  Dr. Glyn: I hope that my hon. Friend is right but I shall not prejudge the issue. No one can possibly deny that the measure affects this country, because its implications are extremely important to us. I am extremely glad that the Leader of the House, for reasons that I shall not go into, has changed the referendum from a mandatory to a consultative one.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Political chameleon.
  Dr. Glyn: It is a political method of overcoming the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman would have faced had he not done so. Nevertheless, whether it is a consultative or a mandatory referendum it is of considerable constitutional importance because it entirely alters the constitution of our country and gives rise to the possibility of having a referendum on almost any issue whatever. It is no good trying to compare it with the EEC referendum, because it is entirely different.
  The whole question of representation in the House of Commons is another important matter. If the House is affected —as it undoubtedly must be—by the implications of the Bill, are we still to have the same number of Scottish representatives? This is a matter which the House of Commons must consider. It is within the ambit of the amendment. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes, it is, because we are now discussing a referendum on a Bill the contents of which we do not yet know.
  The fact that we have moved from a mandatory to a consultative referendum brings into question my hon. Friend's amendment, because we are now saying that the House of Commons, at the end of the referendum, has got the right to reconsider the whole issue. If it is to reconsider the whole issue, all the facts should be available. We should have before us the result of the referendum in Scotland, the result of the referendum in Wales, and the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was one of those who came into the Chamber with my mind somewhat unmade up. I am impressed by the fact that it is to be a

  605
  consultative referendum and that, even if the Bill is passed, Scotland will still be part of the United Kingdom.
  I must confess that a powerful argument against an English referendum is that the English do not want it. That is indeed an argument against the proposition. I should be interested if the hon. Gentleman would say whether he thinks the English will vote in a referendum if they are offered it.
  Dr. Glyn: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has been listening to the whole debate. The difference is that if the referendum had been mandatory, there would be little point in having a referendum in England. We do not yet know what the opinion of English people will be, but it would be of interest to Parliament. If in Orkney and Shetland, if it is to be done by constituencies, the people said "No, we do not want it" or "Yes, we do want it", and if throughout the whole of Scotland and Wales the margin of difference was very small and there was a low turnout, the House of Commons ought to know what the rest of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland and England—wants. It is for us here in the end to balance the issue and ensure that every factor is taken into consideration. Therefore, we should know the feelings of our own countrymen.
  Many people in different parts of the country have not cottoned on to how this measure will affect them. But feeling is growing and people are beginning to realise what is involved. Our debates are publicised daily. We shall no doubt go on debating this issue for a very long time. Therefore, people in many parts of England who have expressed little concern so far will probably begin to realise what is involved.
  I must be frank. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), I have had a very low proportion of letters from constituents on this matter. But the letters that I have received have been very searching and have caused me a considerable amount of work.
  Mr. George Gardiner: Speaking of interest or demand for a referendum, does my hon. Friend recall the argument that was put forward in the early stages of the call for a referendum on Common
  606
  Market membership? Many people argued that there was no great demand for a referendum, that there would be a low turnout, and so on. But what happened? The fact that there was to be a referendum concentrated people's minds on the issue and there was a high turnout.
  Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend has emphasised what I said to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
  Mr. Cormack: Another point which my hon. Friend will certainly want to consider is that people are extremely perplexed. But is there any wonder when the Government are changing the Bill daily?
  Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill is being changed daily. But the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is extremely important. When the Bill was published, people were unaware of what was involved. They just saw it as a Bill. This matter goes to the crux of the Bill.
  Mr. Nick Budgen Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) rose—
  Dr. Glyn: I have given way enough already. Gradually, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, people are beginning to appreciate that they may be affected by the issue. That is one reason why it is important to get the views of the whole of the United Kingdom. If, for example, there were an overwhelming majority in England against the Bill, an enormous turnout in Scotland in favour of the Bill and a very low poll in Northern Ireland, it would be for the House of Commons to determine and weigh up the facts.
  I am happy that the House of Commons is to be the ultimate judge whether this legislation is implemented. I do not like it. At least the Leader of the House has recognised the sovereignty of Parliament by converting the referendum from a mandatory to a consultative one. We have had the ultimate power restored to Parliament. For that reason it is essential that, before passing the legislation, Parliament should be in possession of the views of the whole of the United Kingdom. Before Parliament is called upon to make any decision, it should take into consideration the views of the whole

  607
  country so that it can assess the value of the referendum in Scotland, Wales and England.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Budgen: Would my hon. Friend deal with the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) when he said that the referendum on the Common Market had enabled the country to concentrate its mind on that issue? There are many who would argue that the country did not concentrate its mind on the Common Market. Speaking as a broadly pro-Marketeer, I say that many people thought that the issue was affected by the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), for example, who had a crucial influence on the vote, or by the amount of money which the CBI poured into the pro-Market campaign. Would my hon. Friend give his views on this?
  Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Nobody thought that the Common Market referendum would have attracted such a high turnout. But that is an entirely different proposition. In that instance legislation was already in effect. This case is completely different, because we would have an entirely new situation, a complete change in the Act of Union and in the composition of the United Kingdom. Before the Bill is put into operation we shall see the results of the referendum, and this House will be called upon to judge from those results whether it is right to pass the legislation.
  I am very grateful that the referendum is no longer mandatory but consultative, and that power remains with this Chamber. I believe that we should give very careful consideration to the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member. I believe that we should give very last time that we shall rely on a referendum, and that this House will always remain the legislative body for the United Kingdom.
  Dr. Phipps: I did not support the referendum on the Common Market and I did not support the new clause on the referendum that was passed in the early hours of this morning. I supported neither for the same reason. It seems to me that by introducing referendums into our constitution we are giving the Government
  608
  of the day the most powerful weapon they could have in their hands. We are allowing them to appeal to the country over the heads of Members of Parliament. We are enabling them to decide the questions they will put, the timing and the money they will spend on a referendum.
  I was ashamed that a referendum was introduced into our constitutional process in order to get the Labour Party off the hook over the Common Market, and I am equally ashamed about this further attempt to get the Labour Party off another hook. Whenever we find ourselves faced with a problem as a Government we revert to a form of lottery instead of debating the issue in Parliament and being prepared to take a decision ourselves. We try to circumvent the issue in some way by saying that it was not our fault and that this was what the country really wanted.
  Just as we refused to face the issue of the Common Market, we are now refusing to face the issue of devolution. To me, referendums are nothing more than sidetracking—a red herring and a further attempt by the Government to try to get Labour Members off a particularly nasty hook and off the horns of a particularly nasty dilemma.
  The amendment and the whole series of further amendments in the names of right hon. Members opposite and of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends effectively illustrate the great difficulties that we as a House of Commons face when we take this route. All the arguments that we have been hearing today have concerned the question of who is to be asked to vote in the referendum.
  When the EEC referendum was held. I and three or four of my hon. Friends put down an amendment to the effect that Britons living overseas should be given the right to vote in that referendum. We based our arguments on the fact that a temporary residence abroad did not affect the relevance of Great Britain entering the EEC to people who were due to return or whose children were below voting age and could have been living in Great Britain at that time.
  I spent eight years living outside this country, mainly in South America. I knew that I should return to the United Kingdom, and I should have been horrified had I been deprived of the right and

  609
  ability to vote on a proposal that affected me absolutely and directly.
  The same is true of what is happening today. One cannot possibly say that a Welshman and a Scotsman should not have the right to vote in the country of their origin, a country to which they might very likely return and to which they might owe an allegiance as deep as any in their lives.
  In addition, the effect on Englishmen does not just depend on what might happen to future relationships between the English regions and Scotland and Wales We all of us have personal relationships that go across supposed national barriers. Although I was born in England, I was brought up in Wales. My wife is Welsh and my parents-in-law live in Swansea. My wife lives with me in England. My brother, who is English like me, lives in Glasgow. My sister lives in La Jolla, in the United States. We are a very British family and we are characteristic of the way in which British families are spread all around the United Kingdom. All my ancestors were Northern Irish, so I have a fine mixture of typical British blood.
  I resent most of all that under the provisions of the Bill and the referendum I am to be told that I am a particular kind of Briton, that I am not allowed to be a Briton in the way that the Minister of State is a Briton. By the time this Bill is finished not only shall I be a different type of Britain but I shall have a different nationality from the Minister of State, and I shall be living in a different country with a different passport. I shall resent the loss of my hon. Friend the Minister of State from this House.
  But surely the essence of the problem we face on this referendum and the difficulties about who to ask to vote come down to the very roots of the whole question. That is that we are a United Kingdom and that therefore there is bound to be great difficulty in asking separate parts of the United Kingdom for their views on that unity. Surely the Government must face the fact that the Bill is not welcomed on both sides of the House of Commons or by all kinds of opinion throughout the country.
  Surely the Government should face the fact that the answer to this problem is to withdraw the Bill. If necessary, if
  610
  the Government must have a guillotine, let us have it on Tuesday, get it out of the way and defeat it. That will then give the Government a reason for taking the Bill back and they can solve this problem by reintroducing another Bill that considers devolution on a United Kingdom basis. Then we should have a Bill that might be able to please the whole House of Commons.
  I do not believe that all the long hours of debate that we have had have been in any sense wasted. These are matters which it is well for hon. Members to discuss. The level of debate has been good. Matters have been raised which hon. Members should discuss, and the debate has been intelligent and sincere. The Minister of State and his colleagues will have gathered an enormous amount of information that will enable them to bring in a new Bill based upon United Kingdom devolution, taking into consideration the legitimate desires and rights of every part of the United Kingdom. That would solve all the problems raised by all the amendments at one stroke, right down to Amendment No. "ZZZ".
  Sir Bernard Braine: I do not think that in all my years in the House I have ever heard a more devastating criticism of the Government than we heard from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Every single word that he uttered was justified. As a parliamentarian, I salute his candour and his courage. I should also like to say how refreshing I found the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). The Minister of State must by now know how bad the Bill is, how unwelcome it is, and how unworkable it will be.
  The sad fact is that there is a case for devolution, but it is not expressed in any meaningful way in the Bill. There is a case for giving greater expression to the various regions of the United Kingdom, especially those which have a distinctive character, such as Scotland, with its separate legal system and its long and rich history—and Wales, too—
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: And Yorkshire.
  Sir B. Braine: —and, for that matter, other parts of England such as Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cornwall, and the

  611
  Province of Northern Ireland. But there is no provision in the Bill for that.
  I am not opposed to devolution, but it must be a genuine and not a sham devolution. It must be a devolution extended to all the people. I am attracted by what the hon. Member for Dudley, West said a minute ago, that the Government should take this wretched Bill away. They should cut its throat, and then introduce a new Bill that has some relation to the realities of our situation and the needs of our people. We have had a long and historic debate, without a single dull speech and never a dull moment. By now the Government should have learned what sort of legislation to bring before the House. If they take this Bill away, the Government will not be regarded as having failed. They will be regarded as having learned. Let them then take it away and bring in another.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who has battled nobly, with great eloquence and great force, throughout these debates, arguing that there should be greater devolution of responsibility for Scotland—and, no doubt, for Wales, too. But by the same token why should there not be greater devolution for England? That is the question that English Members must keep on asking. Where is the logic in restricting devolution to Scotland and Wales, and not to Northern Ireland, which had a Parliament for 50 years until we took it away? We are all in the same boat. We are all over-governed, and I do not think that we have ever been so badly governed. There is then a case for devolution of responsibility, for giving the people of this country greater control over their own affairs.
  What the Government are doing in this Bill, however, derogates from the power and responsibility of Parliament. It is our duty not merely to represent our constituencies, as an hon. Member suggested earlier, but to remember that we are part of a deliberative assembly, the council of the nation, representing the United Kingdom as a whole.
  9.0 p.m.
  I do not ignore the existence of minorities with grievances. But these are not limited to Scotland and to Wales. There
  612
  are the English regions. I spent 12 years in the House of Commons with my constituents on Canvey Island asking what was the point of parliamentary government when their pleas to successive Governments to be heard about the progressive destruction of their environment were ignored. There were many people in Canvey Island who used to talk, perhaps jokingly, about a UDI. Here at any rate was one community which felt that Governments did not care. I do not doubt that there are plenty of people in Scotland who feel that government does not care and has become remote, and people in Wales who feel the same, and, for that matter, probably in Yorkshire, too.
  Mr. Cormack: And Staffordshire.
  Sir B. Braine: Yet it is my basic conviction that the strength and glory of our country lies in this rich variety of people. I thought that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) went right to the heart of the matter. As Renan said, a nation is what it feels itself to be. Until this wretched issue raised its head and until the Government weakly felt that they had to brush off the SNP challenge in Scotland by introducing this Bill, no one from one end of the kingdom to the other, outside a handful of Celtic fanatics, felt that we were not members of the British nation.
  A nation is a web of community welded together by common experience and common sacrifice, and I say to you especially, Colonel Crawshaw, that those who flocked to the colours in two world wars, a high proportion of whom either did not come back at all or came back broken, did not do so for any narrow nationalism. They did so for Britain. I suggest that they would be horrified to learn about the little men who are now taking us down a path which inevitably will lead to disunity, which will pit one part of the kingdom against another, and will lead inevitably to the break-up of our country.
  I have to apologise to the Committee. I have sat through a large part of the debate, but I was not here at the very beginning because I was in the Chair of the Select Committee on Overseas Development. Our work there is of great importance. But the Committee will understand that my feelings throughout the whole of our deliberations upstairs were not there but were down here in the

  613
  Chamber. I was impatient to get here, because of my conviction that what we are discussing goes to the heart of our very being as a people.
  The future of our country and of our race is at stake. The Government may think light of it. But Ministers should look round at the Benches behind them. They should listen to the speeches which have come from their own supporters. If the Leader of the House had been here for the greater part of the debate, he would have heard speech after speech denouncing the Bill.
  Even with the belated concession of consultative referendums, in my view the Bill is unconstitutional, illogical and politically inept. But let no one make any mistake about it. The Bill will change the constitution of our country. It will set in motion a train of events which could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Although the vast majority of the British people may still be unaware of what is at stake and what is being done in their name, I believe that when they awaken to it the Government will not know what has happened to them.
  I state my conviction, that it is surely wrong to have referendums, even consultative ones, to set up Scottish and Welsh Assemblies but to deny the right to vote to the people of Northern Ireland, who had a Parliament for 50 years until we took it away, and to the people of England. It is illogical to permit people of non-Scottish birth and non-Welsh birth to vote in a referendum in those two countries, but to deny the right to people of Scottish and Welsh birth to vote in referendum in England. It is equally illogical to prevent the English from expressing a view. All the people of our land have a right to be consulted, especially about so grave a matter.
  Since time immemorial, the basis of parliamentary government has been the maxim
  "That which touches all should be approved by all".
  It should not be necessary for me to remind the Leader of the House of that. Once upon a time he was a great parliamentarian, one of the great defenders of the rights of Parliament. Now let all the people speak. Let us ask Scotsmen and
  614
  Englishmen living in England and Northern Ireland their view of the matter.
  Mr. Dalyell: One of the greatest speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was on 2nd May 1972 against a guillotine motion.
  Sir B. Braine: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that please?
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman was saying that the Leader of the House was a great parliamentarian. He is still a great parliamentarian, as I went to some lengths to say last night, and he is a great writer and biographer. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of his greatest speeches was on 2nd May 1972 against a guillotine motion. Those of us who heard it cannot fail to remember its eloquence and power against the use of the guillotine on a constitutional issue.
  Sir B. Braine: The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that occasion. I see the Leader of the House leaving the Chamber. I hope that it is merely to refresh his memory, but it may be to hang his head in shame. There is nothing sadder than to see the great fall. They fall mightily and with a great noise. The right hon. Gentleman's reputation was already getting threadbare before the Bill, but it is now torn into shreds.
  The idea of a referendum is wrong. It is a derogation from the authority of Parliament. The idea, previously alien to our constitution, was first mooted in the 1890s in relation to Gladstone's proposals to give Home Rule to Ireland. It is interesting to recall what Dicey, the great constitutional authority, said about a referendum at that time. He wrote:
  "The referendum is the people's veto: the nation is sovereign and may wall decree that the constitution shall not be changed without the direct sanction of the nation"
  That is a straightforward pronouncement. The nation means the whole nation.
  The Government have no right, no mandate—and they know it—to tamper with the constitution of this country and to deny to the English, the Northern Irish and Scots and Welshmen living in both countries, a right to express their views on a matter as grave as this. It is a great derogation from the Government's responsibility. They should be ashamed of it. Unless there is some sign

  615
  very soon that the Government are having second thoughts—
  Mr. Cormack: I see that the Leader of the House has returned with a copy of the speech to which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred.
  Mr. Dalyell: I remind my right hon. Friend the Lord President that in that speech he said:
  "There is a further reason why it is improper for this Government in particular to introduce a guillotine. There is a further limitation."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 234.]
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. We are not discussing guillotine motions. We are discussing whether the referendum should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has roused my patriotic fervour. I hope that he will now return to the amendment.
  Sir B. Braine: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Crawshaw, as always. I had no intention of straying from the paths of rectitude until I was reminded by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) of that great and historic speech by the Leader of the House all those years ago.
  When the right hon. Gentleman walked out of the Chamber at that point we wondered whether it was because he had a guilty conscience or because he had gone to refresh his memory. What is clear is that for him Parliament no longer matters. That is the gravamen of the argument.
  In short, a referendum should not be used in the trivial way in which it would be used under the Bill. It should be used only on matters of the gravest kind affecting everyone in the kingdom and consulting everyone. I hope that as a result of this debate the word will go out to every constituency in the land as to what the Government are doing in the name of our people.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) will forgive me if I do not follow him in Second Reading style. However, because we have followed each other in previous debates on the Bill, he will know that I have great sympathy with many of the points he has made.
  616
  You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Crawshaw, that I intend to confine myself to the amendment. I am not a great lover of the Bill in general, and I have great doubts about the proposal to extend the franchise in this way, or at least to extend it on the basis of the type of question which the Government have in mind. I know that they are talking about changing the question slightly and that they are stressing that it should be a consultative referendum, but we all know full well that it is very difficult for any Government to define the results of a referendum, whether or not it is consultative.
  If there were unexpected results, whether the referendum was consultative or mandatory, there would be great pressures on the Government to follow those results. Assuming that the question is anything of the type now envisaged, I doubt whether there is a strong case for extending the franchise in this way.
  Some hon. Members have suggested the enfranchising of first-generation Scotsmen and Welshmen. Although I have some claims in that direction, we would all accept the difficulty of identifying Welshmen in England or Scotland and of dealing with complex matters of that sort. The statistical basis does not exist, because the figures are mainly estimates. I am not saying that the exercise would be impossible, but it would be extremely difficult. Once we have agreed to include first-generation Scotsmen and Welsh people, others will be making claims. The desirability of such an enlargement of the franchise is debatable. The difficulty is that if, as has been suggested, one extends the franchise to the United Kingdom as a whole in a referendum posing such a question, one deprives Parliament of its sovereignty because, although the referendum will be consultative, we know that they would be a stupid Government who defied the result.
  9.15 p.m.
  Therefore, if we are to have the kind of question that is now envisaged, I am not in favour of such an extension of the franchise. There would be an argument in favour of extending the franchise if different questions were to be posed in the referendum. I do not intend to stray

  617
  into discussing the next batch of amendments, but the size of the franchise cannot be considered without also considering the kind of questions that are to be asked, because they are highly relevant to the question of to which people they will be put.
  If the whole basis of the referendum were to be changed, and if we were to have a more complex questionnaire asking people about their views on devolution in general, there would be an argument for asking not only the people of Scotland and Wales but the people of England for their views. If there were such questions and such an approach to the referendum, there would be an overwhelming case for an extension of the franchise. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked earlier how costly and complex the process would be, but all our experience in this direction shows that the additional processing of a three- or four-question questionnaire would involve minimal additional complexity and cost. At the end of the road we would at least know something.
  From the sort of operation that is now being prepared, in which we shall be asking the people of Scotland and Wales whether they wanted the Government's proposals, we shall know nothing after carrying out the exercise. At least, if there were a more complex questionnaire of the sort that I am asking for we should have a basis for proceeding with realistic devolution proposals not only for Scotland and Wales but for England. That is the great advantage of the sort of questionnaire that I propose, and in those circumstances I should be in favour of extending the franchise to the United Kingdom.
  Dr. Phipps: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government are not interested in a referendum that would allow them to provide a better devolution Bill? They are concerned only with getting this Bill on to the statute book. They have the great advantage that Governments always have with referendums because they pose the questions. Hon. Members can propose other questions, but the chances of achieving sufficient agreement upon them—as we can see from all the amendments that we have today—and of getting them accepted is never as
  618
  strong as the Government's powers to get their question accepted. Therefore, we are faced willy-nilly with the Government's question.
  Mr. Roberts: I accept that. The Government's approach to devolution is limited and seems to be associated with the contingencies in Scotland. This is not really a proposal for devolution for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  If the Government were prepared to think again and to allow the United Kingdom as a whole to consider devolution and say what measure of devolution was wanted, we should be prepared to go along with a Bill that could be of use not only to Scotland and Wales but to the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have sat through many hours of our Committee proceedings and this is only my second contribution. I am happy to tell the Government that I shall not take long, but there are a number of points that I wish to register with them and I hope that they will listen sympathetically.
  It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) because, whatever one may think of him, he is a great parliamentarian. There is no doubting the conviction with which he spoke, and I hope that his points registered with the Leader of the House, who until recently also had an exceptional reputation as a defender of Parliament and all it stands for.
  Having listened to the speeches of the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) and my hon. Friends the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), I have tremendous confidence in the future of parliamentary democracy in this country. I am put in one part of the Tory Party, but in no circumstances could my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing and Aylesbury be described as being on the reactionary right wing of the Tory Party. The hon. Members on the Government side to whom I have referred take the same view as my hon. Friends and myself about the Bill and the amendment.
  I say to the Scottish and Welsh nationalists that I am proud to be British, not

  619
  just English. On so important an issue as the one we are discussing all the people of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to give their opinions in a consultative referendum on what the Government are doing. We know that the Government will not be bound by the referendum and that the House of Commons will take the ultimate decision. Surely it would therefore be better for the Government to know what ail the people of the United Kingdom, rather than just the people of Scotland and Wales, think about what they are doing.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that he had received no letters about devolution from his constituents. I have received many hundreds of letters from my constituency, from individuals and companies who are deeply concerned about the implications of the Bill and the effect that separation would have on industry and commerce.
  Dr. Phipps: Can the hon. Gentleman help us by speculating on how the referendums would develop in various parts of the United Kingdom as the campaign get going? If, as seems likely, the result was an overwhelming vote for the Union in Scotland and for separation in England, how might the Government handle that situation?
  Mr. Winterton: I am tempted to follow the hon. Gentleman and to launch into a far longer speech than I originally intended, but I shall not follow speculation from hon. Members opposite. Their understanding of speculation is unacceptable to me, and my speculation along the lines suggested by the hon. Member would be unacceptable to the Committee.
  In the EEC referendum the two polling areas in my constituency returned the biggest percentage vote in Cheshire. Perhaps I am in a rather different position from hon. Members from Merseyside. My constituents are interested in what is going on and will wish to have their say in a referendum on devolution.
  Although mine is a large English constituency with about 84,000 electors I represent several hundreds of Scots and several hundreds and perhaps thousands of Welsh people. They feel strongly that although some of them may live permanently in my area there are many others who will ultimately return to Wales
  620
  and Scotland. They feel that they will be robbed—and one cannot choose a better word—of an opportunity of casting their vote and having an influence on a decision that could affect their future.
  Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Member's argument that there are people in England or in Wales who might return to Scotland and that there are people in Scotland and in England who might return to Wales and that therefore they should be entitled to vote? Does he think that all the hundreds of Labour voters who have lived in Macclesfield and gone to live elsewhere should be allowed to vote against him at the next election?
  Mr. Winterton: Many people came to Macclesfield as Socialist supporters but have subsequently changed.
  The case for England and Northern Ireland having a say is that the Bill—and this view is shared by many of my hon. Friends—fundamentally alters the structure set up by the Act of Union. In the discussions on Clause 1, when I made my first contribution to this debate, I said that I stood by the Act of Union and that I intended to do so throughout the passage of the Bill. Perhaps the Treasury Bench will argue that the Bill does not infringe the letter of that Act, but there is no doubt that it alters the structure set out in that Act. That is a serious matter.
  The hard—pressed taxpayers of England will have to pay for the block grant while losing control of how that substantial sum of money will be spent. That can only be described as taxation without representation. There is no doubt that there will be a grave constitutional crisis every year when the block grant is negotiated.
  I return to the question of participation. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have stated that they want the public to participate. They have said that they want involvement. I say to them that they have put forward a referendum. They have changed it from a mandatory referendum to a consultative referendum. Why do they not wish to listen to the views expressed by the people in the United Kingdom? Surely it is vital on a decision that will be binding. Whether the Government cast a smokescreen across the Committee by introducing a consultative

  621
  referendum rather than a mandatory referendum, it would be an unwise Government who did not implement whatever the majority view of the referendum turned out to be. It could well be that that majority will be thin. Not only will the Government be using all the power of the Government machine, but inevitably they will feel themselves obligated to follow and to implement the result of the referendums.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that it would be rash of any Government not to follow the majority decision in the referendum. Would he care to say what that majority would be? Would that be the majority of the United Kingdom as a whole, the majority in Scotland, or the majority in Wales, as the case may be? Or does the hon. Gentleman accept that the English people, being 10 times stronger in numbers than those in Scotland, have the right to overrule the Scottish people in terms of Scotland?
  Mr. Winterton: I describe the people of our kingdom as the people of the United Kingdom. I believe—I say this with emphasis to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)—that the greatness of our country is based on all the talents and the abilities of the people who comprise the four countries that are the United Kingdom. As I said earlier—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present—not only am I proud to be English, but I am proud to be British. The success of our country has been based upon all the advantages, talents and abilities that comprise the four countries of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Whatever may be the views in the Committee on whether devolution or independence are sound or otherwise, surely the hon. Gentleman cannot think that a referendum that could include votes in England would have any validity whatever given the size of England's population as against the size of the population of Scotland. Does he not realise that that would be an example of the horse and rabbit pie syndrome, when the restaurateur said "It is fifty-fifty. One horse to one rabbit"?
  Mr. Winterton: I have considerable respect for the right hon. Member. On many subjects he and I agree. [HON.MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winterton: I shall give way shortly. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) put a point to me and it is only right that I should answer him. Obviously, there would be a break-down of the poll in a referendum if it were effective throughout the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there might be a break-down to show how the people of Orkney and Shetland felt about the Bill.
  In the light of all the evidence and the results of the referendum, the Government could then make a proper and considered decision on whether to proceed with devolution. Surely that is the answer. The Government would know the views of all people in the United Kingdom, those of Scotland and Wales, of Orkney and Shetland, and of England.
  Mr. Dalyell: How about a specific sample of the subjects on which the hon. Gentleman agrees with the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
  Mr. Winterton: Although I am tempted to drift from my line of argument, it would not be in order for me to discuss matters outside the amendment.
  It has been said in a number of speeches on this very important amendment that the interest in the United Kingdom as a whole in what is going on and the implications of the Bill is increasing. It is not for me, as a humble Back Bencher, to warn the Leader of the House about what he is doing. However he is gravely wrong if he feels that the current action of the Government is to the advantage of either the Labour Party or the country as a whole. People are gravely concerned about what is going on. If for party political reasons the Government are to progress and press the Bill through the House of Commons, with or without a guillotine, all I can say is that the Lord President and the Government are in for a rough ride.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State seriously to consider

  623
  extending the referendum—the amendment is a very good one—to all the people of the United Kingdom. The smokescreen that has been drawn across the whole issue by declaring that the referendum will be consultative rather than mandatory surely leads the Government to realise that it is now absolutely right and proper that all people in this country should have a say on this vital issue. The Government need not heed what the various parts of the country say, but at least they will know what the country says, and at the moment they do not.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I see no point in extending the referendum to the whole of the United Kingdom, for two good reasons. First, I think that the bulk of the English electorate will not have a sufficient interest in the question to be posed. I find it hard enough to detect any real interest among my own electorate in Wales. Their concern is with rather more down-to-earth issues such as the cost of living, housing and jobs. Devolution is not something that concerns them, although one would think otherwise when reading the columns of the so-called national newspaper of Wales. The opinion leaders talk about almost nothing other than devolution, whereas the man in the street thinks of everything but devolution.
  Given the difficulties of even trying to excite some interest in devolution among the electorate in Wales—I do not know about Scotland—I can see little chance of exciting interest in English constituencies save, perhaps, in areas contiguous to Wales—for example, Merseyside and Bristol.
  Mr. Clement Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if he gets no response from his electorate in Wales and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) gets over 100 letters about devolution from the people of Macclesfield, there must be every right for the people of England to have a referendum?
  Mr. Anderson: I have every confidence in the statistics that have been given by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, yet I have my doubts. I say no more, judging from my own postbag on the issue. I have come to my decision because of possible disinterest and the
  624
  difficulty of achieving a sufficient turnout of the English electorate.
  Although I concede that the Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom, the opinion of the English electorate would be largely irrelevant in political terms to the points that are to be discussed, in the sense that if the people of Wales and the people of Scotland decided that they wanted to have Assemblies, it would be politically inconceivable, if England were to decide that it did not want Assemblies in Wales or Scotland, for Wales or Scotland to be denied those Assemblies.
  Those two points—first, disinterest in England, and, secondly, the political irrelevance of the choice being given to the English electorate—cause me to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Cormack: This is really the first time that I have intervened in this long series of debates although I have sat through many of the long hours of debate.
  As I have listened to the Lord President I have often thought,
  "Foot! thou shouldst be living at this hour".
  We have seen a complete travesty of the man whom we knew as the great parliamentarian and the great champion of our liberties. I was delighted to see that he brought in the great speech to which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred, the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made on the guillotine motion in 1972. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has re—read it. I have been watching him and he seems to have re-read it with great interest. I hope that he has had a reconversion and that he will realise that what has been said during the debate, which has been one of the crucial debates, has been of vital significance to everyone in the Committee and throughout the country.
  I think that the House of Commons has a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) for moving the amendment. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of the whole question. We are in an absurd position. We have got ourselves into the most ridiculous posture through having had the Bill thrust upon us. I agreed so much with what was said by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). It is an absurd Bill, and it seems to me that the most honourable suggestion that

  625
  has been put to us in recent weeks came from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who had an amendment—it was not called—to the effect that we ought to have a separate Bill for the referendum, have the referendum, and, if devolution were approved, move on to a sensible devolution Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: I was referring specifically to the statement by my right hon. Friend that the guillotine is the last resort of a Government who know that they cannot get the full-hearted consent of Parliament but are determined to have their way.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member knows that we are not discussing the guillotine. I have already ruled on that.
  Mr. Cormack: In view of your remarks, Mr. Crawshaw, I shall not be tempted to pursue that issue any further.
  What we are seeing—and many hon. Members have touched upon this—is the destruction of our patrimony as a nation. If we do not have a United Kingdom referendum—having decided that we shall have one—we shall deny to the vast majority of our people the chance to pass their comments on the most fundamental constitutional changes that have been advanced in this nation for 250 years or more. To suggest that this is in any way invalidating the claims of the Scots or the Welsh is wrong. It can be a referendum that is taken—as the referendum on the Common Market was taken—by counties, and we shall then know what they think in Scotland and Wales.
  I should like a two—question referendum that allows people in Scotland to say whether they want independence. I believe that that is a perfectly logical, defensible and entirely honourable point of view. If the majority of the Scottish people decide that they want independence, I for one shall not for a moment attempt to prevent them from having it, even though the referendum is a consultative one. But I do not believe that that is what they would say. I should argue forcefully in Scotland and elsewhere to try to persuade them not to say that they want independence. That is something that I am sure SNP Members would accept.
  626
  It is manifest nonsense to have a referendum merely in Scotland and Wales when the central issue is separation. Members of the SNP will never be satisfied until they have total separation, and that is an honourable point of view. Hon. Members who represent Plaid Cymru will never be satisfied until Wales has independence. They see devolution as merely a step along the road. They see the Assemblies as merely a step on the road towards independence. Therefore, let the people of Scotland and Wales say what they think on that issue, and let the people of the United Kingdom as a whole say what they think about the structure of this country.
  Mr. Ogden: May I, as one English Member to another, ask the hon. Gentleman what would happen if both Scotland and Wales voted forcefully in favour of independence and the majority of people in England said "No"? If the British Government gave Assemblies to Scotland and Wales, what sort of relationship would there be between the British Government and the English people who would say "You asked us for our opinion. We told you, but you took no notice of us. Why bother asking us?".
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Cormack: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We are dealing with the future structure of the United Kingdom. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) said in a poetic and moving speech, the United Kingdom is a nation. We are all British. We all ought to have the opportunity to express our views on the future of Britain.
  If those who live in Scotland and Wales decided by a majority that they wished to have no further part in the United Kingdom, I would be deeply saddened. I do not think that would happen. I do not believe that is what they would opt for. I believe that we could salvage something out of what has become the most chaotic piece of legislation placed before us for many a long year. I believe that we could by a nationwide referendum help the nation to come together again, to make people think British and realise the great things that the nation has achieved, the things that are at stake, and the things that the nation could achieve in the future.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Without necessarily wishing to advance the hon. Gentleman's notion that people should think British, I ask him whether he does not think that he would be laying a lot of mines around those who do wish to think of themselves as British. If there were a referendum on devolution and the question in England brought out a massive "No" but a "Yes" in Scotland, where then would hon. Members be? Either they would accept the Scottish situation and vote for devolution against the interests of the English, or vice versa. It is a question of no man being able to have two masters. One could cause tremendous ill-feeling either in Scotland or in England.
  Mr. Cormack: We have been led into a morass. I believe that if we had a United Kingdom referendum the vast majority of the people would opt to remain in the United Kingdom and would wish the country to remain roughly as it is. I should like to see three, not two, questions on the referendum form—"Do you want independence?; Do you want a devolved power along the lines suggested in the Bill?; Do you want in effect the status quo?" I believe that the vast majority of the people would opt for the latter, but I do not know. I want to put it to the test.
  The referendums are to be consultative, and the House of Commons makes the sovereign decision at the end of the day because only the House of Commons can do it. We can be grateful to the Government for the change they have made, although late in the day, in the status of the referendums. To have had mandatory referendums would have been wrong. But there is no logical reason for denying the English people and the people of Northern Ireland a chance to say what they think about the constitution and the structure of our country. Whether we live in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, we are all British, and we all ought to have an opportunity to express our opinions on this great issue.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will do what he boasted he had done yesterday when he was criticised for bringing forward amendments to the new clause so early. He said "Why criticise me, since I have listened to what the Committee has said?" The opinion of
  628
  the Committee in this long and major debate is that the Government ought to think again about the nature of the referendums, and I hope that the Government will now agree to make a United Kingdom referendum, giving everyone a chance, wherever they may live, to say what they think about the future of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: So often in our debates on the Bill, whatever the particular subject has been, the central dilemmas of the Bill have been pinpointed and ruthlessly exposed. That has happened again today. I suggest, therefore, that although the debate has been in many ways an unhappy one it has also been instructive.
  The debate has been unhappy because it has provided a peculiarly vivid illustration of the impossible dilemmas presented by this form of Bill and the way in which it has been proceeded with by the Government. It has been an instructive debate precisely because it has provided so vivid an illustration of that problem and has once against given us the opportunity of seeing the heart of the illogicality that is put forward in the form of this legislative proposal.
  I have put it in a rather mild fashion, but the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was not prepared to be as generous as that in his analysis. Indeed he expressed it in words which were remarkable from a supporter of the Govment. The hon. Gentleman said that nothing could save the Government from almost universal contempt for what they were doing. That was the considered judgment of an experienced supporter of the Government with regard to the Bill. How right the hon. Gentleman was.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) felt that we in the House of Commons should speak for Britain. Our complaint is that the form of the Bill and the way it has been processed through the House are such as to make it very difficult for us to respond to a call of that kind. The problem of who should vote in the referendum is merely one illustration of the general difficulty. As the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, this problem would have been one of many which might have been avoided had the proposal to have separate Bills and

  629
  separate referendums for Scotland and Wales been implemented.
  In analysing the difficulty posed by the referendum and the question of whether there should be a United Kingdom vote or only a vote in Scotland and Wales, one cannot help observing the genesis of the whole referendum. The Bill itself consists of fierce controversies of principle and deep divisions of detail, and the referendum, which has been brought in as an attempt to resolve this matter, has been brought in in a narrow political sense—not necessarily in a party political sense, but as an attempt to cut the Gordian knot.
  It is essentially a trivialisation of the concept of a referendum to try to introduce it in the middle of the Government's considerations on how to proceed and then to change the proposal as they go along. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said that a referendum should not be used in a trivial way. That is why we find ourselves in this problem. We do not wish to defeat the Bill by means of the referendum. We want to defeat the Bill on the Floor of the House. It has already been defeated in argument on the Floor of the House. We should like to complete the job, but not by a referendum.
  I therefore say that the argument that my hon. Friends have put forward is a logical one and is extremely difficult to refute. But the problem we face is that they are trying to apply logic to a proposition which has been put forward not on logical grounds but on the narrowest of political grounds. They are trying to make sense out of a proposal which cannot be made sense of in the way that it has been put forward.
  The logic is quite clear. It is that the Bill undoubtedly affects the United Kingdom as a whole and not only Scotland and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) clearly indicated that the Government themselves have accepted that proposition in the White Paper—or the Green White Paper —on the English regions. My hon. Friend invited the Minister of State, who was momentarily out of the Chamber, to address himself to that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) also pointed out that the referendum was about a matter which,
  630
  directly or indirectly, intimately affected the whole balance of the government of the United Kingdom. We cannot make changes of this magnitude to the government of Scotland and Wales and then say that it is not a matter affecting England.
  To do them credit, the Government in their White Paper did not pretend any such thing. Therefore, it is not satisfactory for the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) to say that the people of Scotland and Wales do not want to decide the affairs of other parts of the country and that the people of England should take a similar self-denying ordinance. Apart from that, as has been pointed out, the intimate connections of a personal kind between people living in England, Scotland and Wales are so great that it is totally artificial to attempt to divide the matter in that way.
  At a later stage we shall be coming to a series of amendments dealing with the question of people of Scottish origin, birth or connection living in England and people from Wales in a similar position. My hon. Friends recognise the considerable administrative difficulties of dealing with problems of that kind.
  This debate illustrates the fact that, whether one looks at the effect of the Bill on the constitution of the United Kingdom or considers the personal connections between people living in England, Scotland and Wales, the logic is undoubtedly clear—that the Bill affects the United Kingdom and that it is wholly logical and reasonable for the people of England and Northern Ireland to want the opportunity to express their views.
  The problem that arises and the reason why this is a Back Bench and not an official Opposition amendment is explained by the fact that we are trying to apply a logical solution to a proposition which has been put forward on political grounds. It is a political device. The problem is that, if one uses the logic which has been so powerfully applied during the debate, the whole point of the political device is defeated.
  I do not hold with the political device. I am unattracted by it. But we cannot square the circle. It is a political device to enable the Government to do one of two things. The purpose of the referendum at the lowest level is to secure votes

  631
  for the guillotine. That is so despicable purpose that I shall waste no further breath on it.
  Putting it at a slightly more elevated political level, however, the purpose is in a sense to legitimise the decision of the House of Commons. If, the Bill having got through the House, it is then put to a referendum in Scotland and Wales and it is defeated, as a matter of practical politics it is inconceivable that it would not also be defeated in England and Northern Ireland. That must be so. I do not think that anyone would argue to the contrary.
  If we had a United Kingdom-wide referendum and somehow or other the Bill, despite the powerful advocacy of reasonable men and women against it, scraped through in Scotland and Wales but was defeated in England and Northern Ireland, the whole point of this device would be defeated and we should face a political disaster because the Government would be in a dilemma.
  What will happen if the Bill is dropped? The people of Scotland and Wales will say that their political future has been vetoed by the people of England and Northern Ireland. If, on the other hand, the Government were to go on with the Bill, despite the majority wishes of the people of England, they would be imposing on the people of Scotland and Wales and on the people of the United Kingdom as a whole a system of government which the majority of people in the United Kingdom had voted against. There is no answer to that problem. The Government would find themselves facing a political disaster. The moral that I draw is not that we can solve the problem by having a referendum in England as well, but that the whole proposition, put forward for political motives, cannot be solved in that kind of way at all.
  Reference has been made to the fact that there is now a change because the referendum is to be consultative and not mandatory.
  Mr. Budgen: Is not this an argument against the whole principle of referendums and not only against the amendment?
  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. Tinn.]

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) asks whether that is an argument against the whole principle of referendums. But we are not debating that tonight; we debated it yesterday. Whatever the general merits or otherwise of referendums, we all know why this one is being put forward, how it is being put forward and for what purpose it is being put forward.
  Mr. Benyon: But the fact is that we have referendums. My hon. Friend's argument is that if one has stomach-ache one does not take the medicine. We have referendums, and we must act accordingly.
  Mr. Brittan: We have been given a stomach-ache by the Government, and the medicine proposed to deal with it would simply transfer the ache from one part of the abdomen to another and would not cure the disease. That is the problem. I have the greatest possible sympathy with my hon. Friend's amendment. I am wholly and totally impressed by the logic of it, but I fear that the disease with which we have been presented by the Government is incapable of being cured by this means.
  Mr. John Smith: At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) attempted to disguise the fundamental nature of his disagreement with his hon. Friends. He suggested that the amendment was very logical and that it had his sympathy, but at the end of the day he put forward some very devastating criticisms of the proposition advocated by his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). I thought that he dealt with the amendment extremely well. He should not try

  633
  to have a fake alliance with his hon. Friends on the Back Benches who are totally opposed to the Bill when he knows that their position is totally unsound and that he has no intention of supporting it.
  Mr. Brittan: The Minister talks about a fake alliance. I do not think that any speech that I have made during the long debates on this Bill could have left him with any illusions. I am as totally opposed to the Bill as anyone in this Committee.
  Mr. Smith: But the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby suffers from one disability which does not afflict his hon. Friends. As a member of the Front Bench, he supports the Conservative Party commitment to a directly elected legislative Assembly for Scotland. His hon. Friends attack the whole principle of devolution, but it is much more difficult for hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to do that. Obviously the Conservative Party does not object to the concept of devolution for Scotland in principle. It may object to this Bill, but it is much more difficult to be uninhibited in criticism if one has the commitment to devolution around one's neck.
  Mr. Brittan: But does not the Minister recognise that we have no inhibitions whatsoever in attacking this ill-conceived, ill-argued and ill-thought-out Bill? It is an indication of the profound disquiet of the Government that when the going gets rough they talk about the policies of other parties.
  Mr. Smith: I think that the Committee has spent more time talking about Labour Party politics than the policies of any other party—
  Mr. Brittan: It is your Bill.
  Mr. Smith: I do not object on that score, but I notice how touchy are the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends when this subject is raised. It is therefore perhaps wise to remember the Conservative Party's position.
  I should not be criticising the hon. Gentleman, however, because he did a good demolition job, particularly in the latter part of his speech, on the arguments put forward by some of his hon. Friends. They are looking disapprovingly at me about that, and I am sorry
  634
  if I happen to agree with some of the propositions advanced by the hon. Member.
  It would be difficult to ask people in England, Scotland and Wales all to vote on the propositions for devolution in Scotland and Wales. It would mean, for example, that people in Scotland would have to cast a vote on Welsh devolution, and the people in Wales would have to vote on the Scottish proposals. The majority of people—and I certainly believe this in respect of the electorate in Scotland—would feel, for example, that Welsh devolution was something about which one should ask the Welsh, not the Scots.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend accept that Scottish devolution is of supreme importance to the people of England and Wales because ultimately the aim of the Scottish National Party is to take British oil away from the British people, and that very much affects the people of Wales?
  Mr. Smith: The subject of oil does not come into this matter. My hon. Friend is talking about a situation in which Scotland would have complete independence. I fundamentally disagree with that proposition. The proposals for a devolved Assembly are quite different from separation and the breaking up of the United Kingdom.
  What do the people of England think? We are told by the hon. Member for Reigate that there is burning resentment that a bitter backlash of resentment is being created. However, I hear from other hon. Members representing English constituencies that this is not the position. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) says that he does not find much interest in his constituency in the subject. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says that he has received about 100 letters on the subject. I suspect that maybe the hon. Member attracts more letters than do other hon. Members, but certainly his experience seems different from that of other hon. Members.
  The most important matter to bear in mind is that the people of England, through their elected representatives in this House, will decide whether the Bill passes. The matter will be put to a referendum only in the event that the Bill

  635
  gets through both Houses of Parliament. There are 516 English Members of Parliament, and their voices will be decisive.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) drew attention to the White Paper. The Government said that devolution was a matter of concern to the whole of the United Kingdom—
  Mr. Raison: The Minister claims that I said that the White Paper describes this as a matter of concern to the whole of the United Kingdom. It actually says:
  "The issues are extremely important for all the people of the United Kingdom".
  Why should not all the people of the United Kingdom have the chance to vote in the referendum?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Member must allow me to answer the points he raises. He asked his questions very stridently and then interrupts me before I can start to answer them. Of course, that is so. That is why it is being considered by this Parliament, with hon. Members representing English constituencies taking a proper and close interest in the provisions of the Bill as it goes through the House of Commons. That is how the concern of the whole of the United Kingdom is reflected. But hon. Members have said from time to time that there should be a test of opinion in Scotland and Wales as the parts most directly affected by our proposals, and that Parliament ought to feel that there should be a test of opinion in both those countries.
  I reject the proposition that the people of England do not have a say in this matter. They have a very full say. Indeed, they have the predominant say in this Parliament.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Minister is correct to emphasise the important rôle which hon. Members from English constituencies will exercise in this matter. Since that rôle is so important and since he apparently believes in referendums, why does the Minister propose to deny to English Members the guidance which they could obtain from a referendum addressed to the English people?
  Mr. Smith: For two reasons. First, the electorates in Scotland and Wales are the electorates in those parts of the United Kingdom most directly affected
  636
  by the proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are all affected."] There are no proposals for devolution to England in the Bill. The proposals are for devolution to Scotland and Wales. Second, we should be in danger of getting into a very difficult political situation, as the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby stated so clearly and persuasively, if there were different results in such a referendum from different parts of the United Kingdom. If that happened, one would be in a quite difficult situation, and I believe that both in terms of principle—the principle being that we should ask the people most directly affected—and in terms of practicality, the referendum which we propose will give an answer which will tell Parliament what those people want and will guide the House of Commons when it eventually decides whether to put the schemes into effect.
  Mr. George Gardiner: If there is a view in England differing from that in Scotland, and if the majority view in England is against this legislation, will the Minister say that it is better that we should not know about it and the whole thing should be suppressed? Why does he not agree with us that we ought to have that information before us?
  Mr. Smith: The views of the people of England will be adequately expressed by their Members of Parliament here. The people most directly affected by the provisions which the Bill will implement are those who live in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, we ask them for their opinion in a referendum.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is quite properly laying emphasis at this point in his argument upon the importance of the parliamentary vote on the Bill. He is laying great stress on the importance of English Members being able to express their own views and the views of their constituents. If that be so, can he give the House an assurance that, when it comes to the crunch, right hon. and hon. Members on his side of the House representing English constituencies will be free to vote in accordance with their conscience?
  Mr. Smith: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that that has been happening from time to time during

  637
  our proceedings on the Bill thus far. No one is more acutely conscious of that fact than my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and myself.
  Mr. Channon: The Minister said that at the end of the day English Members will have the crucial say because there are more than 500 of us and so on. What parliamentary process will there be under which English Members will have that say after the referendum is completed?
  Mr. Smith: The Government's proposals will be put on the Order Paper, but in general terms it is envisaged that there will be a provision whereby Parliament has a vote. The Government put the proposition to the House and the House votes on it. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that that is slightly outwith the terms of what we are discussing now, which is whether we extend the referendum to England and Northern Ireland instead of confining it to Scotland and Wales.
  A great deal of concern—
  Mr. Peter Rees: Will the Minister give way on that very point?
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Smith: I am not giving way to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). I must get on with this argument—
  Mr. Peter Rees: Give way.

  Division No. 74.]

  AYES

  [10.16 p.m..

  Beith, A. J.

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Raison, Timothy

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rathbone, Tim

  Brotherton, Michael

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jopling, Michael

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Channon, Paul

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cope, John

  McCusker, H.

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marten, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sims, Roger

  Emery, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Molyneaux, James

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fox, Marcus

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Freud, Clement

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mudd, David

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Normanton, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grylls, Michael

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. W. Benyon and

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. Tim Renton.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. Smith: Throughout this debate, hon. Members—
  Mr. Peter Rees Mr. Peter Rees rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) knows full well that if the Minister does not give way, he does not give way.
  Mr. Smith: Throughout the debate a great deal of stress has rightly been placed on the importance of retaining the unity of the United Kingdom. That is a fundamental factor behind the proposals in the Bill. We believe that the schemes for devolution will allow us more efficient, more sensitive and more representative government in Scotland and in Wales and still strengthen the United Kingdom rather than lead to its break-up.
  I ask those right hon. and hon. Members who affect to speak for the unity of the United Kingdom to consider the realities of the proposition in the amendment. Constructing such a referendum as the hon. Member for Reigate suggests would do more in practical terms to affect the unity of the United Kingdom than any other proposition. That is why I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reject the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 69, Noes 249.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Forrester, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Allaun, Frank

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Moyle, Roland

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Archer, Peter

  Freeson, Reginald

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Newens, Stanley

  Ashton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Noble, Mike

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ginsburg, David

  Ogden, Eric

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Golding, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gould, Bryan

  Orbach, Maurice

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bates, Alt

  Graham, Ted

  Ovenden, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Park, George

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Parker, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Parry, Robert

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Pendry, Tom

  Boardman, H.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Prescott, John

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hooley, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Horam, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

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

  Reid, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Huckfield, Les

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hunter, Adam

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Cant, R. B.

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Roper, John

  Carter, Ray

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cartwright, John

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  John, Brynmor

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Sillars, James

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Silverman, Julius

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Judd, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Corbett, Robin

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Small, William

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lamble, David

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Snape, Peter

  Crawford, Douglas

  Lamond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cronin, John

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cryer, Bob

  Litterick, Tom

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Luard, Evan

  Stoddart, David

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stott, Roger

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Strang, Gavin

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Swain, Thomas

  Deakins, Eric

  MacCormick, Iain

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Dempsey, James

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Doig, Peter

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thompson, George

  Dormand, J. D.

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tierney, Sydney

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tomlinson, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  McNamara, Kevin

  Torney, Tom

  Eadie, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Edge, Geoff

  Magee, Bryan

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Mahon, Simon

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Ward, Michael

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Watkins, David

  English, Michael

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Watt, Hamish

  Ennals, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Weetch, Ken

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wellbeloved, James

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Meacher, Michael

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mendelson, John

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitlock, William

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Flannery, Martin

  Molloy, William

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Ford, Ben

  640

  641

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. James Tinn and

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mrs. Ann Taylor.

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Brittan: I rise merely to express briefly our surprise that in a series of important debates—[interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. we shall finish quicker if we allow the hon. Gentleman to say a few words.
  Mr. Brittan: I shall certainly be happy to wait until hon. Members are prepared to listen.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Sir Myer—[interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order. Would he mind repeating it?
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am sorry that you did not hear me because of the noise, Sir Myer. Is it not the case that a Division has been called on the motion by the Government Whip to report Progress?
  The First Deputy Chairman: The motion is debateable.
  Mr. Douglas Crawford: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I distinctly heard you call a Division on whether the Committee should report Progress and I distinctly heard my hon. Friends say "No" to that. I ask that the Question be put to the House again.
  10.30 p.m.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I can assure hon. Members that I know exactly what was moved and that the motion is debatable. An hon. Member cannot know in advance what I am going to propose. He can only rise to take part in a debate once I have proposed the Question.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Sir Myer. It was absolutely clear that the Chair had put to the House "Those in favour" and "Those against".
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I can assure hon. Members that I am compos mentis and I know exactly what I did. I started to propose the Question that I should report Progress but before I completed putting it the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) rose, and he is in order.
  Mr. Brittan: I am sorry that hon. Members of the Scottish National Party should be in such a hurry to go home, but I can assure them that I shall not detain them long. I find it surprising that at this early hour, in the middle of a series of debates on the referendum, the Government have put forward this motion and that they should think it necessary to report Progress. There is no reason for that. I merely wish to put it on record that my hon. Friends and I are prefectly prepared and ready to continue the debate for as long as necessary on these important matters. We want to make it clear that the reason why the Committee is rising early is that the Government do not have the stomach to hear the rest of the arguments.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I should like to add my protests at the curtailment of debate at this relatively early hour. It has been the custom of at least some of us to debate the points arising out of the Bill and the new clause with great sincerity for long periods. There are many hon. Members now present who have taken little part in the debates, but that does not mean that those of us who have been trying to take the matter of the future of the United Kingdom seriously should not be able to continue to debate these serious questions in the way that most of us have tried to do—with the exception of the SNP Members, who, of course, are not interested in the future of the United Kingdom, provided that they can separate themselves from it.
  We have been debating the details of a clause introducing a referendum, but

  645
  by the motion of the Government Whip the debate is about to be curtailed. I fear that this may be a prelude to an attempt to curtail our debates even more ruthlessly in the future.
  I should like an assurance from the Government that if they intend to curtail our debates on the details of the referendums, who is to vote in them, how they are to be conducted and what are to be their terms, we shall have more time to consider the final form of the new clause. I trust that the Government will accept that they cannot have it both ways.
  The Government cannot expect us to accept with complacency a reduction of time in Committee without our being given more time than usual on Report to debate the new clause. I hope that we can have an assurance that this cavalier treatment of the Committee will not be extended into a wider field.
  Mr. David Steel: I have an obvious interest to declare in opposing the motion to report Progress, because the next amendment for discussion is in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. We were given no indication that the debate was to be curtailed. I do not want to indulge in synthetic indignation. My views on late sittings are well known; I am against them. However, I think that we could at least start the next series of amendments and go on until about midnight.
  When we debated the procedural motion relating to the referendum clause, we were given to understand that the Leader of the House thought it appropriate that we should spend two days on the matter—one day on a general debate and one on amendments. We are already running seriously behind schedule on that, and I should have thought that the Government would be willing at least to make a start on the next amendment. I do not think we should let them get away with ending the debate at about 10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Channon: I support the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). The next amendment is extremely important, and at this
  646
  comparatively early hour there are some hon. Members who have been here all day who still wish to catch your eye, Sir Myer. There are still some important points to be made, and I see no reason why the debate should not go on a little longer.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Every hon. Member who wished to take part in the last debate was able to do so.
  Mr. Channon: I was talking about the next amendment, Sir Myer. We are continually being told by the Government that we are short of time and that the debate is taking too long, yet we are now being asked to pack up at this early hour. We could easily take the next amendment, which is so important, or at least make a start on it.
  Mr. Buchan: I also have a strong vested interest in the next amendment, because I have been working towards it for the past two or three years. I want it discussed at a time when the House of Commons is alert. More important, however, the Government, by moving to report Progress, will give themselves an opportunity to rethink their attitude towards the question of independence. I assume that that is why they have moved to report Progress, and I thoroughly approve the motion.
  Mr. Budgen: I agree that we should oppose the Government's suggestion that the debate should end at this stage. The Liberal amendment gives rise to important questions about the effect of changing the referendum and many hon. Members wish to advance arguments on the amendment, having been excluded from advancing fairly similar arguments about earlier amendments.
  The night is yet young. Many hon. Members feel passionately about the amendment and the principle of a referendum. Many hon. Members have sat through many hours of the debate, and it is a denial of our right to represent our constituents if we are excluded from discussing this matter. Government supporters prefer to go to bed than to hear the arguments on the issue. These are serious matters. We wish to continue because we are determined to defeat the Bill. [interruption.]
  Mr. Tim Renton Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is too lively. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has not finished.
  Mr. Budgen: Thank you, Sir Myer. By their craven attitude tonight, the Government are saying that they have no heart in the Bill.
  Mr. Tim Renton: Liveliness does not apply to those on the Government Benches tonight. They jeer at my hon. Friend's remarks, but what did the Minister say when winding up the previous debate? To protest that the English would not have a right to vote in a referendum, he said that English hon. Members would have plenty of chances to speak in the debate. Only minutes later the Government moved to report Progess.
  The night is young. I was here for a large part of the previous debate.
  Mr. David Stoddart (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): The hon. Gentleman was not here.
  Hon. Members: Yes he was.
  Mr. Renton: If the hon. Member had been here himself, he would have known that I was here during another part of the debate. I did not seek to speak because arguments were being made well by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite.
  I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, but I wish to speak on the next amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "So do we."] It is intolerable that proceedings should be cut short at this early hour. If this is a prologue to the introduction of the guillotine tomorrow—as I suspect it is—the Minister must take back his word that we would have every chance to discuss the Bill. We should continue.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ridley. Mr. Ridley.
  Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is not so lively on his feet.
  Mr. Ridley: The pursuit of self-interest has led the Committee to its present position. The Government introduced the Bill because they thought that they could secure for themselves the advantage of a certain vote in Scotland which was challenged by certain hon. Members. When they found that that ambition was in trouble, they denied the House proper representation of Scottish and Welsh hon. Members. The whole exercise that we have been witnessing has been a desire to maintain an electoral superiority based not on democracy—
  Mr. Stoddart: It has nothing to do with democracy.
  Mr. Ridley: It has a lot to do with democracy. Behind the operation lies a desire so to rig the democratic system that the Government party remains in power whatever might be the wish of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has been an exercise in trying so to rig the electoral situation that the party in control of our affairs, which has been elected by only 38 per cent. of the electorate, remains able to dictate to the country what it wants to do. It has been said by the Leader of the House—
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: This is ridiculous.
  Mr. Ridley: No, it is not. The Leader of the House has made it clear that he is not prepared to consider the representation of Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons. He is concerned only to ensure that he can secure the votes in Scotland and Wales that are essential to the continuation of the Government.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure he well knows, that the debate is limited strictly to the Question that I report Progress.
  Mr. Ridley: With due respect, Sir Myer, my remarks are extremely relevant. The reason why the Government want to report Progress is that they have come to the point when the next expedient is about to be produced, which is to curtail debate in the House of Commons.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The next proceeding would be to call the amendment that stands in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Party.
  Mr. Ridley: But that is not what has happened, Sir Myer. The Government have moved to report Progress because they have decided in their cynical manoeuvrings that the only way in which they can proceed from now on is to introduce a guillotine motion next week. They take the view that there is no point in discussing the next amendment. The Leader of the Liberal Party knows full well that the Government do not care a fig for his amendment. They do not care a fig for his views. They do not care about the bargain he has been trying to make about separate taxation.
  Let us consider the public bargaining that has been taking place outside the Committee. The Leader of the House has been playing hard to get, as has the Leader of the Liberal Party. The Leader of the House knows that he needs the votes of the Liberal Party to secure the passage of the timetable motion, and the Leader of the Liberal Party has stated his conditions. The right hon. Gentleman's first condition is that there shall be proportional representation. That has been shot down by the Government. It has been denied and refused. The right hon. Gentleman's second condition is that there shall be reduced representation of the Labour Party in Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons. The Leader of the House has denied that with all the fury at his command. The right hon. Gentleman's third condition is that there shall be separate taxation powers for the Scottish Assembly, and that has been denied.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to have regard to what we are discussing.
  Mr. Ridley: I am trying to set out the whole horrible manoeuvre in relation to the Liberal Party. The motion which has been moved is to report Progress. That course has been taken because no bargain has been made with the Liberal Party and no bargain has been secured with any Member in the House of Commons.
  The Government have despaired of carrying the Bill. It is the final admission of failure and defeat. This sordid manoeuvre, this whole smelling, degrading, disgusting manoeuvre that has been carried out by the Government, has finally come to the point where they can no
  650
  longer continue with it themselves, where they have lost faith in their own sordid enterprise. The significance of the motion to report Progress is not that the Committee is tired and does not wish to continue the debate. It is that a crisis of confidence has arisen in the ranks of the Labour Party because the Government have failed to secure the compliance of the Liberal Party to support them in their timetable motion. They have failed to secure the compliance of their own dissidents, if I might coin a phrase from alien parts of the country.
  The Government are reduced to the point of having to put the issue to the test. We are on the eve of a political crisis. We are on the eve of a situation in which the Government will no longer be able to proceed with their commitment on the Bill. This is a moment of great seriousness and importance.
  I believe that it is right for my hon. Friends to proceed to debate the Bill. The next amendment should be taken, because there is no point in stopping debating the Bill simply because the Government have thrown in the sponge and given up their resolve to proceed with the Bill, knowing full well that basically they do not have support in the House, in the country, or anywhere else in the world for this mad, cynical manoeuvre on which they embarked in the hope of securing electoral advantage.
  I shall vote against the motion.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is it not deeply wrong of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to suggest that my right hon. Friend could be thinking of bringing in a guillotine motion? Did not the Lord President, on 2nd May 1972, refer to the guillotine as
  "full-hearted contempt for the democratic processes of this country; full-hearted contempt for the normal legislative processes of this House of Commons."—[Official Report 2nd May 1972; Vol. 886, c. 235.]
  How can he be thinking of bringing in a guillotine?
  The First Deputy Chairman: I do not know why hon. Members are so hilarious at this time of night. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Deputy Speaker—no, Sir Myer, Sir Myer,

  651
  Sir Myer. [Laughter.] I am not sure what this is all about. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) behaved in his normal, emollient way. He was gentle, understanding, reasonable and everything else. If we are talking about being reasonable, why are we about to give up at five minutes to 11? Labour Members are lively, intelligent, physically fit and, to judge from their responses, still awake. [interruption.]
  What I do not understand—and it is clear, Sir Myer, that you find it difficult to concentrate on these matters—is why the Committee is to be denied the opportunity to debate these matters which the Lord President believes are of deep concern to us, as, indeed, they are.
  Sir Myer, I appreciate—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. With great respect, I notice that the Chair has been very occupied in the last three or four minutes. Were you listening to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) to see whether he was in order? In the last three minutes I doubt whether you were in a position to judge whether he was in order.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will probably repeat himself, and then I can rule on it.
  Mr. Johnston: Sir Myer. [Laughter.] Sir Myer. [Laughter.] Sir Myer. [Laughter.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is going to continue that way, I shall have to accuse him of tedious repetition.
  Mr. Johnston: Sir Myer—[Laughter.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have had a bit of hilarity, but I think that there is no sense in wasting time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Just a moment. If the hon. Member for Inverness has nothing to contribute, I ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Johnston: Sir Myer, it is not that I have nothing to contribute, and certainly I would not regard the repetition of your name as tedious. My argument
  652
  to the Committee, which is getting into a hysterically frivolous state, is that we Liberals do not understand why this motion has been moved. There is a very long way to go with the Bill, and it is rather stupid, Sir Myer, to spend our time debating these frivolities when we on the Liberal Bench wish to make progress with the Bill and to deal with the serious matters it contains. Therefore, we are disposed to oppose the motion.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has put the case of the Liberal Party so formidably that I am almost tempted to agree with his proposition. I cannot help feeling that if I were to do so no one would be more distressed than the other upstanding members of the Liberal Party, if there are indeed such at this hour. But I am sorely tempted by the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman and by the proposition of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) not to proceed with the motion and to accept that we should continue with the debate. I certainly weigh most carefully what they have said.
  I also have to take into account that never in the whole record of this Parliament at least—and probbaly some previous Parliaments as well—have so many Liberal Members been assembled so late at night. It would be imposing a severe hardship on them if I detained them any longer. I fear that I therefore have to reject the claim that was made by the Liberal Party.
  The appeal by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was one of the most powerful speeches I have heard from the hon. Gentleman for many years. I was very much persuaded by the hon. Gentleman to consider whether we should change our minds, but then I recalled that the hon. Gentleman was hardly here during the previous proceedings. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot be aware of what happened in the House yesterday. I am not saying that there was some curtailment of the previous debate. Of course, that was not the situation. The situation with regard to the previous debate was that no closure motion was moved. Therefore, the hon. Member who suggested that as a reason why we should

  653
  continue was suffering from a misapprehension. I do not believe that the Committee should pay regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury on this occasion because the hon. Gentleman has not been aware of the debates that we have had.
  The matters that we are proposing to debate will be debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) rightly said that one of the later debates dealing with the second question is of great importance. It has been debated outside the House, and some of my hon. Friends have discussed it in the House on a number of occasions. Of course, that question is one that should properly be debated by the Committee.
  I myself have no special objection to debates at a late hour. Very often that is necessary. I do not accept the orthodox view of the modern Liberal Party that we should never have such debates at late hours. Sometimes it is necessary for the House to sit late. But it is also necessary to take into account the general state of the Bill and the general discussions that we have had. We must also take yesterday's events into account.
  My hon. Friends, who have been diligent in their application to their parlimentary labours, have every right to look forward to an early night on some occasions during the week, and this would be a very good night for it, particularly since the thumping majority that we had on the last vote seems to indicate that opposition is abating.
  Though not for any of the mysterious and sinister reasons that some hon. Members have hinted at, and despite the eloquent things said on behalf of the Liberal Party—and the novelty of seeing Liberal Members attend our proceedings at such a late hour—I believe that it would be much better for the Committee to come to a conclusion. If we continued in the same vein as some of the contributions that have been made, I do not believe that it would contribute to the best understanding of our debates.
  For all those reasons, I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept the motion and that we shall come back on some future occasion and proceed with
  654
  the extremely important next amendment that has to be taken.
  Mr. Brittan: The reasons given by the Leader of the House for wishing to report Progress have been frivolous and inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman started by engaging in a wholly unjustified tirade of abuse of the Liberal Party, for which there were no grounds whatsoever. He then referred to the fact that there had been no curtailment of the previous debate when he knew perfectly well that our objection was not to any curtailment of that debate but to the fact that he does not wish to engage in the next debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that the next amendment was of great importance, and he ignored the fact that on three occasions he had been quite happy for the Committee to debate matters of great importance through the night.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. Will he remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that in referring to the smallness of the vote by any party or section within the Committee he was in grave dereliction of his duty as Leader of the whole House in suggesting that, because a large number of hon. Members did not support an amendment in the Lobby, argument should not be heard?
  Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Such derelictions of duty have become so commonplace that it becomes tedious to refer to them on every occasion on which they occur.
  The real explanation was given in the right hon. Gentleman's ominous reference to the "general state of the Bill". The Bill has been argued into shreds. We want to continue that process. We want to argue it into tatters, and we are prepared to do it tonight. It is for that reason that I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the motion to report Progress.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
  Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of 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 proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I had the impression, in the hubbub of the Committee, that your ruling was that the motion to report Progress was debatable. The Division was called by a Member from the Scottish National Party, but you have not accepted a spokesman for that party to speak in the debate. Therefore, as the motion is debatable, I ask that it be debated and that you call a Member from the Scottish National Party, otherwise the viewpoint of this party in relation to this important Division will not be heard.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is for the Chair to decide which motions it accepts and which it rejects.
  Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Sir Meyer. This is the most blatant example of bias on the part of the Chair.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I call upon the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to withdraw that insult to the Chair. I ask him to withdraw that insult.
  Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I request that you call a speaker from this Bench on this point.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Go on Chair, get on with it.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Sir Myer. There was been no response from you to requests to call a Member from the Scottish National Party to speak on this motion.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Whether to accept a motion for the closure is entirely for the Chair. Who is called is equally a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I understand that there have been requests that Mr. Speaker should be called. There has been no response from you to that request. What response will you give?
  The First Deputy Chairman: I believe that the hon. Member is making legitimate points of order. But, as he knows, we are in Committee and, therefore, the
  656
  occupant of the Chair is the individual in complete control, and I propose to discharge my duty in that direction.
  Mr. Johnathan Aitken: On a point of order, Sir Myer. During the exchanges, hon. Members on these Benches distinctly heard the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), when seated and covered, say that the Chair was biased in its ruling. Are you prepared, in the discharge of your duties, which you are following punctiliously, to name those hon. Members who have abused the Chair in this way?
  The First Deputy Chairman: I propose at this late hour to have a peaceful ending to the evening. I called upon the hon. Member to withdraw his remark. I hope that he is prepared to comply with that.
  Mr. Aitken: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. There is no indication yet that the hon. Members concerned are prepared to withdraw their assertion that the Chair is biased.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The Chair is biased.
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: We will not withdraw. You are biased.
  Hon. Members: Name them, name them.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Get Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Aitken: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. This is a serious matter, and the honour of the Chair is at stake—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear. It certainly is.
  Mr. Aitken: At least 50 hon. Members in the Committee heard the hon. Member for Caernavon and the hon. Member for Dundee, East say in quite unequivocal terms that the Chair was biased. In some ways they made other observations, Sir Myer, to which I shall not draw your attention. They said clearly, however, that the Chair was biased.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Aitken: The honour of the Chair is at stake.
  Mr. Henderson: Bring Mr. Speaker.

  Division No. 75.]

  AYES

  [11.7 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Allaun, Frank

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Anderson, Donald

  Ford, Ben

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Archer, Peter

  Forrester, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Newens, Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman

  Freud, Clement

  Noble, Mike

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  George, Bruce

  Ogden, Eric

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bates, Alf

  Ginsburg, David

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bean, R. E.

  Golding, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Beith, A. J.

  Gould, Bryan

  Ovenden, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Gourlay, Harry

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Graham, Ted

  Pardoe, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Park, George

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Parry, Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Boardman, H.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Pendry, Tom

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Prescott, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hooley, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Buchan, Norman

  Horam, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Huckfield, Les

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hunter, Adam

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Campbell, Ian

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Cant, R. B.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Roper, John

  Carter, Ray

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cartwright, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Judd, Frank

  Sillars, James

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Silverman, Julius

  Coleman, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Small, William

  Corbett, Robin

  Lamond, James

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Snape, Peter

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Spearing, Nigel

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cryer, Bob

  Litterick, Tom

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Luard, Evan

  Stoddart, David

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Stott, Roger

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Strang, Gavin

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Swain, Thomas

  Deakins, Eric

  McElhone, Frank

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dempsey, James

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Doig, Peter

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tierney, Sydney

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tinn, James

  Dunnett, Jack

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tomlinson, John

  Eadie, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Torney, Tom

  Edge, Geoff

  Magee, Bryan

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Mahon, Simon

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  English, Michael

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Ward, Michael

  Ennals, David

  Meacher, Michael

  Watkins, David

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mendelson, John

  Weetch, Ken

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Flannery, Martin

  Molloy, William

  Whitlock, William

  The First Deputy Chairman: I shall take all the points of order after the Division is finished.
  The Committee having divided: Ayes 223, Noes 60.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. A. W. Stallard and

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. Thomas Cox.

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  NOES

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Benyon, W.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Reid, George

  Britten, Leon

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Budgen, Nick

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Channon, Paul

  McCusker, H.

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Corrie, John

  Marten, Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Durant, Tony

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Molyneaux, James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Eyre, Reginald

  Montgomery, Fergus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Watt, Hamish

  Forman, Nigel

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mudd, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Grist, Ian

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Mr. Jim Lester.

  Grylls, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Raison, Timothy

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again:—
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Aitken: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I seek your guidance on this highly important matter. I heard beyond any possible doubt words spoken by a number of hon. Members on the nationalist Benches—who may well have been over-excited and over-tired—saying that the Chair was biased in giving its ruling. Her Majesty's Opposition have no wish in any way to question your rulings and your judgment in this matter this evening. Sir Myer, but there is no doubt that members of the nationalist parties—the hon. Members for Caernavon (Mr. Wigley), Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and others—said that the Chair was biased. They were then asked by you to withdraw those remarks. They reaffirmed their statement that the Chair was biased.
  I repeat, Sir Myer, that the honour of the Chair and the honour of the House is at stake. I ask you now formally to name those hon. Members who have broken the conventions, traditions and precedents of the House.
  The First Deputy Chairman: May we leave this matter until we have—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Rule now."] Order. I have to put the Question again according to the Standing Order when the red light shows here on the clock, as it will any second now. Let us just wait until then. [HON. MEMBERS. "No."] Order. Just a moment. This is the result of late sittings. I ask the hon. Member whether he is prepared to withdraw. I appeal to him.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. The situation which arose is obviously very serious, and my hon. Friends and I understand that the appropriate procedure when complaints have arisen about the conduct of the Chair is that a motion is put down for the attention of the House so that the House itself can take an opportunity to judge whether the conduct of the Chair was biased or not. My hon. Friends and I are quite happy to rest our case on the facts as stated and on the judgment of the House as a whole. We have therefore tabled a motion of no confidence, and in the circumstances we are prepared to withdraw the allegations which have been made.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Committee having divided: Ayes 215, Noes 80.

  Division No. 76.]

  AYES

  [11.19 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Ford, Ben

  Noble, Mike

  Allaun, Frank

  Forrester, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Anderson, Donald

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Ogden, Eric

  Archer, Peter

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Freeson, Reginald

  Orbach, Maurice

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  George, Bruce

  Ovenden, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ginsburg, David

  Park, George

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Golding, John

  Parry, Robert

  Barnett, Ht Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Gould, Bryan

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bates, Alf

  Gourlay, Harry

  Pendry, Tom

  Bean, R. E.

  Graham, Ted

  Prescott, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Radice, Giles

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Rees, Rt Hcn Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Boardman, H.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Hooley, Frank

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Horam, John

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Huckfield, Les

  Rooker, J. W.

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Roper, John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Campbell, Ian

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Canavan, Dennis

  John, Brynmor

  Sillars, James

  Cant, R. B.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silverman, Julius

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Carter, Ray

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Small, William

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Judd, Frank

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cartwright, John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Spearing, Nigel

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Lambie, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Lamborn, Harry

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Lamond, James

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stoddart, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Stott, Roger

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Strang, Gavin

  Corbett, Robin

  Litterick, Tom

  Summerskiil, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Swain, Thomas

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Luard, Evan

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Hugh

  Tierney, Sydney

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tinn, James

  Dalyell, Tam

  McElhone, Frank

  Tomlinson, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Torney, Tom

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Deakins, Eric

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow)

  Ward, Michael

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Watkins, David

  Dempsey, James

  Madden, Max

  Weetch, Ken

  Doig, Peter

  Magee, Bryan

  Wellbeloved, James

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mahon, Simon

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  While, James (Pollok)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marks, Kenneth

  Whitlock, William

  Eadie, Alex

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Edge, Geoff

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Mendelson, John

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  English, Michael

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Ennals, David

  Molloy, William

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Woof, Robert

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Moyle, Roland

  Flannery, Martin

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Mr. Peter Snape and

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Newens, Stanley

  Mrs. Ann Taylor.

  662

  663

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Grist, Ian

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Reid, George

  Beith, A. J.

  Henderson, Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Benyon, W.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Brittan, Leon

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Brotherton, Michael

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Budgen, Nick

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Channon, Paul

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Shepherd, Colin

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  McCusker, H.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Cormack, Patrick

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Corrie, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Crawford, Douglas

  Marten, Neil

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Durant, Tony

  Molyneaux, James

  Thompson, George

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Watt, Hamish

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Forman, Nigel

  Mudd, David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Freud, Clement

  Newton, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Pardoe, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Penhaligon, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Mr Spencer Le Marchant and

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Jim Lester.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).

  OVERSEAS AID
  That the Asian Development Bank (Extension of Limit on Guarantees) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Question agreed to.

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL (DIVISION)
  11.35 p.m.
  Mr. McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising this point of order at this time, but it is my first opportunity to do so. I seek your guidance on the validity of the Division on the closure of the debate.
  The Doorkeeper's record shows that the Division was called at 11.6 p.m. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and I were conscious of the fact that, due to the dispute around the Table, insufficient attention might have been paid to the clock. The
  664
  doors were not ordered closed until 11.15 p.m. Assuming at the worst that when 11.6 p.m. was recorded the time was 11.6 and 59 seconds and, again at the worst, that the order to close the doors was given at 11.15 p.m. precisely, it appears that the doors remained open longer than the allotted time. I therefore seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether the Division was valid.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying. I am now acting as Mr. Deputy Speaker and therefore what happened in Committee is not a matter for me at the moment. The hon. Member may endeavour to raise it next time the House goes into Committee on the Bill.

  EMPLOYMENT (HULL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  11.36 p.m.
  Mr. John Prescott: I wish to draw to the attention of the House tonight on the motion for the Adjournment the extremely serious level of unemployment in Hull, which three hon. Members have the honour to represent. In the limited time available to us we shall seek to illustrate to the Minister and to the House the desperate need for special assistance to deal with the level of unemployment in this area.

  665
  We wish to divide the time among the three Members who represent Hull. I shall use my limited time to attempt to analyse the problem as at present, and my colleagues will no doubt deal with some of the solutions that we generally agree should be considered by the Government.
  The present level of unemployment is 15,000, higher than ever since the war. That is an average of 7·8 per cent. and 10 per cent. male unemployment. It is 50 per cent. higher than in the Yorkshire and Humberside area generally and considerably higher yet again than the United Kingdom average. It is higher than the rates for Scotland, Wales, Teesside and Aberdeen.
  The point that we wish to impress upon Ministers is that Hull does not just reflect the problem of unemployment now to be found in all parts of the country. It is not a reflection of cyclical developments but is a considerable deterioration that has continued for almost a decade. We wish to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that it is not just a matter of saying that unemployment is bad all round.
  In 1961 there were 2,300 unemployed and the rise to the present figure is a yearly average increase of 35 per cent. The duration of unemployment in Hull is serious. Over 4,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months, one in three, well above the national average. So unemployment is greater and lasts longer.
  Of the 2,000 young people in the Humberside area who are unemployed, 1,000 are in Hull, so we have 50 per cent. of the youth unemployment of the area. The loss of jobs has been at a considerable rate. Between 1973 and 1975 jobs were being lost at the rate of 280 a month.
  That situation led to a debate in the House on 30th April 1975. The debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who made points that I should like to reiterate in this debate. I should like to quote the Minister's reply. The Minister said:
  "Humberside has had more than its share of setbacks in recent months, but there is no reason why these problems cannot be overcome. We are pursuing a strong regional policy in
  666
  support of the area."—[Official Report, 29th April 1975; Vol. 891, c. 440.]
  We can now, two years later, look at the record. The net job loss again has been 120 jobs per month, an average of 1,500 per year, and the reasons for this are considerable. I hope that I have the Minister's attention on this point. It is very important that he should have it established in his mind that we feel that the high unemployment in our area and the reason for the catalogue of misery that I have just outlined to him is due to the closure of industries and to industrial structural problems, and the result of Government decisions or lack of decision. Most of these decisions were outside the control of the Hull people.
  The people of Hull have done a considerable amount through the local authority industrial development committee to attempt to counteract the problem. For example, after the Minister's statement in the 1975 debate, Imperial Typewriters closed down and 2,000 people were made unemployed. What could have prevented that huge multinational company from deciding to produce typewriters in Germany instead of Britain? The only force that could have prevented the company from taking that course was the Government by imposing controls and using its countering power to prevent the Company's decision to produce elsewhere.
  In Brough, where aircraft are made, 450 men are to be made redundant due to the Government's desire not to put investment into plans, particularly the HS 146 which is needed not only for employment but for the civil aviation industry's future.
  In the shipyards 500 people have been made unemployed. The Government reversed its promise to nationalise shipyards in the Hull area and so another 500 people were made unemployed. Needlers and our shipyards suffer from problems because of the denial of the regional employment premium given to competitor companies in the development districts because it is an intermediate development area.
  I have before me a comparison of a manufacturing company in my area with one registered in Scotland. In the Scottish development area only 500 people are unemployed compared with over

  667
  15,000 in the Hull area. The plants produce the same product but the plant in Scotland gets £150,000 more in aid, and the result is that the product is produced in Scotland for £2·50 while to make the same product in Hull without the Government subsidy it costs £4·80. How is it possible to attract industry to an intermediate area such as Hull? Every day there is evidence of companies being shown these economic facts after first deciding to locate in Hull and then transferring to other areas—openly encouraged by Government Departments?
  We have seen the decline of the timber industry due to the small wharves, and that has meant the loss of 1,000 jobs. This requires a port policy to be developed by the Government. The crisis and crucial decline in fishing due to the consequences of the Law of the Sea Conference, Iceland and entering the EEC has cost another 2,000 jobs. Altogether, since the Minister spoke in those optimistic terms we have lost 6,000 jobs, over 250 jobs a month, and it is not possible to counter that with the measures presently available to us.
  There have been demands made from my area for development area status. I have developed the idea that the regional employment premium, which would cost only £20 million, could be given to areas such as Hull that have higher unemployment rates than higher assistance areas. I shall quote from a letter that the Minister sent to me after these facts were pointed out to him by delegations and at conferences. In a letter of November 1976 the Minister of State for Industry said about extending development area status:
  "The Industry Act 1972 provides some guidance on this point as … that Act requires that in designating Development Areas, account is taken of 'all the circumstances actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment'."
  Frankly, Hull is in a critical state. We need special help for special circumstances. Unless the Government can give that, people will be asking why, if the Government cannot help in this special crisis, they should support the Labour Government. Hull has always returned three Labour Members. I hope that the Minister will heed the message from Hull that enough is enough and that we shall hear something helpful from him tonight.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and I have travelled the railway between Hull and Paddington and Kings Cross like yo-yos, bringing delegations from our city, especially the county and district councils, to discuss fishing, unemployment and regional area status. We have come away with sympathy, understanding and consideration, but with very few jobs or opportunities for lasting employment for our people.
  I said during the 1966–70 Labour Government that what was happening on Humberside was not just the sort of cyclical unemployment that we hear so much about today but was rather a structural unemployment that was cutting away at the roots of the economy in the area. The facts listed by my hon. Friend for Kingston upon Hull, East show that I was right. This is obvious when one looks at what has happened in transport, fishing and mechanical engineering.
  Tremendous efforts have been made by the county and, particularly, by the city to attract new industry, but we have been thwarted on every side. We lack the ability to attract industry because other parts of this country's economy are felt to have more pressing needs than has Hull.
  It is ironic that a fortnight ago I was talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about trying to maintain the Hull to Scarborough railway line and one of the Scarborough delegation said that his town now had the biggest frozen chip factory in Europe and had won it from Humberside because Scarborough had development area status.
  The director of a major company in my area told me that his firm invested in North Allerton—which has no unemployment—rather than in Hull because it received more regional assistance there. The company is considering further investment, but it is tempted not to invest locally, but to go elsewhere.
  If for no other reason than to give confidence to our local firms, we should have development area status. On every criterion, the Hull travel-to-work areas qualifies for it.

  669
  We also need further help for urban renewal. It would be a considerable help if we in Hull and our part of the old East Riding qualified for English Tourist Board grants so that we could take advantage of the great number of tourists who arrive in England at Hull, but then disappear to other parts of the country.
  We need a coherent strategy for the area from the Government. We see the unemployment figures rising and Freightliner disappears; we see matters of concern in connection with maintaining the infrastructure; the county council is talking about reducing teacher supply in an area of great urban deprivation.
  It is not sufficient for Ministers merely to say that they are looking at the problem. They have been looking at it for over a year in the Department of Industry. We need a boost and something positive from the Government. The people of Hull are desperate. There is a frightening apathetic acceptance of the situation. But I warn the Government that the time will come when not only will county councils and city councils and trade unions protest but a great upsurge of feeling will emerge. My hon. Friend should be aware of that. We have had enough. We want positive action from the Government to alleviate the distressing situation and to show that we may have confidence in the Government.
  11.51 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: The Government are now well aware of the economic difficulties in Hull. Many civic and industrial deputations have wended their way to Westminster over past months. I have just returned from East Africa, and even there our plight is known through television coverage of our fishing dispute with Iceland.
  Our vessels are tied up at St. Andrew's Dock in West Hull. About 30 vessels are involved and 750 men on deck. That can soon multiply to 4,000 men on shore without jobs. Some people disbelieve that Yorkshire and Humberside can be like Tyneside and Merseyside—yet we have always had low wages but a low cost of living. We have worked hard and played hard—as one can tell by our Rugby League record.
  670
  Unemployment statistics have worsened, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and we now have 10·6 per cent. male unemployment. We have pestered the Government until we are blue in the face to achieve development area status. By any yardstick our case is overwhelming. The Secretary of State is sympathetic but he will not take any piecemeal action—and tell us we must wait until a new national map is made of new development areas.
  Our engineering industry is in the dumps. The district committee of the AUEW has lately threatened to contract out of the political levy to the Labour Party because it is dissatisfied with Government policy.
  All this is mounting up, and a malaise afflicts Hull. The people of Hull are downhearted because they believe that the Government are attempting nothing. I do not share that view. Part of our affliction is caused by the change in local government. Kingston upon Hull has been demoted to the status of a local district council—one of nine within the county council. We have lost control over our schools, planning and police. That militates against being cheerful.
  Nye Bevan once said that there was nothing to fear but fear itself.
  I applaud the local paper, The Hull Daily Mail, which last night gave us something better than the usual dirge. It said:
  "High hopes of new jobs tonic for the Hull area."
  By God, we need that.
  I had today a helpful Answer from the Ministry of Defence. Hawker Siddeley is to be given an order for 24 Harrier GR3 aircraft. Unfortunately this will merely stabilise the existing position. Of course that is better than the job situation becoming worse, but it will merely hold the line in the sense that it will get no worse than having 350 men who could be and, I believe, will be displaced by 1st April.
  The picture is not entirely black. There is much to which we can look forward. The M62 motorway is proving a tonic to the port, which in my view is the best equipped in Western Europe. The Humber Bridge is coming. Above all, I believe that it would be silly or fatal

  671
  to sell ourselves short tonight. If the national economy picks up, we can pick up alongside it. We could well have better days to come. I can only wish that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give the people of Hull and their Members some hope in his reply that these will come to pass.
  1.56 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I fully appreciate the concern that has been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) about Hull's level of unemployment. The Government fully recognise that the high level of unemployment is caused not only by the national and international recission but because Hull is facing a number of special employment probems. In particular, I appreciate the importance of the fishing industry.
  My hon. Friends will know better than I the long-term importance of all the fishery negotiations which are presently taking place. Fishing vessels that formerly fished the Icelandic waters have moved on to other grounds—for example, the North-East Arctic. They hope to extend their sphere but the possibility of their doing this will only become clear later. Because the vessels have gone to other waters there has been little change in the number at sea and only a few jobs have been lost.
  It remains our firm objective to protect the interests of British fishermen—indeed all those who depend on fishing for a living—in the negotiation of the common fisheries policy, including a variable zone of up to 50 miles reserved for our vessels.
  I am concerned not only about employment in the fishing industry but about the closures and redundancies in the past few years. Forceful representations were made earlier to Ministers by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West and Kingston upon Hull, Central about the present situation of Hawker Siddeley and Needlers. Mention has been made of the order announced today of the 24 Harriers, not to prevent redundancies but to try to provide the stability that is of minimum requirement.
  672
  We should prefer to see the creation of secure jobs, but I must outline the help that the Government's special measures have given to Hull. Of these, most— 2,637—jobs have been saved by the temporary employment subsidy scheme. Because we recognised how important this scheme was to Hull, as to many other areas, in December we decided to extend it when the REP was abolished in the development areas. The temporary employment subsidy is designed to save jobs. The job release scheme has been designed to create additional opportunities for unemployed workers in the assisted areas, including Hull, and to reduce the competition for jobs among the unemployed.
  The scheme offers a tax-free allowance of £23 a week and supplementary benefit if necessary for up to one year to men of 64 and women of 59 on condition that in the case of the unemployed they neither take work not claim unemployment or certain other benefits and, in the case of those at work, that they are released by their employer, that the application is made with the knowledge and agreement of the trade union concerned, and that the employer recruits as soon as possible a full-time replacement from the unemployment register.
  So far the response has been disappointing nationally. In Hull only 134 people have been helped by it. Although I should be entirely opposed to pressure being brought on individuals, it would be helpful if my hon. Friends could assist by making this scheme better known among older workers—many of whom have led an arduous working life and who may wish to pack up work just that bit earlier. Not only that, but it can help those younger people of whom my hon. Friends have spoken.
  The problem among the young is still acute, although the careers officers, helped by Government measures, have done an excellent job in reducing the number of school leavers registered at careers offices from 1,745 in July 1976, to 346 in January of this year. But, of course, we have to try our damnedest to find opportunities for those 346—and the other 2,331 young people under the age of 20 who are unemployed.
  Already, young people in Hull have benefited from our special measures. The Recruitment Subsidy for School Leavers

  673
  Scheme, when in operation, helped 373. Now we are assisting youngsters who have been unemployed for six months or more through the Youth Employment Subsidy Scheme, which gives those who employ them £10 a week for 26 weeks.
  No enough employers have taken advantage of that scheme—only about 150 youngsters have been helped in Hull—and I hope that many more will do so. Unfortunately, too many employers in Hull, as elsewhere, refuse to give youngsters who have been unemployed a long time a fair chance. We have found this even with work experience, which is a scheme which we introduced to give young people a first-hand knowledge of working life. The Government, who foot the entire bill for work experience, would very much like to see more work experience projects in the Hull area, where only 79 young people have been helped so far. More firms should follow the example of Debenhams, which has provided an opportunity for eight youngsters, and others. We want the Work Experience Scheme to have as much impact in Hull as the Job Creation Programme which we have recently extended.
  Mr. McNamara: On the matter of job creation, can my hon. Friend give any information about the request by Humberside theatres for assistance having been turned down by his Department, when other areas have had help with similar schemes?
  Mr. Golding: I have asked the Manpower Services Commission Job Creation Programme people to deal with that as a matter of urgency.
  To return to the Job Creation Programme, 475 people have been helped by local sponsors, particularly the local authorities. Community Industry, too, has helped young people in Hull with particular difficulties in finding or keeping work. At present, 100 youngsters are engaged in a variety of jobs, such as extensions to buildings of the parish institute, conversions of air-raid shelters into a community centre and helping in a smallholding run by the local authority. We are concerned not only to provide job creation and community industry but to help young people get other training—
  674
  which will assist them to get jobs in the future.
  To supplement the main rapidly expanding TSA and industrial training board programmes, training is also provided at operator, semi-skilled and junior clerical level for unemployed young people who are having difficulty in finding a job. There are 77 places at colleges of further education in Hull, and 90 places with employers.
  Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend say in two minutes what he will do?
  Mr. Golding: Adult training in Hull under the Training Opportunities Scheme has been greatly expanded—about 900 in 1975, with a target for 1977 of 1,400 people trained. The Department of Industry is even now considering an application for development area status for Hull, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry has met representatives from the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council to discuss the case. This matter was also raised when my hon. Friend together with othe Ministers, met representatives from Humberside County Council on 25th January to discuss a number of issues. Some of these issues will obviously also be put again to my hon. Friend when he visits Hull on 4th March to see the problems at first hand.
  The decision on development area status will be made by Ministers at the Department of Industry—and I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for industry—but it will be influenced by the progress of the international negotiations on fishing, and it is still too early to assess the effects of the negotiations on employment in Hull. Even so, Hull already benefits from intermediate area status. Between 1st January 1976 and 30th November, £2 million worth of regional selective financial assistance was offered for 11 projects which are expected to create 217 jobs and save another 1,045. The Government have also allocated seven advance factory units and 10 terraced units to the Hull area, and more land has been and is being acquired for factory building. In 1976, 12 IDCs were approved, involving an extra 360 jobs.
  The Accelerated Projects Scheme is also helping Hull through the construction of

  675
  a major new factory involving many temporary local construction jobs and over 100 new permanent direct jobs, and also through the construction of—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening
  676
  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 past Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Mental Patients (Electoral Registration)
  Mental Patients (Electoral Registration)
  Disabled Persons (Discharge from Hospital)
  Disabled Persons (Discharge from Hospital)
  Community Service Volunteers
  Community Service Volunteers
  Computer Delays (Newcastle)
  Computer Delays (Newcastle)
  Pensions and Supplementary Benefits
  Pensions and Supplementary Benefits
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Disabled Persons (Medical Examination)
  Disabled Persons (Medical Examination)
  Cigarette Advertising
  Cigarette Advertising
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Community Dental Service
  Community Dental Service
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Mr. S. E. Webb (Sickness Benefit)
  Mr. S. E. Webb (Sickness Benefit)
  Births (Devon)
  Births (Devon)
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  National Health Service (Cash Limits)
  National Health Service (Cash Limits)
ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Ordnance Maps
  Ordnance Maps
  Land Acquisition (Compensation)
  Land Acquisition (Compensation)
  Devolution (England)
  Devolution (England)
  Nuclear Power (Flowers Report)
  Nuclear Power (Flowers Report)
  Rents
  Rents
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Rented Accommodation
  Rented Accommodation
  Tenants (Publicly Owned Houses)
  Tenants (Publicly Owned Houses)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Inner London
  Inner London
  Water Supply
  Water Supply
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Houses (Demolition)
  Houses (Demolition)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Rate Arrears
  Rate Arrears
  Radiological Protection
  Radiological Protection
  Rates
  Rates
  Inner City Areas
  Inner City Areas
  New Towns
  New Towns
  London Dockland
  London Dockland
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Housing (Resources Allocation)
  Housing (Resources Allocation)
  Sewerage Charges
  Sewerage Charges
  Local Government (Superannuation Funds)
  Local Government (Superannuation Funds)
  Green Belt Land
  Green Belt Land
  New River Head
  New River Head
  Sewerage (Costs)
  Sewerage (Costs)
  Housing Cost Yardstick
  Housing Cost Yardstick
  Local Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Local Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Polyurethane (Ceilings)
  Polyurethane (Ceilings)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Wellington House Museum, London
  Wellington House Museum, London
  Open University
  Open University
  St. Mary's College, Fenham
  St. Mary's College, Fenham
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Albany Prison
  Albany Prison
  Police (Expenditure)
  Police (Expenditure)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Immigrants Advisory Service
  Immigrants Advisory Service
  Forgery
  Forgery
  "The Cost of Industrial Change"
  "The Cost of Industrial Change"
  Electoral Candidates (Expenses)
  Electoral Candidates (Expenses)
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Royal Review of the Fleet
  Royal Review of the Fleet
  Taxicab Trade
  Taxicab Trade
  Psychiatric Prisoners
  Psychiatric Prisoners
  Winchester Prison Staff (Dog Display)
  Winchester Prison Staff (Dog Display)
  Prison Hospitals
  Prison Hospitals
  OIL RIG WAAGE (DIVERS' DEATHS)
  OIL RIG WAAGE (DIVERS' DEATHS)
  NEWSPAPER PURCHASES (PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE)
  NEWSPAPER PURCHASES (PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Council of Europe
  Council of Europe
  Miss Mary Tyler
  Miss Mary Tyler
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  India
  India
  Independent States (Former British Empire)
  Independent States (Former British Empire)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Health and Safety (Link Keyboard Units)
  Health and Safety (Link Keyboard Units)
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
TRANSPORT
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Routes
  Sheffield-Manchester (Road)
  Sheffield-Manchester (Road)
DEFENCE
  Aircraft (Numbers)
  Aircraft (Numbers)
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Airborne Early Warning Equipment
  Airborne Early Warning Equipment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Land Ownership
  Land Ownership
  Milk Marketing Boards
  Milk Marketing Boards
  European Community Ministers (Meeting)
  European Community Ministers (Meeting)
SCOTLAND
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  M90 (Bridge of Earn-Glenfarg)
  M90 (Bridge of Earn-Glenfarg)
  Special Education
  Special Education
  Disabled Students
  Disabled Students
  Glenrothes
  Glenrothes
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Life Insurance
  Life Insurance
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Expenditure (Wales)
  Public Expenditure (Wales)
  Mortgage Relief (Non-resident Owners)
  Mortgage Relief (Non-resident Owners)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Newspapers (Treasury Purchases)
  Newspapers (Treasury Purchases)
  Charities
  Charities
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Minimum Lending Rate
  British Petroleum
  British Petroleum
  Exchange Equalisation
  Exchange Equalisation
  Coinage (Queen's Silver Jubilee)
  Coinage (Queen's Silver Jubilee)
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
  Coal Miners (Retirement Scheme)
  Coal Miners (Retirement Scheme)
INDUSTRY
  Postal Services
  Postal Services
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Pay (State Businesses)
  Pay (State Businesses)
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Chrysler UK Ltd.
  Chrysler UK Ltd.
TRADE
  Accountants
  Accountants
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Newspapers (Departmental Purchases)
  Defence Sales Organisation
  Defence Sales Organisation
ENERGY
  Electricity (Prepayment Meters)
  Electricity (Prepayment Meters)
  Oil Revenue (Scotland)
  Oil Revenue (Scotland)
  Fuel Consumption
  Fuel Consumption
  Oil Exploration (Hampshire)
  Oil Exploration (Hampshire)
  Chemicals
  Chemicals
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
WALES
  Households
  Households
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Security (Employees)
  Security (Employees)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Force (Total and Distribution)
  Labour Force (Total and Distribution)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Hours of Work
  Hours of Work
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Skelmersdale
  Skelmersdale
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  West Midlands
  West Midlands

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Rothes—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Marquess of Donegall—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

ST. JOHN'S, SMITH SQUARE, APPEAL
Lord SANDFORD: 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 propose to make any response to the current appeal for St. John's, Smith Square.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, the Arts Council of Great Britain administers a Housing the Arts Fund designed to help projects of this kind but its resources are limited and have recently been curtailed. The Council is considering an application from St. John's but cannot yet say whether it will be able to help.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, as far as it goes. But would the noble Lord not agree that in times like these it is important for public money to be used in support of the arts for those causes where a little money will go a long way? I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he could cite one instance from London where a gallery, museum, theatre or concert hall—any example—where more has been done by way of private subscription than in the case of St. John's, and where more would be achieved by the expenditure of a small amount?—in this case something in the order of £60,000.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I do not think I will go into the competition of quoting alternatives. I accept absolutely that the contribution made by St. John's to the London musical world has been considerable and, if I may, I should like to remind noble Lords that every Monday there is an absolutely first-class concert there which noble Lords could do worse than go to if they are so keen to help St. John's.
We have had to curtail capital expenditure in order to maintain current expenditure, and I think that has been the right decision. I cannot make any promises about what may be expected from the Arts Council, which has a very tight capital budget; but I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that St. John's has made a major contribution, and continues to do so. It would be tragic if, for one reason or another, it failed to become entirely capital effective.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that St. John's will be grateful for that "commercial", and I am grateful to the noble Lord for that acknowledgement of the role of St. John's in the cultural life of the capital city. I am sure that St. John's will look forward to his good offices in dealing with this appeal when the matter is next before the Arts Council.

PERSONAL TAX SYSTEM
2.36 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: 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 intend to simplify the system of personal taxation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCIuskey): My Lords, certain measures of simplification to the personal tax system are already in train. Legislation was included in last year's Finance Bill, and will come into effect in 1979–80, changing the method of giving tax relief for life insurance premiums. The replacement of child tax allowances by child benefit will also make a contribution to simplification when the

1541
phasing out of the tax allowances is completed. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always prepared to consider suggestions for further simplification and will, I am sure, bear this consideration in mind when framing his forthcoming Budget.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I say that I believe all of us would like the Government to go a great deal further? Since 1945, while the Inland Revenue staff has more than doubled from 36,000 to 83,000 and while both major Parties have said on several occasions that they wish to simplify the taxation system, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister whether he does not agree that it really gets more complicated every year? Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the taxation system in this country is much more complicated than in Europe and the United States? Does he also agree that a Royal Commission, set up to simplify the system of taxation, would command widespread and heartfelt support?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, on the first point, the system is indeed complicated. That complication derives from the fact that if one goes for simplicity one tends to lose fairness. A judgment on the American system recently given to the Public Accounts Committee in this country was to the effect that the American system, albeit simpler, appeared in fact to be less fair than ours as between individuals. With regard to a Royal Commission, as the noble Lord will know a Royal Commission sat under Lord Justice Cohen and reported 20 years ago. It looked into this matter and, on the second branch, it considered the question of tax avoidance and said that the Commission did not favour a departure from the present system of detailed legislative control imposed against the various forms of tax avoidance thought to be obnoxious. It recommended the retention of the existing machinery. So long as one has this game of intellectual leapfrog between, on the one hand, accountants and, on the other hand, Inland Revenue officials, one will have a complicated system.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, without in any way seeking to ask the noble Lord to anticipate
1542
the Budget, and without in any way underestimating the initial expense of such a scheme, is not the clue to this matter the reduction to a single system of the system of social benefits and taxation on the lines of the tax credit scheme, the details of which are very well known to the Government?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will recall that proposals for a tax credit system, about which he speaks, were contained first in the Green Paper published in October 1972. That system was one which the authors of the foreword, who signed their names as Anthony Barber and Keith Joseph, envisaged might come into effect some five years after Parliament gave its approval. That is necessarily a long-term measure, and the Government have also calculated that for a system of this kind the cost per year would be some £5,000 million. If that cost is to be made up, it would have to be either by an increase in the basic or standard rate, by increasing value added tax or by some other system. The Government are not prepared to move towards that at the present time.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the leapfrogging of the accountants and the tax inspectors, to which he rightly referred, is a terrible dissipation of national effort, and that if some way of simplifying the taxation system were found this would give far more encouragement to individuals to give of their best, rather then try to avoid the existing system?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes, my Lords.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, whatever general principles of direct taxation be adopted in the future, the system will be simplified only if direct ministerial orders are given to the Inland Revenue to simplify? Would he also not agree that any attempts at simplification which may have been made by successive Ministries have been incidental? Simplification, as such, has not hitherto been the direct target of any administrative activity.
Lord McCLUSKEY: With respect, my Lords, I think that that is unfair to the previous Government. I should

1543
have thought that, whatever else it was, the proposal for a tax credit system was an attempt to simplify the system. It may not have been an attempt which met with the approval of the then Opposition members of the Select Committee, but it was an attempt; and Treasury officials are well aware, at the behest of Ministers of both Governments, that it is desirable to simplify the system.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord not aware that the two examples he gave in his original Answer were so insignificant as to be proof that no real effort has been made to bring about this vital simplification? Unless some of the complexities are removed, we are not going to get the industrial harmony and co-operation upon which at the end of the day the very strength of this country will depend.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Lord. It is thought that the child benefit change will reduce the number of staff by 1,500, and the other measure which I spoke of is expected to reduce the number of staff by 1,000. I do not regard these as trivial benefits.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, would the Minister agree that he made a slip of the tongue in referring to Treasury officials being sufficiently aware of this? My question was directed to the activities of the Department of Inland Revenue which, constitutionally, is a separate Department although reporting to the same Chancellor.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes, my Lords; I will accept that correction from the noble Lord.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has an expert committee examining this matter and has been engaged in this for the past two and a half years, and will he give due weight to its findings when its report is received?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am certain that my right honourable friend is aware of the work of this committee and will give due weight to its findings when they are received.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, are the Government really aware of the enormous cost of collecting the taxes, not merely that incurred by the Department of Inland Revenue, not merely the enormous fees sometimes paid to accountants, but in the immense complexity with which ordinary people have to struggle, which often takes them away from what should be their proper function of creating wealth, for the purely administrative purpose of coping with the incomprehensible taxation system with which we have to contend? Is he further aware of the fact that although a major effort was made to simplify the taxation system in 1972, in the last four years almost all of the complexities which were then removed have been reinserted by successive Governments and successive Administrations?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, as to the cost of collection, the cost to central Government is less than 2 per cent, of the yield. One recognises that there is a cost, which one cannot readily calculate, to individuals both in terms of outlay and in terms of the complication of forms. But given the system which one has to have in order to meet the risk of unfairness, and to reduce tax avoidance, I am afraid that the complications of forms and the like simply reflect the sophistication of the system.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the last time the Labour Government——
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think your Lordships will have observed that the clock was not on for the first three or four minutes, and we have therefore had quite a long time on the first two Questions. We have two more to come, and a Statement, and something like 47 speakers for the rest of the day.

FISHING CONTROLS
2.46 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in negotiations for the licensing

1545
of Community fishing vessels, they will seek different standards for ships which catch fish for fodder and fertiliser from those which catch fish for human consumption.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are no plans at present for the licensing of Community fishing vessels. We do, however, recognise the need to protect human consumption stocks from damage that can be done by indiscriminate industrial fishing: conservation measures we hope to take shortly will improve control over industrial fisheries.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that agreement was reached with the Danes only last night with respect to some of these conservation measures, and is he also aware that I am very glad that that has happened? Is he further aware that there is considerable admiration for the tenacious way in which the Government have negotiated these conservation measures, and would he not agree that it is necessary to maintain discriminatory standards of this kind for the health of the whole Community fishing industry?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. I absolutely agree with my noble friend and I will pass on his kind remarks to my honourable friend who has conducted the negotiations. The House may be interested to know that the Community agreed yesterday on a Council regulation which makes valuable progress towards what we need. North Sea herring fishing will be banned until the end of March, and by then the Council will decide whether to continue the ban; the closed area for Norway pout has been agreed as the United Kingdom wished, and the by-catch limit will be reduced from 25 to 20 per cent, for the rest of the year. Although no decision has yet been reached on the carrying of different size nets, proposals will be made to the Council on this point by the middle of March.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, when a licensing system is introduced, will the Government seriously consider making this distinction between fishing for human consumption and industrial fishing?—because industrial fishing can so seriously damage our
1546
fishing grounds. It works on the principle: if it moves, scoop it. May I, on behalf of myself and my colleagues on the Front Bench here, say that the agreement on Norway pout is welcome, because, although that is a fish which is not of much interest to this country, it is a prime example of a fish which is caught by other countries for industrial purposes, and in the course of catching that fish our own young fish for edible consumption are seriously damaged.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and I absolutely agree with what he said about industrial fishing. The agreement concluded yesterday with the Community is, of course, a first step, but we are also looking with our partners in the Community at the whole question of factory ships and whether there should be restrictions on their use.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, in these recent discussions may I ask the noble Lord what consideration was given to inshore fishing? I have particularly in mind the methods being used, with heavy beams and what are called tickler chains, to catch very large numbers of flat fish inshore which, if persisted with, could do immense damage so far as conservation around our shores is concerned.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the question of mackerel and other species of fish is being discussed at present with the Community and we hope that agreement on quotas will be reached.

FISHERIES REGULATIONS INFRINGEMENTS
2.50 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many infringements of fishing rules and agreements by the vessels of non-EEC countries have been reported by the Fisheries Protection Squadron since 1st January 1977; and what action has been taken thereon.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, United Kingdom protection vessels have detected two apparent infringements by non-EEC vessels of United Kingdom fisheries regulations since 1st January. One infringement involved illegal fishing by a Faroese vessel within the old 12 miles fishery limit. The skipper was prosecuted and fined £20,000. In the second case, a Faroese vessel was found between our old 12 miles limit and our new 200 miles limit carrying nets which appeared to contravene our Fishing Nets (North East Atlantic) Order 1976. The vessel was warned and the incident reported to the Faroese authorities.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my Question referred to non-EEC countries and that there has been considerable perturbation about fishing by Russian vessels? Is my noble friend able to say what, if anything, can be done about ensuring that third country fishermen know what the rules are? Furthermore, can the Government work out a more rapid way than apparently they have been able to do so far of arriving at decisions about the action to be taken over fishing infringements?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with regard to the Eastern bloc countries, licences and quota agreements have been arranged with Poland and the German Democratic Republic. With regard to the Soviet Union, the Council of Ministers, under the acting chairmanship of my right honourable friend Dr. David Owen, is meeting the Soviet Government today to discuss regulations and quotas. With regard to infringement, there have been 21 apparent infringements detected within British fishery limits by both EEC and non-EEC countries, but most of these concern the contravention of the nets orders.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, when a fine is levied, is the ship detained until the fine is paid and, if not, should it not be detained?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it depends on the circumstances, but of course it can be detained under the Act. There was a case recently, I am afraid, at Lerwick where the ship was not detained. This was a mistake on the part of the local authority and the law has been brought to their attention.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, can the Minister say how many fishery protection vessels are available at one time for policing duties, and whether they have to double up to protect the oil rigs in the North Sea?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the 11 vessels of the Fisheries Protection Squadron continue to be available in coastal waters. So do the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Scotland protection vessels, which number six. Three of these vessels operate out to 200 miles. In addition, Nimrods have been providing aerial surveillance. The Royal Naval vessels have been deployed on protection out to 200 miles and, if need be, additional naval resources can be called on.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the captains of Her Majesty's ships which are on fishery patrol will have full authority to make arrests of ships infringing the regulations, without reference back to Whitehall?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, under Section 8 of the Fisheries Act 1968, a British sea fisheries officer is empowered to take a foreign fishing vessel which he suspects of a contravention to the nearest port and there to detain the vessel and the crew until the completion of legal proceedings. Of course, under the Fisheries Act 1976 this power was extended to 200 miles.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, of the 21 infringements which the noble Lord said occurred, can he say how many were by Russian vessels?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not think that there were any. There was one for illegal fishing—which was, as I said, the Faroese vessel—and there were 20 contravention of nets orders divided up among the Faroese, the French, the Belgians and the Danes.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while it is reasonable that there should be a period of grace after 1st January, is the noble Lord aware that a very large number of Soviet vessels has

1549
been fishing around our coasts for the past year or two in the knowledge that our fishery limits would be going out to 200 miles? So far as the Soviet Union is concerned, will the noble Lord consider that it might be wise for countries to approach the Soviet Union individually, rather than to provoke the question whether the EEC is recognised by the Soviet Union as an international entity for enforcement purposes?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, certainly I will take note of what the noble Lord has said. This is one of the questions which is being discussed at present.
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he omitted to answer one part of my question, which was whether any of these fishery protection vessels have to double up for protection of the oil rigs?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, of course they do not double up; I cannot see a vessel doubling up. However, some of their responsibility does include the protection of oil rigs, the expense of which is spread among that Department and the others.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while accepting that under the Statutes the captains of fishery protection vessels have the power to arrest, can the noble Lord give us any indication of the general instructions which have been given to the captains of vessels about giving a warning before arrest, and in what circumstances they are at present exercising those powers and are encouraged to exercise them?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not think that it would be helpful to make public the detailed instructions under which our protection forces are working.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will repeat a Statement on Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball.
SOCIAL SECURITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

INTEGRATION OF THE DISABLED
2.58 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS Baroness PHILLIPS rose to call attention to the Snowdon Working Party Report on the Integration of the Disabled; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I will try to set the pattern so that all our speeches will be contained within the time allowed for a short debate. Therefore, I will spread what I hope is the canvas upon which other noble Lords will make their contributions from their own knowledge and experience.
The Working Party on the Integration of the Disabled was set up in October 1974 and reported in 1976. There were seven sub-committees, which met 84 times. They heard evidence from over 100 individuals, while 181 organisations and 300 people submitted written evidence. It was a very exciting and rewarding experience for those of us who were privileged to take part. While it is always delicate to single out any individual for praise, particularly if they are, in the old family expression, present, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, for his inspiration, his compassion and his eminently practical approach. It is significant that this was called a Working Party and not a Royal Commission. It therefore reported in well under the time that it was expected to take. I should like to pay tribute also to the Director of the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases, Duncan Guthrie, and to the tireless and kindly editor of the report, Rosemary Thorpe Tracey, who acted as secretary, guide, mentor and friend to all seven subcommittees. What a task! And she always produced the minutes on time.
Our brief was quite straightforward:
"To consider the areas in which disabled people are not fully integrated with the rest of society, to examine the reasons for this lack of integrations

1551
and to consider ways in which, in the different areas, the situation can be rectified so that the disabled person may, so far as his personal disabilities allow, have equal opportunities and appropriate facilities as his non-disabled fellows, and to make recommendations."
The report says that integration for the disabled means a thousand things. I will name only three: the absence of segregation, social acceptance and being able to be treated like everybody else. All societies throughout history have had an accepted norm. These tend to change from century to century and from society to society, but the Establishment always seems to encourage the idea that anyone outside that group, for whatever reason, does not quite fit in. So the segregation begins. In the cinema the disabled have to occupy a group of separate seats. We were told that although their seats were separate at the National Theatre, they did have a free programme. I was rather impolite and suggested that they need a free programme like a hole in the head; what they need is the ability to be able to enjoy the performance with an able-bodied friend. Then, in preventing the blind girl from taking part in the normal activities of the jumble sale— "You can't do the washing up ", they said. Or the suggestion that a woman should not use a public house because it might upset other patrons. These are not extreme examples: these are drawn from letters and from evidence submitted to our committees.
My own sub-committee was concerned with public buildings and housing, and I was particularly fortunate in having on the sub-committee a very intelligent and articulate young man—a professional—who was in fact in a wheelchair, and he was therefore our statutory consumer. He was able to make first-hand comments on whether doors were wide enough, whether the lifts were in the right place, whether there was a lavatory available, and so on. Having in my own life had the experience of watching my husband cope after paralysis of his right hand and leg, I realised again in the collection of evidence, as I had done previously, how many of the facilities which make life easier for the handicapped person are also quite suitable for use by the non-disabled person; they are not expensive and they are not inconvenient. For example, wider doors, wider passages in a house; double balustrades for the stairs, ramps
1552
instead of steps, handles on the bath I make this point because the suggestion made when discussing housing for the disabled always seemed to be that it would be expensive if it then had to be converted for those who were not disabled. This is not so. If you are not disabled you can quite easily get some use from the equipment that would be in such a home.
The evidence from those who live in the specially adapted housing repeated over and over again that they did not wish to be set apart from the rest of the community. "We stick out like a sore thumb", said one woman sadly. Our researches revealed a very disappointing record in the new towns in relation to the percentage of mobility type dwellings. At that time there were five new towns without any housing provision at all for disabled persons, and no plans to begin consultations.
I have with me a list of the help for disabled persons that has been brought in by Her Majesty's Government since the appointment of the first Minister for the Disabled in 1974. This was in reply to a Question from Sir Harold Wilson on Monday, 24th January. It is an impressive list and I congratulate Her Majesty's Government, but I am sure the Minister will not mind my asking a few questions about this. Can I, for instance, have some up-to-date information on the new town directive in relation to housing for the disabled in the expanding towns? Can I have a little more information about—to quote the list:
"Pressure on public and other institutions to improve access and services"?
I cannot see any reference in this list to housing the disabled or the actions taken, unless it comes under one particular statement, beloved of Governments:
"Wide-ranging and detailed consultations on the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act have taken place".
I hope that we shall hear something under that heading about the discussion on housing for the disabled in the new towns.
There still seems to be a desperate need for a real review of public building provisions. Recently, I was at a university in the Midlands, and in the middle of the meeting I was approached by a delegate in a wheelchair. She informed me that there were no lavatories on that level that

1553
she could use, nor indeed were there any that she could use without in some way having to be taken upstairs. This was in a relatively new university. When we visited the National Theatre we saw that, at any rate in one theatre, one would need to go up 13 steps or down 14 steps in order to get some refreshment. It is not enough to say that the refreshments would be brought to this lady. I should like to emphasise that integration means just that—that you are with your able-bodied friends.
May I refer those of your Lordships who have been lucky enough to get one, to the report—and I am afraid I cannot compliment British Rail on taking 13 days to deliver the reports from Redhill to the Palace of Westminster; I can only assume that they were using camels. The result is that many of your Lordships have not in fact had the report. I am sad about that, but I would refer your Lordships to the back of the report, to the graphs on accessibility to publicly and privately-owned buildings. With the exception of educational establishments the odds are against disabled persons finding it possible to enter a building.
One returns so many times to simple requests. They say: "Let us have some ramps at intersections". "Let us have ramps at the pavements". If any of your Lordships have ever pushed a pram—and you do not have to be disabled to do that—you will know how lovely it would be to have a few ramps. These are not going to be expensive or difficult. One returns to the simple question: Can we have at least one entrance without steps to every major building? We hear about brand new shopping areas with adjacent sports centres and libraries, but with no access to the reference library or to the lecture room except by being bumped up three flights of stairs.
As I indicated at the beginning of my introduction I do not intend to cover the seven sections, but I wish briefly to refer to education. In the education section of the report, we referred to the fact that various forms of special provision for the children who are disabled at the moment lie between the special school on the one hand, and the ordinary school with no extra help on the other. But I think there is no question of the great value of integration at this level. Here is the
1554
child's first opportunity to be part of the community.
Your Lordships will remember, I hope with pride, and will take credit for, the clauses included in the 1976 Education Act which were instrumental in bringing about the law that in future the handicapped child should be integrated in the ordinary school. I intend to refer those of my enthusiastic Left-Wing friends in the Labour Party who talk about the House of Lords, to some of the Acts that have been formulated in this House. If a referendum were taken of the general populace, I think it would be very interesting to see which House they would like abolished.
My Lords, the Minister of Education in her speech recently referred to this, and in her circular she refers to the fact that in the House of Lords special concern was expressed on the question of the disabled child being integrated into the ordinary school. Her directive is excellent; her speech is excellent. I am only just a little concerned when she says at the end:
"I wish to await the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into the Education of the Handicapped."
—the famous Warnock Report. My Lords, I would only enter one plea. Need we wait for Warnock, and why?
On transport, I would merely say that I have only seen the London Transport's attempt to reserve seats in the buses and Underground, especially for the disabled, for the elderly, for those with children. I was in a London Underground train the other day with my daughter-in-law and two-year old twins, and was somewhat horrified to see those seats occupied by large, youthful and apparently deaf youths who could not read the notice, who did not like my somewhat un-Peerlike comments. I can only hope that we will be able to insist that if the transport system attempts to assist the disabled at least the general public will have the courtesy to recognise that facility when it is there. I understand the Minister has news of "goodies" for the disabled in her brief. So perhaps she will tell us a little more about the liaison with voluntary bodies, better cooperation of Government Departments, the new edition of the booklet for handicapped people, how many, who receives them, and if they have not got them now whether they are likely to get them soon.
My Lords, in the report we are told, in the very touching words of the introduction, that we are all somewhere on the same scale of human disability. I shall return to this report again and again, because we all know it needs a long process of education and imaginative legislation before there is real integration. When people know about other people they do begin to understand and care. I should like to pay a tribute to the media, who, I think, do a marvellous job in this connection. Successful integration depends, as one of our folk who came before the Committee said, on all aspects of good will towards all people. My Lords, this report needs action on all fronts. On a personal level, I should like to remind Her Majesty's Government that so far as I am concerned time is running out. I have not got, in the words of the old song, time for the waiting game. I beg to move for Papers.
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of SNOWDON: My Lords, I am deeply honoured and grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her extremely kind personal remarks. I wish I could believe that the Press, television, radio, the Prime Minister himself, and I suppose the public, who last weekend were all spending so much time, money and energy, rightly and naturally, to bring about the rescue of 917 marooned cattle, could bring themselves to give half as much attention to the permanent human tragedy with which we are concerned today. There are now over 3 million disabled people in this country.
I want to stress that, although I had the great honour of being connected with the report Integrating the Disabled, it is those who spent two years of their valuable free time serving on the various committees who need to be congratulated and thanked. They were as varied a group as possible, from MPs of different political beliefs, doctors, academics, journalists, impressarios from the world of entertainment, experts in commerce, representatives of the Church, plus an important few enlightened lay people. They had only one thing in common—they cared. They cared for the plight of the many thousands of the less fortunate in
1556
our community who are disabled in one way or another, who have been in the past, and are to a lesser extent today, treated as second-class citizens with unequal opportunities, be it to do with education, employment, housing, economics, transport, entertainment, or just with life itself. When the Working Party completed its brief, in the allotted time, a great many of the problems had been identified and isolated, the economic and the financial, the psychological and the physical, the administrative and the social. A large number of recommendations were made, all with a view to ensuring greater growing acceptance of the idea that disabled people of every income level have a useful and important role to play in the life of our society, in every aspect.
My Lords, there was one problem whose size we underestimated. It is the problem of public and private inertia, when the country is faced with a new demand upon its time and patience, not to say on its compassion and indeed on its pocket. That inertia extends from the private individual to the local authorities responsible for houses, schools and public buildings, to the owners of theatres, places of entertainment, restaurants, stores, supermarkets and every other enterprise in the private sector; to the professionals, especially the architects, the engineers and designers who plan (sadly, so often with too little research, thought and ingenuity) right on to the civil servants and to Government themselves, not forgetting on the way those who combine the great qualities of charity with inadequate understanding of how it should be dispensed.
We were not calling for a great shift in the application of public resources. Indeed, many of the recommendations would in the long term actually save money rather than cost more. Beyond that, we would be happy enough if these times when so little money is available were used to research and plan for the day when we can afford what we do need. The report is in print, but its existence alone is far from enough. It must be read, studied, publicised, discussed, and, if necessary, criticised, not just by the few enlightened people who are already involved and concerned but by the decision and policymakers of every organisation, both in the private and public sector, to be on their desks, not to gather dust but to be referred to, both at the design stage of every new

1557
project and as a constant check that existing laws and regulations give enough concern and thought to the problems of the disabled. In short, to make them continually awake to the problems that have been overlooked for far too long, awake to the necessity in the name of common humanity to understand and perpetually to go on being aware that there are not just a handful but many hundreds of thousands among us who cannot cope on their own with a world designed for the so-called able-bodied.
Perhaps it is not easy for someone without a severe disability, or who does not have to take personal responsibility for a handicapped parent, child or relation, to see the world through other eyes—to imagine what it is like to be unable to use existing public transport, to be excluded from certain public places on the ground of being a fire hazard, to have one's guide dog confiscated, to be fobbed off with an inadequate mobility allowance as an alternative to a lethal three-wheeler travelling in totally unacceptable isolation, to be unable to enjoy all the amenities of our new National Theatre or to be forbidden entry to stores during the January sales; indeed, to be segregated, categorised or institutionalised; herded apart from friends, contemporaries and the ordinary run of human beings with whom one craves to be identified and blend with anonymously.
However, let us remember that none of us is, or will remain, physically perfect. Who does not wear spectacles or is not slightly deaf or slightly lame? Who does not have muscular, respiratory or circulatory problems with which he or she must live? Which athlete or even Olympic medallist, fit as a fiddle at the time, does not suffer from arthritis and other agonies in old age. Fortunately, it is exactly these great athletes, with no axe to grind, who have set an example and done so much to draw attention to the problems of the disabled.
Sadly, everyone is or may be disabled in one way or another. It is just a matter of degree as to whether or not one is able to cope. It is then that money and privilege help a great deal. It should not be too hard for us to envisage what life would be like if our disability were of such a degree that we could no longer manage alone and yet could not afford the alternatives.
1558
How do we translate this private compassion into public action? It is not easy. Yet it is all too easy by contrast to suppose that enough progress is being made. That little symbol depicting an invalid in a wheelchair is familiar to us all and has helped a great deal. With a few notorious exceptions, new public places are equipped with ramps and rest rooms for the wheelchair user. I am glad to say that tourist boards, led by the Welsh, have published booklets to help inform the disabled. That is excellent and fundamental, but there is a great deal more to integration than that. Merely the spread of that symbol must not lead us to suppose that progress at the moment is much more than skin deep.
Let us consider education. Disabled children are still being unnecessarily excluded from most schools where their presence would enhance both their own lives and those of other students. I turn to consider mobility. Appeals to two successive Ombudsmen have been entirely abortive—for reasons which are still unexplained—and the Department of Health's indefensible policy still holds of refusing to replace those unacceptable invalid tricycles with safe vehicles which would ensure that the disabled could at least be on equal terms of survival as the rest of us in getting to work.
Let us consider employment. The disabled are still pushed to the back of the queue and then frequently given only menial tasks to perform—insulting both their intellect and demeaning their self-esteem. I turn to consider housing. Over a quarter of a million people in Britain are housebound and the disabled are often not even identified on the waiting lists. I beg with the utmost humility to draw attention to the report and request that this House continues to ask what is being done about it until that question no longer demands an answer.
3.26 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, your Lordships' House is indeed fortunate in having the opportunity given to it this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to discuss the report of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon. I have had great pleasure in reading this report. Your Lordships will be only too well aware of the emotions that usually pass through

1559
us when we are presented with a report and very often we suffer an inward groan, of, "Oh, another".
In this case the report is not only admirably laid out but compulsive reading. Your Lordships would have expected the noble Earl to produce something that is graphically satisfying to look at. The very Trajan lettering on the cover is an admirable choice and the symbol of the foot gives a very good introduction to anyone who has no particular connection with this area in seeking further. In the admirable foreword to the report the noble Earl has given very lucid and practical reasons why we should investigate this whole subject further. Indeed, today he said that public inertia was wholly underestimated. This sentiment is, of course, reflected throughout the report but perhaps nowhere more keenly than in Chapter V on page 46 where it says:
"We found that the lack of awareness by the general public of the problems of the disabled is one of the fundamental reasons why progress…has been so slow."
The noble Earl referred to problems which have been identified in the report. It was the aim of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to cast a duty on local authorities to identify the disabled themselves. Once those two are combined we may perhaps make a little more progress. However, it is a matter of regret that local authorities have been unable to make as much progress in this particular area as we should have liked.
In examining the report this afternoon it would be helpful to look at the 96 recommendations which the committee have set before us. Perhaps in her reply the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, could tell us the Government's plans for implementing those recommendations and the scale of priorities which they have in mind from reading the seven chapters and the seven very clear sets of recommendations set out in each chapter. Chapter 3 concerns itself with housing and there is one matter which should command our attention straight away. Paragraph 20 spells out very clear views on what should be done. It says that the immediate priorities should be, first:
"To establish the extent of the demand for new Part III accommodation".
1560
Secondly,
"To establish what further provisions are needed in the form of domiciliary care".
Thirdly,
"To develop a real choice of life style"
combining housing with social services. Existing legislation has been found to be defective and surely nowhere can the report be more suitable applied than to Parliament.
In examining the shortcomings in previous legislation can we not take a look at two Acts which were specifically referred to in the report. First, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The report suggests an amendment to Section 30, and not only do the Working Party suggest an amendment to Section 30 but they set out exactly what they would like carried out. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she believes that this particular amendment would be acceptable to the Government.
Secondly, to pass from the planning aspect, I should like to turn to the General Rate Act 1967. Here a recommendation was made because of a decision of your Lordships' House acting in its Judicial capacity in the case of Vandyk v Oliver. This is quite a recent judgment concerning the question of rating relief upon what are termed major adaptations in a house for a disabled person. In this particular case your Lordships' House, in its Judicial capacity, made a recommendation which was harmful to the disabled persons concerned, but, further, the state of the law is now impaired. I draw your Lordships' attention to what the report says here because it may be possible to remedy the situation comparatively easily. It states:
"We therefore urge Parliament to clarify the position and establish in law those concessions which, prior to the House of Lords' ruling, had been deemed to exist."
We must stand here in a situation in which a Statute has once again been found to be defective. There is a lesson here, because only a matter of a few months ago, in the last Session, we had another cause to return to the General Rate Act 1967 where the question of rating of charity shops had also led to a judgment in your Lordships' House. This was resolved by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and all-Party agreement. The lesson is surely this. Where there is a situation on which all-Party agreement can be achieved, would

1561
it not be much better for the Government to consider as a matter of urgency a small measure remedying the situation? I am certain, as I believe the noble Baroness is all too well aware, that professional advice in the matter of rating will be this: wait for Layfield; wait for the long-awaited Bill in regard to rating, and in due course all these many matters will be put right. I do not believe that the authors of the Report we are discussing this afternoon would feel that that was the answer at all. I believe that small amending legislation, such as the Charity Shops Rating Act of last year, can put right a situation which has arisen.
I turn to the numbers of disabled, to which both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have referred. One of the fundamental documents in this regard is the Amelia Harris and Judith Buckle study entitled Handicapped and Impaired in Gt. Britain, which was written in 1971. Here they quote a figure of no fewer than 3 million people. One must also remember that over and above this figure there is quite a large grey zone in the population of people who are not actually handicapped but are on the fringes of disability, who are suffering from such complaints as severe arthritis which are not actually classed as disablement. Those people in that particular category could say with Mark Twain, "The world is sick, and I am far from well." I believe that public recognition must stem from a recognition of how many there are among our fellow citizens who suffer from some form of disability. It is only when this message has reached both Whitehall and the town halls that we shall make progress.
The noble Earl referred in some detail to the question of mobility and the question of the appeals to the Ombudsman in regard to invalid tricycles. There may be some crumb of comfort in reading in The Times of today that the car loan plan for the disabled is now being discussed by Ministers. This is indeed relatively good news if intention is carried a little further, because of course last July the Government said that in their view the tricycle, after consideration, was in fact an unsafe vehicle, but they were going to replace it with a mobility allowance.
This is a real step forward if the Government are now considering a new scheme, suggested by the Central Council for the Disabled and other bodies, which might
1562
take its place. The scheme would be, as we understand it, a four-wheeler vehicle, which would be a current production model suitably adapted for the disabled person. It would involve the commuting of the disabled person's mobility allowance for a period of about seven-and-a-half years. Here is a really ingenious idea, and if Ministers are presently discussing this scheme for four-wheelers which, from our knowledge and reading of the Sharp Report are so clearly to be preferred to the three-wheelers, some progress may be made in the near future. I hope that the noble Baroness, in her reply, may be able to make some comment about the present discussions taking place. It is further a matter of comment that in the present issue of today's Motor magazine there is an article by Mr. Peter MacBryan, of the Invalid Tricycle Action Group which so wholeheartedly condemns both Ministers and the Ombudsman for neglect of duty in this regard, that I hope that the combination of the spur of this debate in your Lordship's House and the condemnation in the Motor magazine may have some desirable effect on Her Majesty's Government.
I turn finally to the Silver Jubilee Appeal. Once again it is a matter of considerable pleasure that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has decided that the first claim on the fund should be one of three purposes. The first of all, of course, is to enable young people to work together in helping others of all ages; secondly, to assist with grants as soon as possible specific youth projects in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Many of your Lordships are in enthusiastic support of a body known as PHAB—the physically handicapped and Able Bodied Group. It is precisely this type of activity which the Silver Jubilee Appeal aims to support—not this group alone, but perhaps many charities yet to be set up to encourage and carry out recommendations in the report.
I do not believe that any Silver Jubilee Appeal could possibly be more timely or more suitable when combined with this report before us. But we must remember—and I hope that the noble Baroness will remember—that this is not intended to let the Treasury off the hook, because of course the fundamental issue raised by the noble Baroness closely touches upon the question of income. I should finally

1563
like to make this point in regard to the invalidity pension because I believe it to be quite fundamental. Perhaps it should be addressed particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. If one may take one particular person in this whole field—the wife of somebody chronically sick or disabled who is hit by the earnings rule—she is hit by two forms of taxation. First, if she is over 60 her pension is reduced and, secondly, she pays income tax on her earnings above £35. Unfortunately, the change in the threshold will not take place for some time. It had been hoped it would be done in April, but we now understand that there is a delay of a number of weeks until the autumn, when the threshold may be raised to £50. Invalidity pensions and the earnings rule are fundamental to this whole field, and I hope that the Government will take note of our earnest plea in this regard.

MR. AGEE AND MR. HOSENBALL: DEPORTATIONS
3.41 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I will, with permission, repeat a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will recall the Statement that I made on 18th November last in which I said that I proposed, under the powers vested in the Home Secretary by the Immigration Act 1971, to make deportation orders against Mr. Philip Agee and Mr. Mark Hosenball, whose departure from the United Kingdom I had concluded was conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security.
"I explained to the House the non-statutory procedure under which Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball could make representations to an independent panel whose advice I would take into account before coming to a final decision.
"Both Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball elected to make representations to the panel. I have now received and
1564
considered its advice in both cases. I have also considered the various representations that have been made to me by Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball themselves, their advisers, right honourable and honourable Members, and members of the public. I have reached the clear conclusion that in both cases my original decision must stand. I have therefore made a deportation order against each man.
"These orders will now be served on them together with notices of restriction requiring them to report weekly to the police. Before directions for removal are given stating the destination, which would normally be their own country, the United States of America, I am prepared to consider, in respect of either of them, specifying another country of their choice provided they can show by the beginning of next month that the country would be prepared to accept them. This is without prejudice to their statutory right of appeal against the destination finally named".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating that Statement. Speaking for myself, I think I would have criticised the Home Secretary if he had yielded to pressure in this matter, and I feel therefore that the only honourable course I can take now is to say that I support him in not having yielded to pressure in this matter, and I feel sure he has done right. Decisions of this kind are among the most difficult and contentious which Home Secretaries have to take and one can only sympathise with them in the rather isolated and lonely consideration of them which they must make, following their conscience in each case.
Residence in this country by aliens is not an absolute right; it is a privilege, and a Home Secretary in exercising his power must not only be liberal but be swayed wholeheartedly by the interest of this country, and by nothing else if that interest is involved. I notice that a self-appointed expert from the United States described this proceeding as "lawless"; I think he should be better acquainted

1565
with the law than to make such a criticism. The Home Secretary's discretion in these matters is not a judicial exercise of discretion but an administrative and political function and his advisers are there to advise him in accordance with those considerations and not with judicial procedures. I would advise this self-constituted expert to examine the immigration laws of the United States to see if he cannot find precedents for the Home Secretary's action there.
3.45 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating that Statement, which brought back to me echoes of the case of Mr. Rudi Dutschke, who some years ago was charged in rather similar circumstances. He was dealt with in a public trial before a panel of five distinguished gentlemen. The proceedings were entirely in order, except for the fact that on one day Mr. Dutschke and his solicitors, and I as his legal adviser, and the Press and the public were all excluded from the court while information was given of which to this day none of us has any knowledge. As a result, although it was done with the best will in the world, that procedure was widely felt to be a farce. I cannot help thinking that on this occasion we have repeated the farce under a slightly different guise.
Would the noble Lord, Lord Harris, accept that if a foreign national is alleged to have broken the criminal law of this country, it is right that he should be tried in the criminal courts in the ordinary way, bearing in mind the fact that the courts have power to sit in camera? Where one has the other situation (as I suspect we do in this case) in which it is said that an alien has misconducted himself to the extent that he should be asked to leave, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that it is often quite impossible to prefer a specific charge and quite impossible to disclose information because that inevitably involves the disclosure of confidential sources? In those circumstances I must reluctantly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that there is really no practicable alternative but to rely on the discretion of the Executive, to rely on the
1566
good faith of the Home Secretary, assisted perhaps by an advisory panel.
Does the noble Lord agree, looking back on it, that nothing is achieved by a pseudo trial of the sort that has taken place on this occasion? It cannot serve to remove any sense of grievance that may perhaps be felt. In these circumstances, will the noble Lord look again at whether this procedure serves any useful purpose and could not be repeated in the future with any value to anybody?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said and particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for his remarks. This is, I accept, a difficult matter. I certainly would not regard it as a farce, nor would I accept that there is necessarily any parallel with the Dutschke case. I would remind the House of what the Home Secretary said about each of these gentlemen on the last occasion. Mr. Agee was informed that the Home Secretary had considered information that he had maintained regular contacts harmful to the security of the United Kingdom with foreign intelligence officers, had been and continued to be involved in disseminating information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom, and had aided and counselled others in obtaining information for publication which could be harmful to the security of the United Kingdom.
In the case of Mr. Hosenball, he was informed that the Home Secretary had considered information that Mr. Hosenball had, while resident in the United Kingdom, in consort with others, sought to obtain and had obtained for publication information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom and that this information had included information prejudicial to the safety of servants of the Crown.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, those seem to me to be grave matters and I would not accept in any respect whatever that this was a farce. Both of these gentlemen had the right to make representations, which they properly exercised, to the panel and the Home Secretary has considered the matter most carefully because of the very difficult issues to which Lord Hailsham drew attention. But on considering the matter

1567
and the gravity of the issues involved, he came to the conclusion that it was right to proceed with deportation.
I would not accept that a foreign national has to be either proceeded against under the Official Secrets Act or left to remain in this country; I do not think that is a reasonable choice to put before us. In my view, the Executive in the final analysis have an absolute right to indicate to people who have been involved in acts such as Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball have been involved in, that their presence in the United Kingdom is no longer conducive to the interests of people in this country; and that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable exercise of Executive power.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that there will be certain groups which will attempt to exploit the fact that these people are being deported, notwithstanding the fact that one of them appears to be a gamekeeper turned poacher and to have written a book about his former employers—with whom he seems to have been quite happy for a long period? Would it not be helpful if the Government gave further information to stop the sort of stories that will go around and the attempts by certain dissident groups to stir up unrest about these deportations?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. Undoubtedly a number of allegations will be made, as they have been made in the past. I believe that the choice for the people of this country is whether they are prepared to accept the word of the Home Secretary. I believe that the overwhelming majority will be prepared to do so.

INTEGRATION OF THE DISABLED
3.52 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like to echo the sentiments of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for initiating this debate this afternoon. I should also like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in congratulating the
1568
noble Earl and all the members of the Working Party who produced the Snowdon Report. I am also happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is to answer for the Government because I am sure that she will do a very good job.
The Snowdon Report reflects the greatest possible credit on everybody connected with it. It describes the steps which the Working Party thinks should be taken on behalf of the disabled in all fields and the ways in which we ourselves can and must enrich the lives of all those who suffer many and varied disabilities, whether through physical or mental illness. Nobody who knows the magnitude of the problem can be anything but impressed by the thoroughness of the report. As a result, some of the things I may say this afternoon are not in any way a criticism of the report, though they may not be too pleasing to some of your Lordships.
I obtained great benefit from reading the report because I am only a comparative newcomer to this field. It is only through the report that I have become aware of many of the problems which the disabled face. In view of the time element, I shall speak about employment, but the entire spectrum of the disabled problem in this country must be kept alive in your Lordships' Chamber until we are satisfied that our society can do no more for these unfortunate people. May that day be not too far distant.
If we really want to help the disabled we must try to balance the report, which states what should be done, against what, in some instances, the Government say is to be done. The then Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the right honourable Harold Walker, stated this policy on 10th December, 1975. No doubt your Lordships will remember that the previous Administration began a survey of the problems of the disabled in 1973 which continued through 1974 and 1975. So the survey was roughly simultaneous with the Snowdon Report.
We in the United Kingdom are short of money, short of modern machinery and short of jobs. The one thing we must not be short of is honesty when considering the hardest hit sector of the community. The Minister stated that in spite of the three-year review it was clear that there was no form of unification that could command

1569
sufficiently widespread support. So the Government decided to retain the present statutory responsibilities, but felt that their policy would best be served by the Manpower Services Commission taking on the responsibility for the disabled from the Department of Employment. I do not want to dwell on this matter, but I wonder how much the transfer, which took place on 1st July last year, cost.
The Government wish to retain the quota scheme. This is still operating as originally set out in the Disabled Employment Act 1944. It was gone into in great detail in the Snowdon Report and the nub of the matter is that all employers with more than 20 staff should employ at least 3 per cent, disabled. This is laid down as law for both public and private sectors, but it does not work. It appears to be one law which is on the Statute Book but which can be ignored by Government Departments and almost in the same degree by the majority of employers. There have been only seven prosecutions in the past 34 years. In fact, the employer with more than 20 staff who is legally obliged to employ 3 per cent. disabled is not breaking the law if he fails to comply with this regulation. This is due to the innumerable difficulties in trying to enforce it. It is rather like squatters: one can squat if one does not make a forcible entry.
Last year, 26 Government Departments out of 29 were below their quota and still are. The Government may well say that the Civil Service is above the law for the Crown cannot sue the Crown. However, there is a small ray of sunshine as successive Ministers have publicly declared that there is a moral responsibility, if not a legal one, for the Civil Service Departments to set an example. This has, however, not caused the Civil Service any inhibitions. In October, 1975, six towns were invaded with additional inspectors at an unknown cost to discover that two small companies—a baker in Middles-brough and a furnishing company in St. Helens—had not abided by the law. The result of the enormous cost of legal fees, travelling expenses and hotels, was two fines of £200 and £50. I am not saying this because it was wrong to prosecute those companies but to underline the fact that during that same period 26 out of 29 Government Departments were morally if not legally ignoring their own responsibilities to the disabled.
1570
The figures for the 19 nationalised industries are all under the 3 per cent. quota and I am afriad that it is the same sad story where local authorities are concerned. Out of 34 councils in the Greater London area, only one—Newham—exceeds the quota. I would suggest that we should try to put our own house in order first. I am given to understand that the Palace of Westminster is sadly below the 3 per cent. I have the figures here. Across the river at the GLC, we have an even worse example to the country, for their figure is 1 per cent. So, taking the country as a whole, it is not surprising that out of 53 county councils in the British Isles only one—Gwent—is above 3 per cent., and that will not be so after devolution.
If I appear to be belabouring this point it is only because the mainspring of the Government's policy is the quota system and it is to that system rather than to the constructive suggestions in the Snowdon Report that the disabled will have to look for their salvation. It is a strange state of affairs when a Government cannot enforce a lawful Act which is ignored at every level. But there is a hidden danger in enforcement, because many disabled people with minor disablements seek to conceal their affliction as they feel that possession of a green card may make it harder rather than easier to obtain employment. What must be avoided is employers ferreting out these people and persuading them to register, so that the employer's 3 per cent. quota will be largely taken up by his existing staff. This was mentioned in another place and the Minister agreed that it would be unhelpful.
However, in view of this statement, perhaps the reality of the situation is not quite as beneficial as the intent. I quote from a general notice from the civil servants dealing with the employment of registered disabled people, which was issued on 15th April 1976:
"Encouraging unregistered disabled people to apply for registration, since only registered disabled people count towards the quota: some of the advantages of registration—eg parking concessions—might be brought to their notice."
Here, we have the true state of affairs. First, in December 1975, Her Majesty's Government state that the quota system, with all its failings, will continue. Secondly, at considerable expense a new Department is created to enforce the

1571
scheme which for the last 34 years has been largely unworkable. Thirdly, an expensive and expansive distribution of documents called A Guide to Employers will be sent to a vast number of people throughout the country in the next month or so, with the hope that the situation will improve. But, my Lords, if a law has been ignored for 34 years, I fail to understand how a guide will be able to implement it. Yet, at the same time, with the quota system, we have behind the scenes some civil servants in some instances doing their utmost to sabotage the possibility of their Departments recruiting any disabled or handicapped people within their own ranks.
I feel strongly that the Government must stamp at once on this unacceptable face of employment, which implies that 350,000 to 400,000 disabled people are second-class citizens. Why do I say 350,000 to 400,000 people? The last monthly unemployment figure for the whole country was just under 1,400,000. The last yearly disabled figure, which was issued last September, was only 77,000 unemployed. But that figure represents the voluntary registrations who have a green card. If the quota system worked, all disabled people would register, but at the moment, so far as one can find out, only about 40 per cent. do. The Civil Service admits to the figure being about 50 per cent., and charitable disabled organisations, such as Outset and Carr's Rehabilitation Agency, say that 60 per cent. do not register.
So by my simple arithmetic, the minimum figure is 150,000 unemployed who are disabled, the majority of whom are physically disabled. There are no figures for the mentally sick. The last figure that I can find in hospital medical records is for 1972 which showed, taking those in hospital and out-patients, a total of half a million mentally sick people. Those are the most up-to-date figures. If we divide that figure by two, or just over two, we find that there are nearly 200,000 people out of work through mental illness. If these figures are totalled, then my figure of 350,000 to 400,000 cannot be very far wrong. If this is so, I hate to think what it is costing the country to keep this vast number of disabled unemployed.
1572
Furthermore, if it is true—and I regret to say that I think it must be—it means that in our country today we are nearing a total of almost 2 million unemployed. I repeat how grateful I am for the report, because I feel that through it we can make a start towards giving an equality of opportunity in the field of employment for the disabled and handicapped, and in that way stop perpetuating the unhappiness of these people.
Finally, may I say that I do not want all the hard work that has gone into the Snowdon Report to end up on a dusty shelf. We have the quota system for the moment, but perhaps with foresight and forethought it might be radically revised. The responsibility of the disabled does not rest on our two Houses; it rests with every adult in our country, and for this reason I put forward an idea that 1978—or, if it could not be done then, 1979—should be made the year for the integration of the disabled. This would mean that trade unions, employers from the CBI, and Churches of all denominations could play their full part in giving their support, because I see this as a social problem and not one of economic challenge. By this method the media—radio, TV, and the newspapers—would be brought in, which in turn would involve every adult in our country.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like briefly to remind noble Lords that this is a short debate, and with all respect I wish to suggest that the remaining speakers should perhaps try to limit their speeches to eight minutes.
4.6 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I will certainly do my best to comply with the noble Lord's request. The Snowdon Report has been widely and rightly welcomed. I found it thorough, comprehensive and constructive; and I can say the same, as we all can, about the noble Earl's speech today. In his Foreword to the report he referred to,
"…a demand, in the name of humanity, for the better and wider understanding at all levels in our society of the emotional and material needs of disabled people."
I thought that that was very well put. As this is no time at which to ask for increased Government expenditure— rather the opposite—it is fortunate that

1573
many of the Snowdon recommendations are about attitudes of mind, and many others will pay for themselves in the long run, both in material terms and of course in social terms, as well as in terms of human happiness.
In my experience most disabled people are completely realistic. They do not want undue discrimination in their favour, any more than they want it against them. In the short time available I should like to touch very briefly on two points: getting our priorities right, and getting the right aid to the right people at the right time; and then say something rather more fully about the great need to put some real teeth into Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
First, with regard to priorities, I see a distinct danger that with the best of intentions we may divert resources in pursuit of the unnecessary or unobtainable and so lose sight of the basic needs and of the soluble problems. Surely our over-riding aim should be as much independence as possible, in the home, at school, at work, or on holiday. The one inalienable right is self-respect. As well as a degree of independence and an opportunity to work, which far too many able-bodied as well as disabled people are deprived of at present, what we refer to as a normal life surely presupposes some outlets that refresh and rejuvenate the spirit. But disabled people are no different from the rest of us in being limited in their choice of recreations, and I respectfully question the wisdom of referring in the report to what are really privileges, as rights. I am looking at page 7. That is perhaps a minor point, but it is one about which I feel strongly. Shortage of money, responsibilities at home or at work, geographical distances, and many other factors determine the scope of all our activities, whether we are fit and well or suffer from some disability. So much for my first point.
Secondly, and equally briefly, with regard to aids, a tremendous amount of research has gone into new materials and techniques. How much of the result of this research actually reaches the patients? I think that the answer is, far too little. Too few doctors and other medical and social workers have enough knowledge of what is or could be made available, or how to set about finding it. As the
1574
report emphasises, there are appalling gaps between urgent need and the provision of equipment. I will much appreciate it if the noble Baroness, when she replies, gives us some idea as to how this gap can be filled.
My third and last point is about access to and within premises open to the public, a matter to which the noble Baroness who opened the debate so efficiently and charmingly has often referred, though I regret that she has not had very much change on this point. This is an extremely unsatisfactory situation, crying out for determined Government action. Attention is drawn to it forcefully in paragraph 57 of Chapter II, and in paragraph 13 of Chapter VI, of the report. Sections 4 and 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 simply must be made mandatory; and the sooner, the better.
The Department of the Environment, when they wrote to me recently about this question, drew my attention to the fact that the planning system is concerned solely with the use of the land and any buildings on it, and not with who uses those buildings. My Lords, I do not need little lectures like that. What are the buildings for if not for the people who use them? The British Standard Code of Practice, as it is called, produced in 1967, is, I am glad to say, being revised—I do not think the revision has yet been completed—but it still will be only a guide to good practice. I think it should be more than that. When the enabling powers of the Health and Safety at Work Act, passed in 1974, are brought into force there is no reason, as I understand it, why the building regulations, which at present cover such things as the safety of materials and structure, fire hazards, hygiene and so on, should not also cover access for disabled people to and within buildings which are public premises. I shall be very grateful indeed if the noble Baroness, when she replies, will confirm that that is the case because, if it is, it is going to be very helpful indeed.
I do not think that to include this question of access for disabled people to buildings would add significantly to building costs. It is, after all, far more costly to adapt or modify buildings if one has failed to get it right in the first place. Nor do I think it is true to say, as has been said, that it will add extra burdens to the

1575
work of local authorities. I see no reason why it should do this, either. My noble friend Lord Sandys drew attention, as the report does, to the need to amend the Town and Country Planning Act—that is in paragraph 26 of Chapter VI of the Snowdon Report—and I think that this, too, ties in with the point I am making. I suspect—this is controversial, and I have no wish to be controversial—that a major obstacle in the way of doing what I am now suggesting and what has been so often suggested before is a lack of cooperation, even some jealousy, between the Departments of the Environment and Health where this question is concerned. I regret to have to say that. If it is true—and I believe it to be true—it is deplorable. There is so much to be done, my Lords. There are even cases—and I could provide the Government with details of them—of new or modernised hospitals (yes, hospitals, my Lords!) where no proper provision is made for disabled patients or disabled visitors to park their cars; and this really is ridiculous.
Everything I have said has been said much better in the Snowdon Report. I hope that this report will not suffer the fate of many other admirable reports which have been praised on all sides and then shelved by successive Governments. We can ensure that this report does not suffer that fate by debating it at regular intervals, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, suggested; and I hope that, in reply, the Government will take the opportunity, not only to give their reactions to the main recommendations but to say with which they agree, on which they are going to act, on which they intend to act, which they are still considering and which they have rejected. The very best token of the Government's good faith would be to publish a Green Paper on integrating the disabled, so that this whole great question can be the subject of widespread, informed debate, resulting in pressures that no Government could resist. In that way, through action, will come genuine advances in our approach to this deeply human question which successive Governments have never tackled energetically enough
4.14 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, first may I apologise to your Lordships for putting down my name to
1576
speak in three debates this afternoon. I would not have done so unless I had thought that these subjects are of the greatest importance. The first two debates complement each other. If we had a better child health service we should not have so many disabled people in our society, and there would not be such a pressing need to continue to educate society to the needs of the disabled today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for introducing this debate, which is well-timed. Because we are faced with cutbacks in expenditure, there is time to think. It does not mean that there is any time for complacency. British people seem to rally at a time of crisis, and I hope that this report will be well read and studied and will help many people to plan for the future.
I have been disabled for 19 years, and I know that, to integrate into society successfully, the greatest needs are to have the correct aid if it is necessary, such as a wheelchair, callipers, dog, spectacles or whatever; to be able to get in and out of one's house, which should be suitable; to be able to get in and out of public buildings, and to be able to use the lavatory; to have transport to leave one's house once one is out of it, and to have enough money to live on. Most important of all is for disabled people themselves to have the will to be part of society. To have this incentive one; must accept the disability and look forward to the things one can do, and not to harp on those things which are not possible. It is attitudes that I should like to speak on today, relating to Chapter IV of the report.
I find there is great interest in this subject. I was asked to speak last night, at the London Medical Group, on the subject "Physical disablement in the community—Do doctors care?" Last week I spoke to a church group in London; next week I am to speak at Southampton University on the subject "Living with the incurable"; in the next few weeks I am due to speak to teachers in Northampton; and so it goes on. There are many people who fear the unknown and who want to understand the problems, and I find this growing concern most encouraging. In the Summary on page 44 of the report, in paragraph 71, it is stressed that the Working Party were
"deeply impressed by the recurrent plea for someone to be identified as the person from whom information could be obtained, who could refer

1577
the disabled person to the expert or experts qualified to deal with specific problems…"
The evidence given by disabled people about professionals was summed up in the words:
"They get this training but they don't really know how you feel."
The report goes on to say that it gives priority to its recommendation that the health visitor be given training to fulfil this role, and that she should function from a resource centre. My Lords, I am rather disappointed in this recommendation. I do not think a health visitor is any more likely to know how it feels to be disabled than any other able-bodied person in the rehabilitation team.
The Spinal Injuries Association, in co-operation with the staff at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, have started a scheme for well-rehabilitated ex-spinal patients, who have themselves worked through their difficulties and succeeded in living in the community, to come in and advise, and to answer questions of new patients. We feel this is a vital link with the community and a great aid to integration back into the community from hospital. Other specialist associations, such as the Mastectomy Association, the Illiostomy Association and the Psoriasis Association, do likewise. I feel there is a need to train some of these fellow sufferers to be trained counsellors and to be part of the rehabilitation team. It is far easier for one to accept a situation if it is explained by someone who has gone through the same experiences. How can they help but know how it feels? If there is to be true integration, the professionals must integrate, too.
Where this is definitely applicable is in dealing with children who suffer from dyslexia. If the medical and teaching professionals, along with the psychologists and parents, do not work closely together the problems will not be overcome. The condition needs to be diagnosed and recognised and remedial teaching needs to be available. I know there have been drastic cutbacks in education recently, but perhaps there could be an appeal for volunteer teachers. Otherwise, we shall have more frustrated, maladjusted young people to deal with who are not well integrated in our schools. I am a member of a Working Party at the King's Fund Centre on patient-staff relationships. The members consist of representatives of
1578
some patient organisations, doctors, nurses and some of the staff from the King's Fund. This group is most compatible, and we hope the conclusions of this Working Party will be helpful to further integration and understanding.
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation of the report that both the undergraduate and the post-graduate education of general practitioners should include more instruction on the problems of long-term chronic disability. I have been a patient in two London teaching hospitals and both times met junior doctors who had never come into contact with a paralysed person and had never touched a wheelchair. Some disabled persons cannot live in the community without a good deal of help. I should like to recommend to your Lordships the Crossroads Care Attendance Scheme which is quoted on page 40 of the report. It provides relief and regular support, and has prevented families from breaking up through the strain of coping with a severely disabled person. This scheme operates in the Rugby area. Also patients from Phipps Ward, St. Thomas's Hospital, who because of their severe conditions would otherwise have to exist in hospital, are being given a chance to live in the community with care attendants who are not clinically trained but instructed how to cope. The nursing officer works part-time in hospital and part-time in the community. Such schemes, I hope, will become available nationally, with shared responsibility between the health authorities and the social services Departments.
My Lords, I am very worried about the attitude of some local authorities, who give disabled people who have to live in residential care no choice other than the institution within the authority's boundaries of their home area. This bureaucratic, unflexible attitude seems to be growing and reminds me of the Berlin Wall. I hope that the Minister can do something about it. One other worry that I have is that the head teacher of the school can be the one and only factor in deciding whether a disabled child can attend an ordinary school, without even letting the child try. I have been involved in such a case recently.
I am a member of the corporations of two new towns, Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe. The report mentions new towns. At

1579
Newton Aycliffe, there is a list at present of tenants who for medical reasons have applied for priority transfer to disabled or non-pensioner bungalows. There are 31 applications, and 18 different disabilities are involved. There is a need for a Government circular to go to new towns and local authorities advising them (as it entails joint involvement) on how to do more for these unfortunate families. I should be most grateful if the Minister who is to answer this debate would give a hopeful reply to this request. There is need for direction in this matter.
My Lords, time does not allow me to say more. I have seen some wonderful improvements in many parts of the country. A few months ago I had the pleasure to open a splendid recreation and leisure centre at Rushcliffe. Here, the disabled had been involved at all stages and full intergration was encouraged. I am sure that, if there is the will, the way to integrate the disabled will be found. It is sad to see so many young, disabled people leaving school or training centres unable to obtain employment. I hope that this debate today will alert more people to the many needs of the disabled.
4.24 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lady Phillips for having introduced this debate. I think that the debate itself is of extreme importance in that it will help considerably towards bringing this matter to the notice not only of the Government but of the community. I have a word or two to say about what the Government have done. I believe that they have done some excellent things in relation to dealing with the situation although, obviously, they have not covered all the points raised today and in the report itself. The community as a whole have once again to be alerted to the fact that disabled persons are human beings who have to be treated in a manner which does not give them any discomfort so far as their status is concerned or so far as their life among their fellow men is concerned.
I said a moment ago that I believed the Government have already taken very many steps—and my noble friend Lady Phillips stated that in the course of her speech—in order to deal with this very important matter. I recall my noble
1580
friend Lady Phillips working many years ago in the East End of London where matters of this description were dealt with. There were many organisations there—and if I may say so, one of them was a very important Jewish organisation, the Jewish Board of Guardians (now known as the Jewish Welfare Board)—dealing with problems of this kind in an effective manner. Generally speaking, however, I do not think that people are as fully aware of the human problem involved in respect of disabled persons as they should be, and I would congratulate the noble Earl and his Committee for the splendid manner in which they have produced this report, and would also congratulate him personally on his speech today. But I think that we must really try to appreciate the work of those in the Government who are dealing with this matter at present. I have had the privilege of knowing the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the disabled very intimately for many years. No one in this House or in the other Chamber will deny the fact that he has been very deeply interested in this problem, year in, year out, for quite a considerable time. What I can be certain of is that points which are brought up today will be carefully considered by him and that he will do whatever he possibly can in order to meet the suggestions put forward.
Let me point out that in answer to the question put to him to which my noble friend Lady Phillips referred, he mentioned 86 measures of a very important nature which have been taken since 1974. I commend to your Lordships the reading of this answer which is contained in the Official Report of the Commons of January 24th this year. These 86 very important steps were taken under the aegis of a very human person, Sir Harold Wilson, who is also very deeply interested in effectively dealing with the needs of the disabled, and certainly within the activities of the Minister himself. I think that some of the suggestions that have been made today will be brought home not only to the Government but to the community at large.
Reference has been made to an attempt in the course of the Silver Jubilee Year to bring people's attention to this very important human problem. I do not think that the community as a whole are aware of the seriousness of this—certainly

1581
not as aware as they should be—and I hope the results of a debate of this nature will be that sufficient publicity will be given for the media to take it up in an appropriate manner and not just shift it aside. The debate this afternoon is an extremely important one. If it will influence the media to do something of value in that direction, then I believe that the community as a whole will support the Government.
Although I have much more to say, I want to keep within the suggested time limit and it is nearly that now. The Minister said in a speech recently that:
"Happily more and more people are coming to see that it is undesirable to institutionalise even severely disabled people, that their needs must be met in the community, that we must emphasise their abilities rather than their disabilities, that their rights must be asserted and traditional attitudes modified."
If the noble Baroness used the language that the Minister used, she would be in full accord with all our sentiments.
There is one point on which I should like to touch and to which I should like the Government to give an opinion or an answer. I understand that there is a tendency to use institutions rather than private housing. I have been given the information—and I think it is authentic— that to keep a person in an institution, apart from the fact that it is undesirable if it can be possibly avoided, costs something in the nature of £2,000 a year compared with something like £500, which is the cost of keeping a person in a private house. If that is so, the Government would be well advised to inquire into the situation.
If the question is one of economy—and one really must look at that position when considering matters of this sort—the public can help very much in that direction through charitable organisations, in good will and with the ordinary kind of help that so many people are prepared to give once they know the need for it. It would be advisable to see whether, in so far as this particular problem that I have raised is concerned, it can be arranged that the disabled shall be given accommodation in personal housing rather than in institutions.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first may I congratulate the noble Baroness,
1582
Lady Phillips, for bringing this matter to our attention today, and also the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, for his excellent report. I hope that it will be sent to all local authorities. As the noble Baroness reminded us, it was rather difficult to obtain a copy today, but if all local authorities had one, it would be a guide for them in the future. I expect that, like myself, many think back to that tremendous meeting held in Trafalgar Square and organised by a disabled person, Megan du Boisson, from which practically all legislation came. Really, the disabled people themselves started this great movement.
This report sounds the cry from them: "Help us to help ourselves"—in other words, "Give us the tools and we will do the job". That is what we must do today. I mention this because several things can be done. When there was a ferry plying between Plymouth and France we gathered a party of 30 disabled people who spent a week in Brittany. Fifteen of them were in wheelchairs. The French reciprocated, and now we have parties coming back from France. We also have a hotel, which I opened not long ago on Dartmoor, especially equipped for disabled people from this country and abroad. There they can lead a completely free and normal life. Freedom is something they really need.
As this is a short debate, I should like to concentrate on two points: housing and transport. I understand that there are about 79,000 people in England and Wales who are in wheelchairs and who need what is known as wheelchair housing. Twelve per cent. of them are under 16 years of age; 40 per cent. are between 16 and 65 years of age, and 48 per cent. are over 65 years of age. I suggest that all future housing for the elderly should be built to take a wheelchair, which I understand, for example, means merely widening doors to 900 millimetres, having a downstairs lavatory and a kitchen which can be adapted. Many disabled people are likely in later years to need some form of aid in their mobility. In this connection, I should like to mention the Miles Mitchel Housing Association which has been one of the leaders in providing this type of housing. As noble Lords who have been present at the Council of Europe will know, studies have taken place there on this problem, and France, Holland and Germany are doing a great deal in this field.

1583
There are many gadgets available for the disabled, but I doubt whether many know or understand how to use them. From a reply in another place the other day on what local authorities were doing, it seemed to me that very few gadgets were being provided which could help people to remain in their own homes. Instead of having institutions, one should try to have flatlets. I know of a home where the very disabled do not have their own flatlets, but there are a great many flatlets available for the less disabled in which they have their own furniture and cooking facilities. They can also go to the dining room if they wish to do so. They can be completely independent, having their own latch-key. This is important. It is very good because should they become unable to look after themselves in their own flatlet, they can move into the community accommodation and still be among friends. Furthermore, the common room is open once a week for various forms of entertainment. Therefore there is a mixing of the non-disabled and disabled at least once a week.
I should like to back up what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said regarding new towns. The difficulty is that they do not have the same statutory obligations as other local authorities. This is something we could deal with. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, regarding the Vandyk v Oliver ruling. To get this settled would be of tremendous help. It would be a great advantage to be able to add on to accommodation a lavatory or a room in which a kidney machine could be installed, thus allowing the disabled person to remain in his own house as a result of these alterations.
Regarding transport, I should like to make a practical suggestion. Not enough is known about the transport and facilities which are available. I should like to suggest that the English Tourist Board might take this up and produce a booklet. They cover the whole country and are able to tell people where facilities are available in the event of their wanting a holiday, and so on. It is essential that such information should be assimilated. Regarding mobility allowance, we get into a difficulty. I gather that at 51 years of age, whether the person is working or not, at the present time the mobility allowance stops. That will prevent a
1584
great many people from continuing to work. It also cuts off retired people. Many people, including some who actually worked on this report, who have worked all their lives, have now retired and will not be able to get this allowance in the future. A friend of mine told me that a taxi at Christmas time cost £9 to take her from Dorset Square, W.1, to Camden and back. I know she would be entitled to claim that sum under the mobility allowance; but it seems to me that taking away any form of transport when people have retired is a great mistake. This is the time when they at last have leisure, are able to see their friends and can derive some enjoyment in life.
Senior citizens now receive a senior citizen rail card. Why should disabled people who have an attendance allowance and a doctor's certificate not get the same type of rail card? It would be beneficial to them. I know that wheelchairs already attract some preference, but I know many people without wheelchairs who would prefer to use public transport, but cannot afford to do so.
My last point concerns television. Television does a great deal already, but I think that more could be done about the subject we are discussing today. I should like to see disabled people themselves going on television and demonstrating how they can manage with the various gadgets that are available. For example, when you are newly disabled it is very often difficult to dress yourself, but when you are able to see on television how gadgets can be used it makes a lot of difference. For example, I remember very well the time when I was trying to set up workshops for the blind in Africa. I tried to teach them that they could "read "with their fingers and used to try them with Braille letters. I convinced them about what could be done because I had a scarf over my eyes so that I could not look at my fingers. They really did believe that something could be done and they could be taught. So demonstration plays a very important part in this work, and I hope that perhaps some demonstrations on television, by people who are themselves disabled, could be arranged.
4.41 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to support the noble

1585
Baroness, Lady Phillips. Indeed, she is so persuasive that I trust the Government will find her as irresistible as I do. There are many kinds of disablement afflicting individuals in our community. There are the obvious physical ones, but there are also the partially sighted and the partially deaf, who are not so obviously disabled but still need help from those who are not so afflicted. Of great importance, is that no disabled person should be made to feel "different". They should not be made to feel that they belong to a sort of second tier in society or that they are an unwanted part of the community. Those who are unfortunate enough to become severely disabled in adult life have the added burden of trying to come to terms with their disability, especially if they sustain a loss of power to walk. If they can still continue in the same sort of occupation, if it is a sedentary one, surely that is important.
With children, the more the disabled can play with other children where possible, and join in nursery schools, the better for them both. If they can go right through their school life with each other, the handicapped with the non handicapped, then surely so much more easily will the disabled adapt to the working world in later life, without feeling embarrassed. The parents of a child who is born disabled, whether in mind or body, psychologically need all the help they can get to help them to come to terms with their difficulties. I believe their need is to be able to talk to their neighbours and not to shut themselves away. Society itself needs educating in regard to the needs of handicapped people and as to how best those people can be helped to join in the social life around them.
Wherever possible, the child needs to go to the ordinary nursery school and primary school. If the able-bodied child can be encouraged to play with a disabled neighbour, both children will come to accept each other quite naturally when they are very young. Visits to schools by handicapped children or adults to talk about their handicaps, so that the able-bodied learn about them and how they try to overcome their disabilities, could also help in their integration into schools and also into later life. I realise that there will always be some among the young and old alike who will need either special
1586
schools or permanent professional medical care, and who will need to live in residential accommodation or hospitals. In ordinary schools, access for the disabled child is so often thought of in terms of one in a wheelchair, but there are also the blind or partially sighted, the deaf or children with partial hearing. Colour schemes play a most important part in the life of a partially-sighted child. With the partially deaf, the loop system—that is, a system of wiring round a room which assists hearing aids—and acoustics are of great importance.
Some children who are on crutches but have no special trouble in getting about, would benefit from attending an ordinary school; but so often they are placed in special schools because of the reluctance of the staff in ordinary schools to take them. That is generally due to ignorance of the needs of the child or children and also of their abilities in other ways in making up for their particular handicap. The ordinary school may well feel more able to cope if it has the necessary back-up services—specialist teachers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and others—to visit the school or, alternatively, time for the children to visit clinics. Perhaps in some schools there could be special classes to help with specific disabilities and to help the child to mix with an ordinary class later.
The BBC are much to be congratulated on an excellent report given in "Woman's Hour" last Friday afternoon at 1.45 p.m., when they broadcast an interview with the headmaster and children of a new primary school at Hawick near Glasgow. There they are integrating handicapped children of all kinds, whenever it is possible. I am aware that many other schools are also doing this, and very successfully. That particular headmaster found that his first hurdles were the natural anxieties of the parents. Having explained it all to the parents, the children themselves, after their first natural shyness, soon made friends with each other: that is the able-bodied and the disabled. I should like the headmaster of that school—I regret that I do not know his name—his staff and all the children to know that I think they are doing a wonderful job which is an example to all; and I am sure that other noble Lords will agree with me.
My Lords, I have deliberately spoken warmly of that school and of the BBC.

1587
I think there is here an enormous field of opportunity for the Government, and a wink is as good as a nod. I am not asking the Government, at this point, to reply, but I should be very happy to think that as an outcome of this debate there might be some permanent liaison in matters of this kind between the Government and the BBC.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to take part in this excellent debate and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, and all those who have helped with the report which has so impressed us and about which we are so very much concerned.
I have been involved in trying to bring about the intergration of handicapped and non-handicapped people for a very long time. I first began to do so because, some 20 years ago now, an experiment was started by the National Association of Youth Clubs to run clubs for handicapped and non-handicapped young people together. It was a brave start: nobody had tried to do it. There were, of course, organisations dealing with the handicapped and any number dealing with the non handicapped, but the idea that the two groups could be put together and that it would work as successfully as it has was something quite new.
Today, these clubs, which are called PHAB—the physically handicapped and able-bodied—are now spread all over the world. There are 200 in this country and there are clubs of this kind in Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and in other parts as well. I learned only yesterday that an expedition of non-handicapped and handicapped young people is going to Kuwait, to demonstrate what can be done in this way. I am quite sure that that is only a beginning and that this is something which is going to develop tremendously in the future as the community begins to realise how very wrong it is to put all handicapped people into one community and all the non-handicapped into another.
Following the experiment I have referred to, which has proved so successful, some of us raised a very large sum of money to build a college, or a building specially designed for non-handicapped
1588
and handicapped people together. It took a long time to get the money, and a great deal of money was needed, practically all of it coming from voluntary sources, from trusts and so on. The building is in Birmingham: it is called Prospect Hall and is ready to start now to bring the handicapped and the non-handicapped together. This is one of the ways in which other areas might also co-operate, because it need not be so elaborate as the one we built. But the idea of bringing the handicapped and the non-handicapped together, for recreation and for courses of different kinds, is something which I am sure is of great importance and which other local authorities and organisations can copy.
There are just two aspects of the Snowdon Report which I should like to mention. I agree with every word that has been said so far, and I do not want to stress anything which has already been mentioned. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, on the subject of transport, as it is extremely important that there should be a co-ordinated method of dealing with it. There are many voluntary organisations and local authorities which have suitable transport for handicapped people, but, judging by what is said about transport in the report, which I have read carefully, some of these vehicles are not sufficiently used; that is to say, the co-ordination between the two groups concerned is not very good.
I entirely agree with the suggestion that there should be a committee composed of voluntary organisations and, if necessary, local authorities, as well as handicapped people, to examine the use of these vehicles and to see whether they can be used to their fullest extent. At the same time, the committee could inquire into the siting of the vehicles, and list them and their drivers, because the reason why some vehicles are not sufficiently used is that there are not enough drivers. Obviously, these drivers need a special licence and it is no doubt difficult to arrange that. But with the help of local authorities, and by co-ordinating the voluntary organisations, I believe that the special vehicles could be used more extensively to the benefit of the whole community, not only to those who own them.
The last point that I should like to make—and I know that the noble Baroness

1589
who is to wind-up has had the same kind of experience of local authorities as I have had—is that we must hammer home to every local authority the fact that, when they are planning public buildings, housing or schools, they must remember that the community in which they are operating is composed of both handicapped people and non-handicapped people, and everything that is done can be adapted to both sections. When I was chairman of a housing committee, I found that when I suggested that there should be two or three houses equipped for handicapped people on any housing estate, people looked at me in surprise and asked, "What do you mean about handicapped people?" I replied, "Yes, handicapped people who will possibly be on their own ", as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, suggested just now. I asked, "Why can we not put that type of house into our housing plans?" We did it, but much too late and it should have been done years before.
In the same way, local authorities now build sheltered housing for old people in housing estates. Before that, people used to be segregated into large old people's homes. Thank goodness people have now realised that a true community must have all age groups in it, from granny and grandpa down to the young couple who were married a few years ago. We must hammer home to local authorities the fact that integration, and providing housing facilities for handicapped people, are a natural corollary to new housing and town planning.
Similarly, on the question of building schools or public buildings, why should we always think in terms of handicapped people being educated in buildings fitted for and suited only to handicapped people? This seems to me to be a most retrograde way of looking at the problems. I do not say that there are not children who cannot be integrated, but far more could be integrated into schools if they were built and equipped with what very often amounts to very little—just doors large enough to take wheelchairs, or ramps instead of steps. This is all described in the Snowdon Report, and I am sure that all your Lordships know the kind of equipment that is required. As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, it would be very much cheaper than building
1590
special schools and keeping children segregated or in homes.
I hope very much that the Government will stress these points to local authorities. They are beginning to take notice. I am sure that there are enlightened local authorities which carry out this type of work and this type of planning, but I am certain that not enough is being done. I remember once finding out that a new further education college had just been built in an area in which I was interested, but when I tried to send a boy in a wheelchair there, in order to have evening classes and technical training, he could not go because he could not get into the building and we had to send him to Edinburgh instead. That is the kind of thing that should never happen.
One has to get at the architects and the people in the departments. It is not a question only of a committee; it is the people in the departments whom one must get at about this, and stress to them that this is vital in the present age and that it should have been done years before. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has had the same kind of experience and I am sure that she will agree. It is through the local authorities that we must press the matter. The Government may issue a circular, but if it does not get to the right committee and to the people who are responsible, nothing at all will happen.
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, say that in this Jubilee year the appeal money from the Jubilee Trust may, in many cases, be used to help organisations dealing with the handicapped and similar work. I am probably the only Member of your Lordships' House who was in on the original Jubilee appeal in 1935 for King George V and Queen Mary, and I spent 30 years of my life on the council of King George's Jubilee Trust. I am extremely glad to hear that, having continued into a third reign, the Jubilee Trust is to devote so much of its appeal money this year to this kind of work, and I am sure that there is no better way of spending it. I hope that what is said in our debate today, short as it is, will spread around the country, particularly to local authorities. I also hope that there will be a response to this splendid report, and that in two or three years' time we shall not find it still on the shelves of Government or other libraries.
4.59 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, integration is a vital aspect in the care of the disabled. Unfortunately, it is one of its aspects that is very often overlooked. In the case of someone who is physically disabled, a failure to integrate can gradually bring a mental condition which is a greater disability than the original physical disability. That, I think, stresses the importance of integration. Integration in education and employment and, above all, in social and recreational activity is absolutely vital if the disabled person is to lead a reasonably full life.
I congratulate the noble Earl on the work which has been done by his Working Party—in particular the way in which it has highlighted the problem by pointing out its importance and putting forward some of the remedies. Also, I congratulate my noble friend for the way in which she has drawn the attention of the House to this report. I join the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in saying that this is a social rather than an economic problem and that the idea of a year in which we should concentrate on the integration of the disabled is worthy of consideration for 1978 or 1979. Also, I join my noble friend Lord Janner in giving credit to the Government for what they have done in the past three years.
May I remind the House that when the Government took Office in March 1974 the view of the Opposition was that if we were to avoid going back to wartime austerity, clearly we would have to borrow on a very extensive scale. Despite that, the Government had the courage to appoint a Minister for the Disabled. This was not a token appointment. The Government appointed a man who was conscientious, sympathetic and experienced in the problem with which he had to deal. That Minister has a most excellent record of achievements in the past three years, a record which I think it would be difficult for anybody else to equal in such a short time and in such economic circumstances.
I join other noble Lords in directing the attention of the House in particular to Commons Hansard of 24th January 1977 at col. 471 where there is a list of some 80 ways in which action has been taken by the Government to improve the lot of the disabled. Of course this is merely a summary. It is possible, as
1592
my noble friend Lady Phillips showed, to ask questions, following up some of the points that are raised there. Obviously it is legitimate, possible and reasonable to do this, but may I suggest to all sides of the House that a study of the list shows that real work has been done in the past three years. Nevertheless, I believe that we should not leave it at that. Although we have achieved much in the past three years we have to go ahead and achieve more in the future, and in order to do that we need not so much economic assistance directed by the Government as a social conscience. We need public support, especially over the problem of integration. I hope that this debate will do much to help to overcome that problem in the near future and that, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said, very soon we shall have a year in which we concentrate upon the need to integrate the disabled with every aspect of the life of the community.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he mention the name of the Minister involved? I know the Minister very well indeed and I agree with everything that has been said. Many noble Lords have spoken about "the Minister" but they have never put his name on the record.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I shall be very pleased to put the name of the Minister on the record—the right honourable Alf Morris, M.P.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Hear, Hear!
5.4 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for giving us the opportunity of debating this report today. If I may, I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, not only on his speech but on the report itself—the end product of what must have been a very hardworking party, ably chaired by himself. In this context I should like to pay sincere tribute to Duncan Guthrie whose drive and enthusiasm brought the report to birth. I have known Duncan Guthrie

1593
for some 24 or 25 years since he conceived what is now known as the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases. Then it was that he persuaded my old friend Edward Courage, that well known campaigner for good causes, to join him, and he in turn invited my wife to become a founder member. This Fund has steered and financed this excellent and concise report. I think that this is the right moment to give to your Lordships the message of regret from the noble Lord, Lord Harding, Chairman of the Fund for no fewer than 14 years, that he cannot be here today to take part in these discussions.
There is a wealth of practical recommendations in the report, many of which would cost little or nothing to implement and which only require the acceptance of the duties of a humane and Christian country, much thought and determination. Let us at least get these under way at once. I refer to such instances as the exclusion of guide dogs from railway sleeping cars and flower shows, and the other examples which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has given to us. There arc, of course, many recommendations which would be costly and which could not be followed until the economy of the country is in better shape. However, as the noble Earl suggested, this is the time to lay down the plans.
The report also stresses that the funds that are available could be better employed and that it costs far more to support people in institutions than in their own homes. Not only is this true but it is also true that most people infinitely prefer to live at home rather than to be institutionalised. When the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, comes to reply I fervently hope that she will give an assurance that urgent steps will be taken to effect a redeployment of resources on these lines.
I thought that one of the most important themes running through the report was the need to involve handicapped people at all levels. This theme has been mentioned by many speakers today. Able-bodied people, however imaginative, can have only a limited understanding of the problems. Doubtless there are very many handicapped people who could play invaluable roles in planning, administration and coordination.
1594
I should now like to declare a personal interest. I am Chairman of the National Listening Library which provides a Talking Books Service for handicapped people similar to the service provided for the blind by the RNIB. Almost daily we receive letters of appreciation from people who have been unable to read for months or years—unable to hold a book or turn the pages—and who have only just heard of our existence. That is why I so strongly endorse the recommendation that full information about the services available should be made known on the widest possible front. So often handicapped people remain unaware of some service or facility that could transform their lives.
In concluding a speech which I hope your Lordships will consider commendably short, I should like to refer to the opening paragraphs of the report. Here, or so it seemed to me, was shown a real understanding of the concept of integration. Perhaps if those of us, who consider ourselves "unrestricted", were more aware of our dependence on the facilities that we enjoy to overcome our own handicaps, we would be keener to make more provision for those less fortunate. As the noble Earl mentioned, most of us are handicapped, but we are well integrated in your Lordships' House. Looking around, I see many noble Lords, like myself, wearing spectacles. Many of us appreciate the loudspeaker system and, if I dropped my voice, several ears would gravitate towards those inconspicuous receivers. But what really concentrates the mind is the presence of two Members of our gallant chairborne brigade. They have come here today as they always do on such occasions. They make such a tremendous impact—but, my Lords, it is possible for them to come: there is appropriate access and egress; there is a lift. How otherwise would they enrich our debates as they have so often done in the past and are doing again today?
5.10 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, I suppose I am one of the objects of this debate and I am by no means sure that I am completely integrated—in fact I am sure I have a long way still to go, but as the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, has just said, there are a lot of advantages for disabled people in this House. We have good access, good mobility, interesting and worthwhile work to do and we

1595
have friends whom we can join. But of course not all disabled people are lucky enough, as I am, to be a Member of this House. I suggest from my own experience that it is a tremendous help to a disabled person to be able to find oneself as part of a team with able-bodied people, pursuing some project in which we are all concerned.
I was interested to see at page 43 of the Snowdon Report, paragraph 64:
"The disabled person must hurtle himself into the community otherwise he can become a drop-out."
I am not sure that I am terribly good at hurtling myself in; indeed when I do so I try to make sure that I have a reasonably smooth landing. I think it illustrates the importance to disabled people of taking the initiative. I believe subconsciously one tends to take something of a back seat—indeed perhaps society expects one to take rather a back seat. The only way to overcome that is to "hurtle in", as the Snowdon Report says, but if one is going to hurtle in it means attending meetings and that means going to village halls, town halls, churches, public houses, Women's Institutes, and so on. Although a lot of progress has been made there are still many of these which have steps to contend with and I wish warmly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. Could this not be a worthwhile and inexpensive aim for Jubilee Year: to ensure that all public buildings have one entrance free from steps?
5.13 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, although this has only been a short debate it has, like the report being discussed, covered a very wide range of topics, and as the Government spokesman I should like to say that we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for giving us the opportunity to pay tribute to the authors of Integrating the Disabled. The Working Party is to be congratulated on the two years' work put into producing the document and particular tribute is due to the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, as Chairman of the Working Party, and to the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases, under whose auspices it was set up. We have also been lucky this afternoon to have such a sympathetic and thoughtful contribution from the noble
1596
Earl himself and also from our two disabled Peers, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who contribute so much to debates on this type of subject.
There are a total of 96 specific recommendations in the report as well as many other comments on the general philosophy of integration. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that in a short debate I am unable, in the time remaining, to give anything approaching a detailed report on the Government's view of each of these recommendations. You will wish to know however that the relevant Departments have studied, and will continue to study, the proposals in detail. What I can try to do this afternoon is to consider the general approach of the Working Party and to look at one or two of the more important points that have been raised in the debate. As I have said, time will not allow me to reply in detail to all the points that have been raised, but I do give the assurance that if I do not touch on any particular request this afternoon I will read the Hansard Report and if anyone requires further information or comments on any suggestions which have been made I will see that they are dealt with as promptly as possible.
I am sure your Lordships would agree that 10 years ago a debate on disablement and on the needs of disabled people would have been very different. The nature and extent of help available to disabled people has developed remarkably quickly since the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in 1970—a piece of legislation rightly regarded as a watershed. We are fortunate indeed to have the architect of that Statute as Minister for the Disabled; and in order to oblige the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, I will give his name, Mr. Alf Morris—I see she is not here. Shame!
Coupled with the improvements in practical help and support for disabled people has been a continuing improvement in general attitudes—a wider acceptance of the abilities of disabled people and of the ways in which these abilities can be nourished to the benefit of the individual and of society as a whole. It is against this background that we must consider the Working Party report. Your Lordships all know that there can be no

1597
"right time" to put forward proposals which involve increases in public expenditure, and the present is certainly not the most promising time in which to make such suggestions, as noble Lords have already recognised. However, the report recognises that some of what it proposes can be no more than signposts indicating the ways in which services can be developed. Other recommendations would have little extra resource implications whilst some are virtually cost free and are aimed primarily at changing public attitudes.
Thus the report can be regarded as a widely based plan, as well as a review of what has been done and what different people feel needs to be done. It embodies a realistic view of how fast changes can be made. In this sense it will be a useful document on which Government Departments, local authorities and other statutory bodies will continue to consult in years to come. While the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred to the shortage of copies of the report, may I at this stage make a plea that if any noble Lords who have obtained a copy do not want it to collect dust on their bookshelves will they personally see that it is passed on to their local authorities or to some other organisations who can learn from it?
In commenting on the various chapters of the report, I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I deal mainly with only four of the areas covered. Chapter 1, which covers education, does not claim to break new educational ground. Its main recommendation, for the planned introduction of a system of integrated education, is in line with the policy of the Department of Education and Science over many years—that no child should attend a special school if his needs can be met in an ordinary one. Thanks to the work done in your Lordships' House, this principle has now been embodied in recent legislation in Section 10 of the Education Act 1976. The new law points the way ahead, but it cannot be implemented overnight. As the Working Party recognised in suggesting a period of 10 years, it will be a gradual process. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in a speech in Derbyshire last month explained that education in an integrated framework would require very careful preparation
1598
and full consultation with local education authorities, teachers and all other interests concerned. Integration must be seen to bring benefit to all the children who are affected by it and this in turn raises complex issues relating, for example, to the quality of special education and the conditions which ensure its success. These are matters which I appreciate the Working Party was not able to examine in any depth.
While I have no wish to dwell upon the practical difficulties arising from issues of this kind, it would be unrealistic to ignore them. It is not simply a matter of resources. The conditions must be right, and this requires co-operative and patient exploration within the Education Service. As part of this approach, the Department of Education and Science intends to commission research to obtain a clearer picture of what is involved for ordinary schools in catering for greater numbers of handicapped children, including the more severely handicapped, and of the best ways of setting about it.
Two final points on education. First, the report calls for a higher school leaving age for handicapped children. This was considered when the age of compulsory attendance was raised to 16 for children in ordinary schools. The conclusion was reached that the needs of handicapped children were so varied that more flexible arrangements should be made for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked about access to buildings used for educational purposes. The Department of Education and Science have undertaken to revise the relevant regulations to embody the provisions of Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and they will also be preparing appropriate design guidance. In addition, a letter has already been sent to chief architects which will seek to ensure that in future plans which require departmental approval will show what provision is being made for disabled persons.
I should now like to turn to the chapter on employment. Comments on the report have been sought from the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Disabled People, which has a statutory duty to advise and assist the Government on all matters concerning the employment and training of disabled people. The Council, whose members have great

1599
experience and practical knowledge of the complex issues involved in the employment of disabled people, strongly welcome the reports' main theme of integration within the community, and its recognition of the importance of employment to that end. But they drew attention to one or two controversial proposals.
The two particular recommendations about which the Council had reservations are those suggesting a "disablement tax" and the strengthening of the quota scheme. The Council's view—and it is one that I share—is that such developments could have an adverse effect on the co-operation of employers, which it firmly believes to be fundamental to the resettlement of disabled people in jobs. The Government are studying and will take particular note of the advice of the National Council on these recommendations and on the whole strategy set out in the report.
My Lords, the report naturally stresses the need for special support, so that those who are disabled can compete on equal terms in the jobs market. I was concerned by the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, about the quota. I will read carefully what he said. I will check on the position and write to the noble Earl. The Minister for the Civil Service Department made a statement only last summer indicating a whole range of measures to help disabled people to enter the Civil Service. I will check on the facts and will write to the noble Earl. This principle has been accepted for many years by successive Governments, and is the philosophy behind the resettlement, rehabilitation and training services for those who are disabled, of sheltered workshops for the severely disabled, and the quota scheme.
These provisions are now the responsibility of the Manpower Services Commission, the Employment Service Agency and the Training Services Agency—statutory bodies committed to establishing coherent and unified policies for helping disabled people to train for and to obtain the right jobs; and to modernising the services to this end. To those noble Lords who have not seen it, I commend the Employment Service Agency's new publication Outlook. There is a copy in the Library, and when this debate is over there will be a second copy in the Library. I hope noble Lords will read it, because it
1600
reflects new approaches within the statutory services and their commitment to ensuring so far as possible real integration for disabled people within the community.
One particular initiative planned for later this year is especially relevant to the employment points raised in the report. The Manpower Services Commission is proposing to issue a guide to employers to encourage them to develop positive employment policies for disabled people. The aim of the guide will be to establish the right attitude among employers, and the Commission believe that this is best done through education and the encouragement of co-operation. The National Advisory Council wholeheartedly endorse this approach and indeed they have been involved in the initiation of the guide. The Government will play their full share in getting the right message across and thereby achieving a national focus on the employment needs of disabled people. I am sure the authors of the report, like your Lordships, would want this initiative to be successful.
The Government, the National Advisory Council and the statutory bodies providing employment services are far from complacent about the problems of disabled people at a time of regrettably high unemployment. New ideas are always welcome and will be critically and constructively examined, including those in the Snowdon Report. Although the Government cannot accept without reservation all that has been put forward in that report, there are a number of points on which there will be complete unanimity of view.
The third main topic covered in the report is housing, which, as your Lordships will know, is an area of activity to which this Government attach great importance. We accept, of course, the philosophy behind this chapter of the report—that the housing problems of disabled people should be dealt with in a community setting so far as possible. This has been at the heart of our approach. The other important point which has to be recognised is that such a strategy has to take account of the interaction between accommodation and the support services that will be needed. Here I should like to stress how important it is that Government Departments have forged a closer working relationship in regard to problems facing

1601
disabled people. This example of co-operation and co-ordination needs to be mirrored at local level by joint endeavour of housing, social services and health authorities, and the Government take every opportunity they can to draw attention to this need.
As the report indicates, the Department of the Environment has carried out a comprehensive study on ways of meeting the housing needs of disabled people in collaboration with the DHSS. This led to detailed guidance to local authorities on the design of two types of housing which we have suggested should form part of every new housing scheme of any size. The concept which we call "mobility housing" dates back only to 1974. It consists of ordinary Parker Morris housing planned in such a way that there are no steps or stairs to negotiate, so making it convenient for the great majority of disabled people to live in. At virtually no extra cost, a substantial proportion of our housing can be built to mobility standards.
Where a person is confined to a wheelchair, or where the disabled member of the household does the cooking and housework, there is of course a clear need for more extensive and more costly modifications to basic house design. These are incorporated in what is termed "wheelchair housing", to which Lady Vickers referred, which incorporates extra circulation space and fittings at a height which can be reached from a wheelchair. The subsidy to meet extra costs, which is an important part of our policy, is payable for a wide range of features, and there is scope to tailor the house to the particular needs of the tenant, which can be surprisingly diverse.
The report accepts that these two types of special housing, together with adapted housing, provide the right mix of accommodation. It suggested that wheelchair housing is needed for a wider range of disabled people than the Government have envisaged, including people using, but not necessarily confined to, wheelchairs. Our present guidelines place emphasis on mobility housing. This approach means that we are able to cater for more disabled people at little extra cost, while ensuring that more specialised provision is available for those for whom, in our view, it is really needed.
1602
The concept of mobility housing demonstrates what integration is all about.
That, then, is the strategy which the Government are pursuing. But, really, how effective is it? On returning to office in 1974 the Government were disappointed in the amount of special housing available for disabled people, and in 1975 they launched a special drive to improve the position. That is begining to bear fruit. There is not time for them, and I would not wish to weary the House tonight with too many statistics, but in the four years following the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 local authorities and new town corporations in England and Wales built just under 600 wheelchair housing units. In the following 21 months nearly double that number have been added to the stock. Similarly, the new mobility housing concept is also beginning to gather momentum. By last September there had been over 5,000 proposals by local authorities and new towns. There is obviously more that needs to be done, but these figures indicate a changing attitude which the Government are anxious to foster.
My Lords, I cannot deal with all the points that were raised on the question of housing this afternoon, but I have said that I shall write to noble Lords who raised specific matters.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but will she give way? May I raise one small matter?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I would rather not give way. We are very short of time and I shall not be able to deal with the matter, even scantily. I shall see the noble Lord and talk to him later.
The final chapter to which I should like to refer is the one covering community and personal relationships. Much of what is said there is in line with the thinking of the Department of Health and Social Security. Indeed, the Working Party has endorsed the Department's main policy objective as set out in its Consultative Document which was, namely, to enable disabled people to live as full and normal a life as possible within

1603
the community by making available the appropriate support care and services. The report raises some important and relevant questions on how this objective is to be achieved. It proposes a number of developments, some of which it must be recognised would have major resource implications.
However, there is a whole range of help available to the disabled from a number of different organisations, both statutory and voluntary, and the very diversity of the help and the providing agencies can be a problem. Often the staff, the social workers and the health visitors have a very heavy burden to carry and even with the best will in the world they cannot keep up with the many new developments in other fields. My right honourable friend has given a great deal of thought to this problem and has examined various ways of ensuring that a disabled person can have the assurance of knowing that there is some point to which he or she can turn for advice and help.
Questions were raised today about the mobility allowances and about the invalid trikes which, again, I regret I cannot deal with more fully because of shortage of time. I shall simply repeat what the Minister has always said. His aim is quite simply to ensure that no one who is now mobile will be made immobile by the phasing out of the trike, except where increased disability itself makes this unavoidable.
I shall deal with the article published in The Times today. At this point in time I do not think that I can go beyond saying that my Secretary of State is exploring all the possibilities of the extension of the mobility scheme with the Central Council for Disablement. Obviously resources come into this and there are very serious problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, both referred to the matter of a Silver Jubilee Trust. I have noted the report. Perhaps I should declare an interest as one of the National Vice-Presidents of PHAB. I thank the noble Lords who have given "plugs" to that organisation. I appreciate how much a real injection of capital would help to extend the limits of the work which organisations such as PHAB—organisations for deaf young people and for the
1604
mentally handicapped—need. I am informed that the existing trust is in constant touch with many voluntary bodies, and that it would give sympathetic consideration to any new application on behalf of either mentally or physically disabled young people. I am sure that the new trust will continue this tradition. I shall certainly ask my honourable friend the Minister to ensure that the voluntary organisations concerned are at least informed of the position.
Finally, I should like to emphasise that the Working Party Report has made an extremely valuable contribution to the understanding of so many crucial problems. It has already stimulated a considerable amount of thought and discussion, not least among your Lordships. It has provided an opportunity—albeit a brief one—to debate the whole field of disablement and I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, will accept what many Members have said this afternoon, that this Government have made quite unprecedented changes in provisions for the disabled.
The most important result of the report is that it will be in constant use for years to come as a source of ideas on new developments and as a commentary on existing policies. It is an important and perceptive contribution to thinking on the problems of disablement. The Working Party is to be most warmly congratulated on the hard work that it has put into it over the last two years. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, whose concern for the disabled is known to us all, must feel extremely proud of what his Working Party has achieved.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am not quite sure how many minutes I have left.
Baroness STEDMAN: Three.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been an exercise in self-discipline which is unique. I think that possibly my noble friend Lord Jacques won the prize for a speech of four minutes. There is no doubt that all speeches were compelling in their compassion, in the powerful arguments that they advanced, and in the

1605
genuine understanding of the subject under discussion. I should also like to thank the Minister for her reply. We appreciate that she will follow up these matters and, indeed, I assure her that as well as the report being useful in years to come, I hope to be here for years to come, ready to prod her or any Minister who forgets that these matters have not yet been attended to.
The theme that has been apparent from the beginning of the debate—from the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, and again I pay tribute to the noble Earl—was that integration simply means independence and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said, helping us to help ourselves. We all want to be accepted as people. This runs across the board, whether we are old or young, black or white, male or female, able-bodied or disabled. That surely is the basic theme that all Christians must recognise. This is something that will come from this report. Attitudes and education must be changed, even if only in small ways. It is sad to see, for instance, that a hospital is still called a "hospital for the incurables". In this day and age, is anyone incurable? How depressing the thought that one is incurable! There must be education of all of us, compassion from all of us, understanding and, above all, action. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, including the Minister. My Lords I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
5.38 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS rose to call attention to the Court Committee's Report on Child Health Services (Cmnd. 6684 and 6684—I); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been asked to remind noble Lords taking part in this debate that it is a short debate, limited to two-and-a-half hours, and as there are 11 speakers, as well as the Minister, my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, to deliver the Government's view, it may be best to limit our remarks. Although this is a substantial and very important subject, worthy I think of a full debate, I shall do my utmost to set a good example in brevity in my opening speech.
My Lords, it is often said that our children represent our greatest investment in the future. So far as mankind is concerned, they are the future and it is the investment we make in them—what we contribute to their early, formative years—which can ultimately make or break mankind. So it was a commendable and far-sighted decision on the part of a former Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Services, Sir Keith Joseph, to set up in 1973 a Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Donald Court to review, for the first time ever, child health services in this country. Following the change of Government in 1974, it received wholehearted support from his successors, Mrs. Castle and Mr. Ennals. After three years of intensive and painstaking work, the committee—in which I should declare an interest as my wife was a member—presented its report in December under the title Fit for the Future. It is a very comprehensive and remarkable piece of work and it stands as a tribute to the committee, whose members gave so much time and effort to its preparation. I cannot improve on the words of an excellent digest of the report published as a 15p supplement to the Journal of Education, which praised the committee for performing its task, it said, with
"consummate skill—and with a kind of sensitivity that is so often lacking in official reports."
It is a great honour for me to have the chance of making the report the subject of this debate in your Lordships' House. Here I should like to make a special plea to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The cost of the two volumes which make up the report, £10·50, is a lot of money to those who would find it of greatest use. Could not a shorter version, including the Introduction and the principal recommendations, be produced for sale at a much lower price? I realise that what was, in effect, the Press release is being circulated, but that is not quite the same thing.
The measure of Britain's investment in its children's health, our contribution to the future, is set out early in the report. Twenty years ago we could take pride in having one of the lowest rates of infant mortality in the world. Today, we have fallen behind many of the countries we used to lead, and the number of our

1607
children who die in the first year of life is equal to all the deaths in the succeeding 24 years. Of those who survive, one in seven is likely to have a handicapping condition sufficient to be a cause of educational concern. So uneven are our child health services that twice as many children of unskilled workers die in the first month of life as those of professional workers—and, what is even worse, the class gap in this respect is widening. There are wide variations in services from region to region.
Many physically and mentally handicapped children are not identified as such until it is too late to recover lost ground. Many also spend unnecessary years in hospital, restricted in their movement, with little or no proper therapy, sometimes bathed and prepared for bed in the middle of the afternoon—and with their teeth rotting. For dental caries is an uncontrolled endemic disease in childhood, and 71 per cent. of our children at five years of age have decayed teeth. By the age of 15, 33 per cent. have already lost one or more teeth. And the total failure when health, social and education services fail to act individually, much less collectively, is reflected in the killing of helpless children such as Maria Colwell. The figures quoted in the report suggest that about 5,000 children every year face this degree of risk, of whom 1,000 will be seriously injured and nearly 100 will die.
My Lords, I could go on adding to this appalling record, but I shall sum up our investment in our children's future simply by pointing to the fact that in 1973 we devoted 9 per cent. of the National Health budget to the 24 per cent.—nearly one quarter—of our population under 19 years of age. By 1974, there had arisen a further compelling practical reason for the Committee to report as quickly as possible. For by then the 1973 National Health Service Reorganisation Act had begun to take effect—a reorganisation which now, three years later, has been described by the very consultants who helped design the new structure as a failure which has simply led to "a proliferation of paper and a massive bureaucratic problem". Under this Act, the local authority services were transferred to autonomous health authorities, in an effort to overcome the separation between
1608
hospitals, general practice and the preventive services. These were the services providing care for babies and toddlers, the school health services, health visitors—all those areas of care and preventive medicine of vital importance to mothers and children.
But the divisions persist: there is still overlap, lack of communication and confusion. The service for children is not a unified service. The preventive services are still set apart from the acute services, and there is a danger that our strong tradition of preventive medicine will decline at the very time when we are beginning to want more emphasis on prevention than on cure. We cannot go on treading a path over the sort of crazy paving our child health services have become—too many of our children will trip over it. There has to be a different way.
I am, as it were, chorus to this short debate, but since other noble Lords, far better qualified than I am, wish to speak, I shall make no attempt to cover the whole report. Instead, I propose to look at the broad lines of the organisation of services which is proposed in the report. Descriptions of services often start with definitions of professions and hierarchies, but I am going to look at the proposals from the point of view of the child and family. This, I believe, is the point of view the Committee have tried to keep uppermost in their thinking. A new baby in a family will need at least two kinds of professional health care: on the one hand, an easily accessible source of medical advice if the child is sick, and some kind of continuing professional care which will watch development, carry out preventive procedures such as inoculations, and advise the parents on the problems which arise during the normal growth of any child.
These two types of care—one for crises and the other for on-going surveillance of the child's health—have usually been provided by general practitioners (with, of course, the possibility of referral to a specialist) and by clinic doctors and health visitors. Now, while this division into treatment and preventive services may be understandable in the way our child and maternal health services have developed historically, and there may have been good professional reasons for the separation, to the ordinary user of health services the scene has been

1609
confusing and communication between the two has generally been very poor. We all know, those of us who have used the services, that often the school doctor or the clinic doctor is so separated from the general practitioner that they seem to inhabit different worlds, with occasional pieces of paper passing between them. How much more satisfactory for the child and his parents if the doctor he sees when he is ill is also well-informed about his growth and development both in and out of school, because a child's health is not divided into unrelated arbitrary compartments.
The Court Committee believed very strongly that an integrated source of medical advice would improve the care of children, and they looked at three possible ways of providing this. One was to encourage better communication between the three services—general practice, clinics and hospitals: a proposal which would avoid upheaval in an already disturbed service. The Committee rejected this idea as not being radical enough to improve the care given to our children; they felt that things would probably just go on as before.
Another idea they considered was that of a service provided for children only, with doctors of first contact and a specialist back-up, trained to deal exclusively with children. This would be a paediatric service in parallel with the service provided for adults. This, too, was rejected on the grounds that it would cause wasteful duplication and would initially be more expensive, and also because a child's health has to be considered in the context of the family. And it was this belief that a child's health should not be considered in isolation from its family which led the Committee to recommend the third possibility, that the first line of care should be provided by general practice and health visitors. From these two sources families will get advice, support, care and treatment for children, both at home and at school. There are good reasons, too, for looking to general practice—for a start, because of the trend towards group practice. Then there has been the emergence of the primary health care team, where doctors, health visitors and social workers work together. And, lastly, there is the developing concept of general practitioners having a special interest in a particular facet of health care.
I have mentioned the confusing pattern of services which families have had to face. The other, and possibly more serious, problem has been the lack of training in child care. The paediatrician in this country is a hospital-based specialist: there has never been any requirement that doctors dealing with children at the primary care stage—that is to say, general practitioners and clinic doctors—should have any specialist training for their work. Given the present state of knowledge about the management of acute illness in childhood and the preventive aspects of child care, the Committee considered the gap between the existing state of knowledge and its application was too great to be tolerated. Their proposals, then, depend on the training of all doctors dealing with children, and they have recommended the concept of a general practitioner with a special interest in children becoming more formalised, both in training and in organisation. This doctor would be general practitioner paediatrician.
This, then, is the main recommendation of the report and one on which the Government must decide with all speed because a decision is urgently needed to end the uncertainty surrounding the future of the pre-school and school health services and the position of the doctors working in them. We have a fine tradition of preventive medicine; it must not decline simply because of uncertainty. Much will depend on whether general practitioners themselves accept the ideas put forward. I recognise that it is a challenge, but it is one I hope they will take up. The report recommends a review of progress after a period of five years, which is a long time in the life of a child.
The concept of specialisation—the general practitioner paediatrician—is one which the Committee would also like to see in the health visitor service; the child health visitor would care for the children of the practice as a member of the primary care team. The role of the health visitor, providing a service devoted to the prevention of illness and the support of families, has always been of great importance to families in this country. It has also in the past been the service which went out to find children in need, and the Committee feel that this aspect of the health visitor's work should be strengthened.
Not all families understand or appreciate the value of a visit to the clinic. The story of the Christmas card sent to the welfare ladies but addressed to the "warfare ladies" may indicate a greater state of alienation than actually exists, but the fact remains that the service has to be provided in terms which are acceptable to its clients. No matter how good a primary care team is, it will be of value only if the children are brought into contact with it. At the moment a substantial proportion of children, possibly 10 per cent., slip through the net and are never seen by a doctor except when an emergency takes them to hospital. The Committee want to see a service which reaches out to find its clients.
I have been talking about the situation when the child is growing up in reasonable health and is developing normally; but, of course, a large number of our children have some kind of handicap. No separate service has ever existed for them and their needs have always been met by a mixture of general practitioners and hospital specialists, and by the facilities for special education which local authorities provide. Parents of handicapped children do not see their children's needs as being separated into education, health and welfare; but those are the services they are offered— and often very little communication exists between them. The Committee's proposal for a district handicap team, where all the caring professions combine to offer a service to a family, reflects their belief—and my own feelings, too—that more co-operation between professionals would result in a better service for children.
One member of this district handicap team would be a consultant community paediatrician, who would have responsibility for special schools in the district. This concept, of a specialist who does not restrict himself to the hospital but is part of the community and provides advice at the point where it is needed, is an essential element in the organisational proposals. I, for one, welcome the idea which recurs constantly in the report, that health care should be provided at the point where the patient needs it.
I come to the last point I want to make about the report. Central to the thinking of the Court Committee is the belief that children have special needs which they
1612
cannot articulate for themselves, and society, therefore, has a duty to ensure that these needs are identified and cogently represented. The members of the Committee asked themselves this question: "Who speaks for children?" No very satisfactory answer was forthcoming. There are certainly many bodies concerned with different aspects of children's interests and needs, but for three years this Committee have been working to consider the whole child.
On the Committee were representatives of the medical and nursing professions, of social work and education, and of parents themselves; and they finally asked themselves whether a body with a similar breadth and depth of experience should not continue to examine and represent the needs of children—educational and social, as well as medical and nursing needs. "Whose job," they asked, "will it be to see that any of our recommendations that are accepted will be carried out? Not just as elegantly-worded circulars of advice and direction, but actually in surgeries and clinics, hospitals, schools and homes—and in the spirit we intended?" There seemed to be no group they could turn to to take on this task.
Aware of the danger of proliferating national councils, the Committee looked at means of creating a powerful national group speaking for children within the existing framework of advisory bodies. The result is their recommendation that a joint committee for children should be formed. Such a committee—a joint subcommittee, in fact, of the Personal Social Services Council and the Central Health Services Council—would constitute a unique bringing together of figures of outstanding ability with the purpose of providing a national forum where the quality and development of services for children would be kept under continuing review. This is an excellent idea, and the Joint Committee for Children is one recommendation that I feel the Secretary of State should accept and implement as a matter of urgency. At a time of economic retrenchment, not all demands can be met; advocacy is vital—and who is speaking for children? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.56 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I wish, first, to thank, as I am sure other noble

1613
Lords will, the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Court Report. I wish, secondly, to congratulate Professor Court and his Committee on preparing and producing such a superb report, and I shall talk more about that later. I suppose I should declare an interest; as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, knows only too well from previous debates about children, I have referred before to my own seven children and two foster-children, which gives me perhaps a disproportionate interest in the case and I must be careful not to talk in proportion to my interest in terms of time, otherwise in this mini-debate game of beating the clock I shall fall foul of the speakers who come after me.
I should like at the start to say that we on these Benches are rather proud to be associated with the report in that Sir Keith Joseph, as Lord Lovell-Davis said, instituted the Committee back in 1973, the opportunity being provided by the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973. The problem obviously existed then which prompted Sir Keith to put the Committee in hand, and the problem, as it appears from the report, is vast and obviously justifies his care at that stage. Talking of care, it is obvious that we all, in all parts of the House, care very deeply on this subject. I know the interest of Lord Wells-Pestell from the past in talking about these issues and that of Lord Lovell-Davis, and the fact that his wife took part in the Committee means that she should share in the praise of the report.
It is a superb report; in fact it is a superb consultative document, based on what one can only describe as a veritable inflation index to a fortune of information, so much so that some of us who have had to try to read through it are almost frightened by the total amount of information that is available, and this gives us much to work on in future. It shows up some very frightening facts, some of which Lord Lovell-Davis mentioned in depth.
Two points come right out at the start, putting them slightly differently. One is that 3,000 babies die needlessly each year. That sounds a cold statistic, but imagine if a hospital went up in flames and 3,000 babies died on one occasion: the outcry
1614
would be stupendous. However, because it happens over a year and because the causes are diffuse, it does not have the same publicity as would a single holocaust. Nevertheless, it exists and the report has thrown it up. It has also thrown up the fact that we are falling behind in real terms. The infant mortality rate is dropping but it is not doing so nearly as quickly as in other countries. We have been overtaken by such countries as France. Clearly, something has to be done about that.
Another area which I know only too well is the subject which hides under the rather innocuous title of "non-accidental injuries". One of my foster children was a battered baby and one can see the effect in terms of vision and paralysis that one blow can cause. As the noble Lord said, 5,000 are affected, and 1,000 of those have serious injuries, not to mention the 100 or probably more who actually die. Those cases do achieve the publicity of a Maria Colwell. Something has to be done. There is no simple answer; there are so many factors that affect that particular area.
The report also covers every other aspect of the child's health throughout its life. It does not deal just with those who die or who are handicapped. I feel that it does its job so well that it is pointless for us to discuss in detail each individual point. However, I should like to touch on some. Because I have an interest in autism, I immediately looked at that part of the report. I wanted to see what was said about handicap. Again, as with every other part of the report, I was most impressed with its findings and recommendations in terms of the handicap team and on other points.
The report lays enormous stress on prevention as well as on cure. It goes into great depth as regards a rationalisation, in terms of creating the child health visitor instead of having two separate sectors of health visiting and of treatment. This would seem eminently sensible, as also is the general practitioner paediatrician scheme. The CHVs are, as it shows in the report, a rather interesting development from the original concept of Florence Nightingale in 1867 of the "health missioner". I found this fascinating, for the report goes into the history as well as the present situation and does it in such a way that it is quite obvious that it has

1615
been written with enormous care and understanding. In fact, I think it one of the most human reports I have read in a long time.
The report also made a point about personal responsibility and it is that area which it highlights because it is so practical. The problems of area and class have already been raised and it is quite clear that in one of these areas—infant mortality—deaths could be reduced greatly if education were increased. But let us remember some of the problems that exist at the moment. Anybody who has had anything to do with pre- and post-natal clinics will know that they are hard to operate in terms of staff and that the mothers who come, and who may often be working or have other children, are hard pressed for time. They cannot afford a lot of time and when a mother goes to a clinic like this she tends to have to sit and wait too long. It is not surprising that the attendance at such clinics is not as great as it should be and that therefore the level of education is not as high as one would wish. It is understandable, but I believe that the scheme will have to be changed so that, as the report recommends, the system can be tailored to fit the needs of mothers who have other children or other responsibilities. In that way the mothers can be brought into the clinics so that they and any children that they have in the future can benefit.
The other evening at dinner, I sat between two distinguished members of the medical profession. On one side of me was Sir Wilfred Sheldon who was responsible for the 1967 report. An aspect of the Sheldon Report which is touched on in the Court Report is that, under the former committee's terms of reference, it was prevented from considering schools. The present report had a much wider brief and it is extremely sensible that this should have been the case because if we are to have a service it should be comprehensive and integrated. While talking to Sir Wilfred, he pointed out that on my other side sat Dr. MacDonald Critchley, who is just writing a book on dyslexia. He had written it in a week, which impressed me greatly. The point that Sir Wilfred made was that there are a vast number of aspects of child care. For instance, he did not know about the book which
1616
Dr. MacDonald Critchley was writing, which emphasised the point that a great many people are involved. Sir Wilfred pointed out that, supposing one had a college of child development, a horrifying number of people would have to be brought in. This service brings in a vast number of people.
Very briefly, because I see that the clock is starting to beat me, I should like to say that the Joint Committee for Children is an excellent recommendation, though I feel that, as it is proposed, it may not have quite the strength necessary to implement the scheme. I know that some people talk about a Minister for Children; I think that that is going far too far, but I feel the Joint Committee may not be quite strong enough to get its views across as it is simply a sub-committee.
So as not to cheat and take more than my fair share of time, I shall conclude by considering what is to be done. Chapter 22 lays out the priorities and expresses it rather delightfully under the heading, "High priority recommendations without major resource implications". Those must be words which will be attractive to any Government. Clearly, the Government will have had little time fully to consider such a major report and I believe that it is unfair to expect instant action. However, I believe that all of us wish to see something implemented and to see a plan which will go on over the next 10 to 15 years, so that, as resources become available, we actually achieve something. On that basis, the major implications are capable of implementation fairly quickly. I am glad to see that the DHSS has called for comments from all interested parties by 1st June. That is a good step and will take matters on their way, and I hope that we shall get a White Paper on this subject when the whole matter has been studied.
In conclusion, I feel that the National Health Service as a whole requires a fairly strong dose of rationalisation. I think that it may perhaps be in danger of a coronary caused by its arteries being blocked by too much bureaucracy. Let us learn from this report and let us hope that when its recommendations are implemented it is done in as streamlined and as logical a way as possible, with the element of bureacracy kept to a minimum so that the system works as effectively as it can.
6.10 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for introducing the Court Report for our attention now, because, although it is a rather lengthy report, it is one of the most readable that I have seen for a very long time and I have taken a great deal of interest in it. The other great virtue of the report arises from its comparison with other reports affecting the National Health Service, which have been implemented on the spot. I am thinking, for example, of the Salmon Report on nursing, which has done a great deal of damage to the nursing profession, and the Seebohm Report on the social worker service, which I believe to have done some good but a great deal of harm to the personal social worker services; whereas the reorganisation of the National Health Service several years ago has been admitted, even by its supporters (the American firm) as being a mistake.
The Court Report deals with many matters about child health, with which I think one can be in general agreement. But one matter which I am not entirely sure about is the paediatric general practitioner. I know that this has been the dream of the paediatricians for a very long time, but because paediatricians dream of it it does not necessarily mean that they are correct. At present there is ' only a relatively small proportion (17 per cent.) of general practitioners working in group practices which would be big enough to employ a paediatrician of this type, whereas a further 20 per cent, work by themselves.
Generally, in the past, where there has been a "biggish" group of practitioners practising together each of them has developed a special interest. I am sure that it has been found that among big practices there is generally one practitioner who has taken a special interest in paediatrics and the care of children, and he would be called in by his colleagues if something particularly difficult arises to see whether or not there is need to bring in a consultant. Most of these people who are interested in the care of children have probably had some experience in working in a hospital in post-registration, which Professor Court suggests they should do before they take up this work.
1618
But I think that one must be rather careful about the way in which general practitioners are used if we are to continue to have them. It is a great advantage if a young person, a child, who comes under the care of a practice so long as he remains in that part of the country (of course it is a different matter if he moves away) should be seen by the same general practitioner from—I was going to say birth to death, but that is taking a rather firm view about the matter. But certainly he should be seen by the same general practitioner over a very long period.
At the same time I think there is advantage in general practitioners taking care of the whole family and not concentrating on a particular member of the family, such as a child up to the age of 14. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, and what is mentioned in the report to the effect that the infantile mortality rate in this country is not as good as it was, as compared with other countries in the civilised world. But I think that general mortality among children under 14 has fallen steadily over the last 70 years, and I hope that we shall be able to pick up on the infantile mortality rate what we appear to have lost.
Professor Court says that the number of extra doctors required for the implementation of his recommendation is under 2,000. I call 2,000 quite a big number and they are going to be very expensive, but the money side of it does not really come in now. I was very pleased that the Committee repeats several times that they want to create a preventive service and that is really what we want to concentrate our attention upon. There are one or two concrete suggestions that they make which I think every thinking doctor would welcome. One is the increase in the number of speech therapists. These people can do an enormous amount of good for children, and their numbers are very under strength at present. It is important, I believe, that there should be a careful system of records worked out which will not be too complicated to operate. Even good general practitioners become rather tired of keeping too many records and they do not all have the secretarial help which is required. Where careful records have been kept, one has seen that they can be easily placed in the years to come, and they form a very good

1619
background to knowledge of a patient who was first seen when young; this knowledge can be used in considering how the patient is to develop when he grows older.
I do not want to say much more, but I believe that there have been several advances in the care of children over the past few years. One of the most important was the setting up of the Attendance Allowance Board, of which I had the privilege to be chairman for a period of six years, whereby it was possible for a family with a child who is handicapped, either physically or mentally, to receive a weekly sum of money tax free, to help to take care of that child and so keep him in their home. I am sure that most children should be kept in their own homes, and the fewer that have to be put into care or custody with either the local authority or the health authority, the better it is for everyone.
Another matter where I believe there is a great deal of promise in the future is in genetic counselling, and by that I mean carefully inquiring into the incidence of certain congenital killing, incurable and long-suffering diseases, such as the various dystrophies which in the course of a year kill a significant number of children or young people. If this could be developed—and it would not be very expensive—it might be possible to reduce very considerably the incidence of these diseases, which are very distressing both to the parents and the children involved. As they begin to grow up such children find that they cannot do what other children can do, and this certainly raises difficulties. My Lords, I do not want to say any more, other than to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, once more for bringing this matter forward, and to thank Professor Court for having produced such an extremely good report.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, before the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, speaks, I should like to point out to your Lordships, with respect, that a fair ration for each speech is 10 minutes.
6.19 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, I, too, welcome this report which is so informative that I wonder whether we can do it justice in a mini-debate. I
1620
shall confine myself to a few remarks on the services for emotionally disturbed and mentally handicapped children. The report proposes that of the 6,000 mentally handicapped children at present languishing in hospitals, at least half should be accommodated in local authority hostels. These children are not ill. They are not now seen as medical cases, and it is generally accepted that they can be helped. Surely this recommendation should have top priority, and pressure must be put on local authorities to stop using mental handicap hospitals as dumping grounds for children for whom they have failed to provide care in the community. But to bring these children out the parents will need the full support of all the back-up services.
Over the last few years we have gained a great deal of knowledge of how parents can be made to help, and, using new techniques, progress can be made; but this knowledge needs to be spread much more widely. Here I should like to mention Honeylands, a project in Devon, and the consultant paediatrician there, Dr. Brimblecombe—a truly remarkable man. Honeylands provides a day and short-stay residential care for severely handicapped children, and I think that the two things which impressed me most about this project were, first, that training the parent to look after her handicapped child often started from as early as a few weeks after birth, or at least as soon as the handicap was diagnosed. The other thing which was outstanding was the co-operation between everyone involved, at all levels.
Also, by taking in children for short stays this project enables parents and families to get a rest, after which they are able to continue, thus obviating the need for permanent residential care. As I have said, this is a joint project, and the Area Health Authority provides help with travelling to the unit, without which some parents would be unable to take advantage of the facilities at Honeylands. As paragraph 14.54 of the report states, it is the Committee's view that:
"each health, education and social service authority should assume responsibility for ensuring that transport, if necessary, is provided for handicapped children and their parents when attending their services".
I was pleased to see that the first recommendation in the specific chapter on handicap is that the Area Health Authorities should undertake their own surveys of

1621
handicapped children to obtain appropriate data on which to base services to meet local needs. This seems to me to be most important if wastage of precious facilities is to be avoided. There is disquiet in some quarters over the manner in which various aids are supplied to children, and I hope the DHSS will look into this. To quote the report:
"It is a short-sighted policy, after money and effort has been spent on treatment and social education, to fail to equip a handicapped child so that he may fully exploit his limited opportunities".
Children's health needs to be looked at in the much broader context of society's problems. I think it comes over very clearly in the report that there is a necessity for community services and multi-disciplinary teamwork. Too often there are fundamental and divisive differences in attitudes and methods of work among the various professional groups. There must be liaison and active co-operation between the health and social services in all areas, not just in a few as at present. This could be done without too much expense and without too much upheaval. The last thing anyone wants is any more major change in the National Health Service. There are numerous variations from one area to another, and although Government policy is clearly laid down there seems to be no specific way in which we can get it implemented. The run-down of the large subnormality hospitals continues, but there is no clear evidence that the money thus saved is being put back into the community services, which would surely be the obvious thing to do with this whole new thinking on community care.
I should like to end with a quote from the report on the Court Committee's own picture of subnormality hospitals. They say:
"We have seen for ourselves how hollow the lives of these children can be. Early to bed and early to rise, with few toys and little education, and nothing to do at week-ends, their quality of life and standard of care are all too often subordinate to regimes and staffing dictated by the organisation of a large institution.
"We have also seen the caring devotion of staff struggling with professional isolation, as well as lack of facilities. The primary responsibility lies, not with them, but with an insensitive society which chooses to ignore the problem".
6.25 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I am indebted, with the rest of your Lordships'
1622
House, to my noble friend for raising this important report at this early date in your Lordships' House. The recommendations of the report will of course take many years to implement, and it is not necessary to expect a full reply from the Government at this early stage. My noble friend has fully explained the need for a new medical care system. I interpret the report as arguing that if their very bold proposal, placing enormous reliance upon the general practitioner, is not successful, then there really is no alternative to the creation of a full-scale paediatric service.
My purpose, however, in rising today is to draw attention to what I think is in the long run the most important part of the report; namely, the first chapter. In my judgment, this chapter may well be the most important single social document which has appeared for many years, because it describes in graphic detail the changing pattern of family life, which affects not only child health but also education and, indeed, the whole functioning of our modern society, not only as it affects the social services but as it affects the pattern of work as well. In this brief debate, necessarily, we have to be selective in what we say and speak very quickly, as I regret I am now doing, and I am therefore seeking the opportunity to highlight for your Lordships (for it is an extremely long report) certain points which I think should be taken into consideration by everybody active in public life when considering the various steps which have to be taken in public policy in relation to children.
The report points out that the fall in the birthrate is of fundamental importance in understanding what is happening in modern society, and that this fall in the birthrate is in some respects a manifestation of the growing importance which is attached to the life of the individual child. People have fewer children, but they respect them more. I am sorry; the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is giving me a nasty look. A hundred years ago a substantial proportion of the large number of children born to each family died young. Now, I am glad to say, child death is a rare occurrence, though the report points out, as noble Lords have also pointed out, that much child death and handicap could be elimiated by adequate health services. The report

1623
confirms the quite extraordinary difference in the experience of children born into homes where the parents follow professional occupations and the experience of children born into homes where the parents are manual workers. It is two-and-a-half times more likely that children of the latter group will die than children of the former, professional group. This reinforces the view which has come from the great educational reports in the past 25 years of the extreme differentiation which still persists in our egalitarian society. It persists, my Lords, in all countries, from Sweden to France, from America to Poland. It is a very difficult, perhaps an insoluble, problem.
The report draws attention to the fact that marriage has never been so popular as it is now. People are marrying much younger than they used to, and many more people are marrying. For example, the proportion of women aged 45 to 49 who have never married was 17 per cent in 1931. It is now only 7 per cent. And although the tendency to divorce has risen enormously—and a quick statistical calculation has shown me that, if we exclude the Bishops, something like 20 per cent of your Lordships have been through the divorce courts—most divorced people in fact remarry and reinforce the view that marriage may be unstable but it is extremely popular. Nevertheless, the consequence of much of this divorce, and also of the death of middle-aged adults through coronary heart disease caused by smoking and stress diseases, is to leave a substantial proportion of children in one-parent families; and, as our debate on the Finer Report showed recently, we still organise our society on the basis that all children are in a home with two parents.
I have given the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, notice that I intended to refer to his eloquent speech on the Northern Ireland divorce Bill, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. Lord Simon drew attention to the horrid consequences for children of marriage breakdown. They are indeed often appalling, as we all know. But I think we should beware of attributing too much social ill to this particular social cause. What I would wish to say is this. First, the Finer Report and this magnificent report, the Court Report, show that
1624
most one-parent families do not result from divorce.
Next, the noble and learned Lord referred to the division of labour between husband and wife, the man being in employment and the woman looking after the children at home. This is no longer a true picture of family life. Thirdly, he referred to the problem of two-family husbands but, with great respect, that is an over simplification. What is clear is that the great majority of divorced women with children remarry; and although I regret the marriage breakdown, the evidence suggests that consequences are different from those which the noble and learned Lord suggested the other day. That is extremely relevant to the point that I should like to make now about the Court Report. It is very likely that in the modern home the mother will be working, and there is some evidence to suggest that in those homes where the mother is working the quality of care for the children is higher, as well as the physical conditions better, than in those homes where the mother does not work; so that we can no longer assume that there is the mother to take the child to the clinic, because the mother is at work and the family benefits from that work.
Nevertheless, in all homes there are certain major problems. One in 15 of our children are in one-parent families, and that is a major problem to which your Lordships' House has turned its attention in the past; but something like two-fifths of working-class mothers suffer at some stage from severe clinical depression. If medical science and the social services could alleviate this aspect of psychiatric illness, it is extremely probable that the conditions of stress and strain under which something like one-third of our children grow up could be alleviated very materially.
The family now, then—and this is the lesson that I take from this remarkable first chapter—is a much more complex family than it used to be, and our social services have not, I think, taken into account these fundamental changes in the family. As the report says, as a result of the housing programme most families now have their own house or flat, which is a good thing, but the consequence is this:
"mothers and their young children probably spend far more time alone together today than ever they did in the past, and very large numbers of young women live lonely and unhappy lives."

1625
This seems to me to be extremely important. The girls concerned have given up a job, their careers are frustrated and they are bored and lonely. That is the other side of the apparently "happy" marriage to which the noble and learned Lord referred the other day as being the ideal which the divorce court should seek to avoid. Life is not as simple as it is sometimes thought to be.
What the report emphasises is that in this changed and complex pattern of family life, with marriage being very popular, but serial marriage far more common, with a substantial number of children growing up in one-parent families, with a significant number of children left alone for long periods of time with depressed and anxious young women, the need is vital for supporting services of great subtlety and care. This, it seems to me, points just as strongly to the schools as it does to the medical services and to the social services. It also suggests that we need very carefully to rethink things like advertising and television programmes which add to guilt and stress by suggesting that the norm is a two-parent family with the mother at home, not working, and with everybody enjoying radiant psychiatric health. This is no longer a true picture of our society, and it is no use trying to pretend that it is something that we are going to achieve by saying that we should like such a society. I do not want to give a picture of a society rent with psychiatric tensions and problems; but what I am suggesting is that there is some need to take account of this growing knowledge of the complexity of our social life.
What the report also emphasises is the growing significance of children in the lives of many people. In my view, this leads to recognition of the rights of children as individuals. Perhaps this right should be formalised by law, by the creation of officers who can argue directly on behalf of children even when those children are not subject to the care of a local authority. This I think is an important concept, not in the report, which needs thinking about; and something on which I should very much welcome discussion in this House.
In short, my Lords—and I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom's earnest plea to the letter —I would commend this report to your
1626
Lordships as one of very great significance and, in particular, I should like to see a digest of Chapter 1 very widely distributed and discussed by all who are concerned with future trends in housing, employment, social work, health and education.
6.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I too rise to welcome this report. I welcome it first because it is community-based and has in mind an integrated community service in which the hospital, school and parents are not separated from one another but seen as a whole. I welcome it, too, because it is family-centred. It does not intend to usurp the responsibility of the family but to encourage it so that parents are better able to care for their own children. I welcome it also because it is child-centred. It recognises, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, reminded us, that children have rights and sometimes those rights may militate against the rights of the parents. I imagine that in the debate to come erosion of parental rights will have to be watched. The rights of the children are of superior importance. They are individuals, as we have heard, and not chattels or playthings. Though we look back with horror to the days before the Factory Acts, it could be argued that children are perhaps at greater risk now than ever.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—as I am sure your Lordships will be—because he has lifted almost entirely my next paragraph which was to underline the effects of divorce and the other factors that he mentioned which do mean that many children are going to experience stress complaints and psychological disorders in childhood and adolescence which are going to require first-rate, sensitive help; and hence I welcome the projected Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Service to replace the existing fragmented service. It also underlined the need for trained counsellors—and the word "trained" should be emphasised. I find there is a positive rash of organisations springing up offering counselling—sometimes, it seems to me, with very little training given to those who undertake this responsible service. Indeed, inexpert counselling for children and young people with psychological disorders can be dangerous in

1627
the extreme and we should therefore see that proper training for counsellors is provided.
I am depressed by parts of the report, those parts which the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, set up for us at the beginning of his speech. I too thank him for bringing this matter to our attention. It is unutterably depressing to know that one child in seven has a condition causing moderate or severe handicap sufficient to be a cause of concern to the child's education. It is appalling to learn of the great contrast in the variation of life expectation of children between regions in this country and between classes in this country. As the report itself says, the disadvantages of early life casts long shadows forward. I suppose in many ways it is easier to improve health services than the complex social factors which hamper a child's development. Certainly, this is a massive operation now to be mounted over the years. Dr. Tom Mayer in Medical News last month put it rather more harshly when he said:
"The recommendations would not effect a cure of what is in essence a social disease."
But, my Lords, that is another debate.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, in initiating this debate the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has provided an opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding work of Professor Court and the distinguished members of his Committee. The objectives behind the recommendations in the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, outlined, are to provide a readily available and integrated medical service for children. The report emphasises that the service should be child-and family-centred, and that the role of the professional staff should not usurp the parental role.
The parents are the primary guardians of the child's health; and at a later date I must discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I recognise that, equally, the child has rights, as has been said by the right reverend Prelate. We would agree with these precepts. It is interesting that such precepts are very much those stated in the Seebohm Report on the Reorganisation of the Social Services; namely, to provide a community based family-orientated social service. The
1628
Court Report with its wealth of information, much of it based on evidence given by nearly every relevant sphere and by individuals, has stimulated wide discussions.
Perhaps the greatest compliment one can pay to a committee is to probe the recommendations, call for clarification and, in some cases, be critical. In a group of general practitioners, as I understand it, one of them would specialise in medical work with children, carry out school medicals and act as medical adviser to the other doctors in the group on matters relating to children. This general practitioner paediatrician, as I understand it, would carry a case load of 70 per cent children. Does this mean that the general practitioner paediatrician would be unable to follow through the children on his list into adult life?
Furthermore, does this mean that the general practitioner paediatrician does not have as his or her patients the adult members of the child's family? To understand a child, surely a doctor must know the family. Does this recommendation not go against the family orientated service? I am not sure of the administrative arrangements concerning the designated child health visitors whose responsibility is for a geographical, territorial area which will inevitably be coterminous with a number of doctors; and will not her case load be more than she can carry? She is a key person in the situation but I am not sure that the duties allocated to her are going to be practicable.
The country, even under the reorganised Health Service, varies from area to area in its administration. In the area I know, and under a notable medical officer of health, a city of 110,000 population was organised into group practices each with a health centre, some purpose-built. The relationship as between the general practitioners at the health centres, the schools and the hospitals and the social services is on a very sound footing. On the other hand, in another large county the doctors, I am told, have resisted organisation in health centres fearing an encroachment of bureaucracy into their field. Again, the situation in the large industrial cities, the mining areas, is different and with different problems. Where there is good practice should it be disturbed, and should not the needs of each regional health board be looked at before overall changes are made?

1629
I support the concept of the legal rights of children. On page 276 of the report is recommended an enforceable medical without the removal of the child from home under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. On page 152 is recommended allowing a child in school to be medically examined without the parents' permission. On page 138 it is stated that parents should notify change of address when claiming family allowances so that the area health board can be notified. While supporting these recommendations, it is hoped that they would be used sensitively and with circumspection. Seventy five per cent of parents co-operate with the medical services. Of the remaining 25 per cent., a large proportion are open to persuasion. It is only the small hard core to whom these recommendations of enforced medicals would apply; and while having this sanction, one would hope that it would not be used on a widespread basis.
Reference has been made to a council for children which should comprise the present children and family life group, a subcommittee of the personal social services council joined with the central health services council. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in wondering whether this Committee has enough teeth. If it is to be a discussion unit, if it is to be another research unit, then I believe that it will not have enough teeth and that in some way it should be responsible to the Cabinet, to Parliament, so that recommended policies are carried out at the grass roots, so that the service reaches children in their own areas and that there is not just discussion at the national level.
The very first and outstanding chapter of the report has been referred to and I will not therefore refer to it again. But on page 4 it is stated that over the past 40 years there has been marked improvement due to the reduction of overcrowding, better nutrition, smaller and more "spaced" families as well as improved medical treatment. The improved health of children is achieved in part by constructive social policies, and improved medical services for children must go hand in hand with these improved social policies. I believe that if one is to have a council for children that council must not only look at the medical services for children but the social policies carried out or not carried out, as the case may be, in this country.
1630
May I touch on the question of training. The whole scheme recommended in the Court Report is going to depend on two things: one, a very deep awareness of the needs of children, and a very deep awareness of the needs of parents and training. I suggest that at the moment we are falling behind with the training of our nurses, with the training of the number of our doctors, and we are certainly falling behind with the training of social workers. I have been speaking for eight minutes and I have two more pages of notes which I shall not read. I commend very much the Court Report, as have so many noble Lords. I have asked these various questions and I hope that some day I may have an answer from the members of the Court Committee.
6.48 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, you will not be surprised if I confine the few remarks that I want to make to the school health service, of which I have some experience. I gathered from the Court Report two messages. The first was that the Health Service had been overconcerned with the service and not sufficiently concerned with the clients, the customers. With that I find myself in complete agreement. Secondly—and I keep to the school health service—the weaknesses were that there was not sufficiently effective co-ordination between the various professional elements which were necessarily involved.
Thirty-five years ago we had a school health service which was effectively co-ordinated as part of the Education Service. My experience of the past 35 years has been to watch that Service become, in my judgment, increasingly unco-ordinated and less effective because of an over-concern with the integration of the health service—and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, reminded me of a similar desire in the integration of the social services—and there has been a disintegration of the Education Service. Thirty-five years ago the school medical service in the city which I served was a part of the education department. The chief schools medical officer was on my staff. His nine doctors and 36 nurses were; the 39 welfare officers were also on my staff.
A good test of a service is when it is under pressure. I recall in December 1940 one

1631
Sunday morning being instructed to take care of 36,000 homeless people, with no previous preparation, to provide for emergency feeding services, rest centres, billeting and all that had to go with it. It was a task which, I say with modesty, I think we achieved very successfully, because we had nine doctors and 36 nurses who had been working in the closest co-operation with the teaching staff, not for a few months but for years. They were part of an integrated service. We had 39 welfare officers, and the billeting of 36,000 homeless people was completed in 48 hours, because they knew the homes in the area and could match those who required billeting with the homes which they knew.
What has happened since then? Here I am afraid I lay charges against the National Health Service. The maximum pressure was brought to bear from central Government that the school medical officers must not be in the education department; they must be under the care of the medical officer of health, who, let us face it, has different functions— we are talking about preventive medicine. Sheffield was indeed the second last authority which retained a school health service under the care of the Education Department; and the chief medical officer went to Birmingham, which was the last in the line. Pressures prevented that continuing.
What was the next stage? That occurred in 1974, when the National Health Service decided that they could not leave local authorities having anything to do with health. I wrote a minority report on the dangers to the school health service at that time in the Working Party of which I was a member, which feared the very things we are now discussing, the lack of effective co-operation and co-ordination, the inevitable problem of the conflict between curative and preventive services. I fear the Area Health Authority not giving the same priority to preventive service as to curative service; and this report follows completely that trend. I fear the proposals in it, hospital based. Why not, if you are dealing with handicapped children, base them in special schools which deal with those children? Why in hospitals? I sometimes wonder whether, in order to go forward, we may have to go back. I am myself not sure
1632
that we have not failed to recognise that the important thing is not the wholeness of the Health Service but that the important thing is the wholeness of the child.
6.53 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I sincerely hope that this magnificent report will receive the attention it deserves. I do not think that a short debate—that does not mean it is short on the quality of the speeches—is sufficient to do justice to the report. It deserves a full day, and perhaps two days, for a debate on the same scale as that we had recently on the Image of Industry, which was one of the best debates I have listened to in this Chamber. Having had more than 30 years' experience in Parliament and having sat on many Select Committees, how often have I, and others, seen the work of perhaps two or three years' duration debated, briefly, and then pushed into a pigeonhole and forgotten? I sincerely hope that, whatever may happen in politics over the next two years, this report will be debated and some of it, at least, implemented.
I wish to speak—and I will do it briefly because of the time factor—on the dental service. I would, to my noble friend Lord Vaizey, qualify a little, and I would even qualify to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, the destiny of children since the 18th and 19th centuries. Look at the boys of today; look at the vagabonds at football matches; see the pictures in the Daily Mirror—they are about two stone heavier than their fathers were. Some of them have as many muscles as all-in wrestlers. They may be "Yobbos", but by God they are healthy ones! There is a problem because of the physical fitness, because of the feeding and the higher standards of life—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about cases where the parents go to work. See the food tables. I should like to quote from the report, at page 198:
"The School and Priority Service devotes five per cent of all sessions to the treatment of pre-school children and in 1973 78,000 were treated. In the General Dental Service in the same year over one million estimates for young children were approved"—
that is a lot of work. The report continues:
"and nearly 500,000 of these related to treatment. Dentists are certainly giving time to this group but the need for treatment shows that present preventive methods are not yet effective."

1633
That is the point just made. It continues:
"However, the 5-yearly surveys carried out since 1948, the last in 1973, show a considerable improvement in the dental health of five-year olds."
I have made my point. They say the reason is not clear. I think I can add something. The reason is that the five-year old today gets pre-natal attention which is better than it was 15 or 20 years ago.
I think a tribute should be paid to the ugly ducklings of the school health service; namely, the cooks, who cook meals in the nursery schools and in the five-year-old schools. The qualified ones are now taking courses in diet and in the correct amount of carbonhydrates and calcium to give to the five-year-old. I hope to see a better training for many of those cooks. I hope that the parent teacher associations—I trust I am right about this, because I am speaking "off the cuff" without having enough time to study this marvellous report in full—also will make a contribution to the problem of the health of the school child.
I should like to spend my last few minutes speaking about the dental service. Unfortunately, we have not discovered a way to offer sufficient career opportunities to the dental student at university, who goes through the whole gamut and eventually becomes a consultant in the school dental service. The relatively poor state of dental health in Britain among our children after a quarter of a century of the National Health Service suggests that the approach to preventing and treating dental disease requires a major reorientation. That is a point which was made exactly, briefly but succinctly, by the noble Lord before he sat down. That can be done only if we get a dental system worthy of the country in which we are living. It is done in Switzerland, Sweden and even in Scotland, and we ought to be able to do it here. It is even done in Wales a little bit.
I suggest that if we can have nurses pumping things into us when we are in hospital—and we trust qualified SRNs—the dental profession should allow more women auxiliaries to come into their profession. In fact, in 1544 Henry VIII established a medical service and allowed women to play a part in it; so if he could do it, obviously the modern, well qualified, brushed-up dental service should not be
1634
jealous of a few nurses with a qualification equivalent to SRN coming in as auxiliaries to give attention needed for children's oral and dental treatment.
I should now like to draw attention to another job of work done by very responsible people. I refer to the working report prepared by Laurie Pavitt, who is a Member of another place, called A Challenge for Change in the Dental Services. He and the people with him, who are highly qualified, made the plea that ancillary dental workers should come into this auxiliary service for school dentistry. Much as I should like to develop this subject, and talk about the information I have gathered, that would trespass on the very important debate that is to follow and on the time available to my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to reply. Therefore, having made these brief points, I shall reluctantly sit down and await his reply.
7.1 p.m.
Lord COLWYN: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for initiating our debate today. The report covers a very wide subject and I shall confine my remarks to my own speciality, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of dental surgery. As a practising dentist, I am clearly committed to the view that dental health is an essential ingredient of general health. I also believe firmly that the foundations of good health must be laid in childhood. This is true in most fields of health care, but especially important in dentistry. A national survey of child dental health, carried out in 1973, showed that by the age of 14 one child in 10 had lost four or more permanent teeth. From the age of six onwards, nine out of 10 children needed some kind of dental attention, because of decay, gum disease or growth irregularities.
The size of the problem is very daunting, and I welcome the way Professor Court and his Committee have recognised it. But I welcome even more one of their main conclusions, that immediate steps should be taken to introduce water fluoridation on a national scale, if decay is preventable, why is it not being prevented? If 8 per cent. of the people of Britain enjoy the

1635
benefits of water fluoridation, why are 92 per cent being deprived? Quite rightly, the Committee blame public apathy, minority prejudice and Governmental reluctance to impose a political solution.
Water fluoridation is one of the Court Committee's top priorities for improving child health, and without it Britain's dentists have no hope of coping with the problem of dental decay. The Government's recent decision to earmark funds to assist health authorities to pay the capital cost of fluoridation schemes was a helpful move. But I urge the Government now to do more, in the light of the Court Committee's findings. The opponents of water fluoridation have recently been questioning its legality and, although the Department of Health has assured us that water authorities are fully empowered to fluoridate, there is still much uncertainty. I suggest that the best end to this uncertainty would be a Government Bill to make fluoridation mandatory, immediately and nationally.
But preventive measures, although an essential first step, are not the whole answer to our dental problems. We must also strengthen the treatment services for children, in both general practice and the community health services. Most children receiving dental treatment are seen by a general practitioner—a family dentist who probably also treats the child's parents, and who can continue to treat the child later on in adult life. This is as it should be, with child care integrated into other general dental care. The child grows up with the idea of visiting a dentist regularly, and the dentist knows the parents and can discuss and explain the child's needs with them.
General dental practitioners currently provide about 10 million courses of treatment a year for children of 15 or under, and children make more frequent and regular use of the general dental service than any other age group. There is therefore no evidence that the general dental service fee system of payment has failed children by deterring dentists from treating them. But, equally, there can be no objection to the Court Committee's proposal that we should experiment with an alternative system, using capitation fees for child patients. As the Committee
1636
say, there could be readily apparent advantages if one practitioner in a group practice could provide total therapeutic and preventive dental care for all the children in an area. Many dental practices today are big enough for this idea to be a practical possibility, but we need to experiment to find out whether the financial details of such a system can be worked out satisfactorily.
I feel bound to observe, however, that the Department of Health's record is not good when it comes to investigating possible improvements in the dental services. As long ago as 1973, DHSS officials agreed to set up some experimental dental emergency centres, to assess the need for treatment at bank holidays and weekends. These experiments are still not off the ground, because of the Department's refusal to acknowledge the unsocial hours of dentists working in the centres. If the Department moves as swiftly on the capitation fee experiment as on the emergency service study, we shall be lucky if anything comes of it before the mid-'eighties.
If I may speak about the lack of an NHS dental emergency service for a moment longer, it is frequently children who are the victims of dental emergencies. It is often forgotton that over the last 25 years the dental profession has repeatedly declared its willingness to man such a service. But the service must be organised and financed by the Government since a dentist, paid only for work done, cannot carry the considerable costs of keeping his surgery open on the off-chance that a patient might appear. All the initiatives about setting up an emergency dental service have been made by the dental profession, and all the delays and obstructions have come from the Department. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, perhaps, the Department does not want an emergency service. If this is the case, then I ask the Minister to say so and stop the blame for its absence falling on my colleagues in the dental profession.
But to return to the principal question, most children are, and should continue to be, treated in a general practice environment with the rest of their families. But there are, unfortunately, children whose parents do not recognise or assert

1637
their dental needs, and for whom access to general dental service treatment is not enough. Their needs would go unmet without a service which sought them out and initiated care, as the school and priority dental service does. There are approximately 1,800 dentists now working in this service, inspecting about 5 million schoolchildren each year and treating about 1½ million. It is encouraging to find that their inspections show a declining proportion of children needing treatment—about 50 per cent today, compared with 70 per cent 20 years ago. But we still have a long way to go and it is right, as the Court Committee have recommended, that there should be a further expansion of this service. The Committee are also right to draw attention to the regional disparities in the provision of dental care.
Fortunately, however, there is now prospect of building up the school and priority service, and improving the dental services in deprived regions, without damaging the services for non-priority groups or the services in other regions. By international standards, and in terms of the ambitious aims of the National Health Service, Britain is very short of dental manpower. But during the last decade our dental schools have expanded by 50 per cent., and over the next 30 years or so we can expect a steady improvement in the situation, which will make possible a balanced development of the dental services. However, it is important to avoid over-reaction to the problems of children, creating levels of health and expectations which cannot be maintained into adulthood. This is the mistake which New Zealand has made, running an effective children's dental service, but without any public dental programme for adults to follow it up. The result is that New Zealand has an even worse level of odontolousness, or toothlessness, than Britain.
It sometimes seems that we are about to make the same mistake. At the beginning of April, adults will be required to pay substantially more for their National Health Service treatment—the second major increase in charges made by the present Government. As the British Dental Association say, in their evidence to the Royal Commission on the National Health Service,
1638
"It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Government is moving towards a dental service confined to the priority classes and recipients of social security grants."
I strongly urge the Government not to cut back any further on spending in the adult dental services.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to the special, and now largely unmet, dental needs of handicapped children. The Court Committee recommended—and there can be no argument with this—that their dental care should be brought up to the level provided for other children and that in certain types of physical handicap (children suffering from heart or blood disease, for instance) the highest levels of dental health should be maintained continuously. For severely handicapped children, even simple dental treatment can entail great difficulty, and in certain cases, as the Court Report recognises, there can be serious risk. We should therefore be doing everything possible to prevent dental disease in such children.
There may perhaps be arguments against the general use in the Health Service of topical fluorides to prevent dental decay when a so much more cost effective alternative is available in water fluoridation. But in the case of the handicapped child an exception must be made. I ask the Minister to agree that topical fluorides and also fissure sealants should be available to handicapped children, through all branches of the National Health Service dental services, including general practice.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, having just spoken in the last debate on integrating the disabled, I find that there are many aspects of this report on child health services which merge into each other. If you have a disabled parent or a disabled child, you have a family which must cope with the disability. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for initiating this most interesting debate. It is still too soon to have fully studied and digested the contents, but I hope that this debate will bring to the notice of many that the long awaited and most important report is now available. I should like to ask the Minister—and here I am seconding the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis—whether there is to be made available a

1639
consolidated version which would fit the pocket of all who wish to read it and which would encourage some people, who may be frightened off by its size. This is already being asked for. Looking at the report as a whole makes me wonder whether or not the Government should make up their mind before any further reorganisation within the Health Service—if it is going to do away with one tier of administration—takes place. "Too much administration" seems to be the cry up and down the country. The present Government are not to blame for this problem.
The report brings to our notice that Britain is lagging behind several countries in infant mortality. This point has been stressed by nearly all noble Lords. I think that we should do far more about educating our society in health education and child care as a whole. We used to have a child care class at the borstal I visit, and this was a most popular and well attended class. I think in the school curriculum this subject ought to be included and that children ought to have the opportunity to take GCE in health care. After all, it is possible to do so in cooking and home economics. I should like to ask the Minister whether he does not agree that health care is more important for the good of our children and society. Having asked a Question on school medical records on 15th October last year in your Lordships' House, I am very pleased to see the recommendations on this subject in the report.
I am a member of a community health council and I agree with the suggestion that membership should include mothers of young children. I am the youngest female member of our community health council. I am well on in middle age and our youngest child is nine. To get young members to sit on any committee seems difficult, but it should be encouraged. I should like to take this opportunity of telling the Minister that our community health council and the district community physician have good communication and consultation. He nearly always attends our monthly meetings. I agree with the report that a consultant in community paediatrics seems an excellent idea and that he or she could be a much needed link with hospital and community. This post would, I feel, be of great benefit for handicapped children.
1640
The report states that the standard of diagnosis, assessment and care for children suffering from physical, mental or multiple handicaps does not reach that achieved by the National Health Service for the treatment of acute illness. I feel the reason for this partly is that interest in this subject has not been stimulated and taught in the medical schools and that the problems have not been brought out into the open but rather pushed into the background. Parents of spina bifida children are grateful for the services they receive in Sheffield where they see specialist consultants who are totally interested and help in all the problems. But in many other cities the services seem to be fragmented, with no special leader, and the parents feel neglected.
I was disappointed that the report did not include in the district handicap team physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists especially trained in work with children. I have personally witnessed the assessment of children by physiotherapists at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children. They are the people who generally know far more about wheelchairs and other aids rather than the doctors or nurses. I would feel far happier if they were included in the team, because the correct assessment and reassessment of children who are growing and have a handicap is vital if they are not to become more deformed.
I applaud the suggestion, when discussing doctor and patient relationships, that there should be some open surgeries. How can parents arrange when their children are to be ill? Many parents who are desperately worried are rebuffed and it is no wonder that when this happens they prefer to use the casualty department of a hospital. But now so many of these have closed. I could not see a mention in the report of anything about the wonderful voluntary work which goes on in our hospitals. To give your Lordships an example, the League of Friends of Harrogate Hospital raised £4,950 last year to buy equipment for the maternity wards. Voluntary helpers, who play and help feed children, are a valuable part of our child health services, and I think that they deserve a mention.
I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice the different circumstances of the remote rural districts. Here there are still

1641
some single handed practices which cause great problems, tied up with practice area numbers. The district nurse has triple duties. She is a State registered nurse, a State certified midwife and a health visitor. How can she do more? In my health district we do not have one psychiatric bed and there is no community psychiatric cover. In our district general hospital many people are admitted for attempted suicide over the year. In six months there were 75 cases, and this is a hospital with only just over 300 beds. These poor, unfortunate patients are sent home, with no follow up, and many of them are young people with children.
These tragedies put terrible pressures on children. If only we had some trained psychiatric nurses working in the community and an extension of the crossroad care scheme, there would be an improvement. Also I think that we need some trained psychiatric social workers. I asked my area health committee about this and they said that they did not exist, but at King's College Hospital last night I sat next to one at dinner. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give an assurance that the Government will not forget the special circumstances of the rural areas.
In ending, I should like to congratulate the report when it stresses the need for professional staff to work together. What could be more important than the DHSS and the DES working together over the problems of dyslexic children? At national level this seems to happen, but at district level there is a need for improvement. I should like to thank all noble Lords for their controlled speeches, as it is always a little nerve wracking, in a short debate, to be the 11th person in the batting order.
7.19 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis has provided a valuable opportunity for discussion of the report of the Committee on child health services. It is just this wides-spread and informed discussion of the Committee's proposals that the Government are anxious should take place before they come to a decision on the Committee's major recommendations. There can be no doubt—and I say this most sincerely—that the Committee have provided a most challenging review of the child health
1642
services in this country. A debate provides me with an opportunity which I should like to take to thank Professor Court and his Committee on behalf of the Government, and I hope on behalf of all those who are engaged in child health services, for what is, as everyone has said tonight, a most comprehensive review undertaken in depth of the situation today and of the needs for the future.
The report indicates in no uncertain manner the strength and weaknesses of the existing child health services, and I believe that it serves as a signpost to the road ahead and for this the Government and my Department are very grateful. We acknowledge the immense value that the report will have on Government thinking and Government planning in the course of time. Therefore, I say to Professor Court and to those who have served him, it has been a volume of service to the community that cannot be adequately acknowledged by mere words, however carefully they are chosen.
I know that my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis will anticipate some of the things I am going to say. He has had experience of being a Minister in a Department where so much needed to be done and sometimes it took so long to do it. He knows, of course, of some of the restraints with which we are faced at the present moment, and although I did not want to start by reminding your Lordships of the current severe constraints on public expenditure, I am encouraged to do so because the Court Committee themselves recognised that the full implementation of their proposals would have significant resource implications, particularly in respect of manpower and training, and would have to be seen as long-term objectives which could be achieved only over a long period as the economic recovery of the nation proceeds and the current restraints on expenditure can be lifted.
It is against that background that consideration of the report has to be given and it is with this knowledge in mind that one has to analyse and get certain priorities. I am fully aware of the fact that the report lists four high priority recommendations which the report says are "Without major resource implications". The first is the district handicapped teams, the second is the Joint

1643
Committee for Children, the third is the Children's Departments, and the fourth, the training and career opportunities for married women doctors. I want to say a few words about the second, because I gained the impression that my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis, quite rightly, laid a good deal of stress upon the Joint Committee for Children, and I happen to know that his wife, who was a member of this Committee, herself feels strongly about it. The Government share the conviction which underlies this recommendation that only a combined approach from all the services concerned with children can bring about the improvements that we all wish to see.
At a meeting with Professor Court last June Lord James, who was then chairman of the Personal Social Services Council, expressed a general welcome for this proposal and I understand that the Council's Children and Family Life Group has already given some preliminary thought to how a joint committee might work. Your Lordships will appreciate that there are many other groups, not least the Central Health Services Council, which have not yet expressed a view, including the principal professional interests whose views we shall have to take into account when they are available. This is always one of the problems with a report of this kind which ranges over a wide area which has to take into account not only a number of facets but also the number of organisations, professional and otherwise, which are working in a field. I suggest it would be quite wrong for the Government to anticipate and precipitate certain courses of action until we have been able to draw on the wealth of experience and the fund of knowledge which is possessed in this country at the present moment.
I think the report will be talked about for years to come. I can foresee—and I say this with great respect—that it might even become the "Bible" of the children's health services in this country. It contains 670 pages of informed investigations and one might almost say (if I may use the word in an extravagant way) research. One is not going to be able to implement this report overnight. I am sure my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis will understand that it is not possible for my right honourable friends, the Secretaries of
1644
State for Social Services, for Wales and for the Department of Education and Science, to reach any conclusions until the outcome of these consultations is known. However, there is one thing I can say to him. I can assure him that there will be no avoidable delay. At the same time it has to be acknowledged that many of the recommendations, particularly those which call for far-reaching changes in the organisation of primary health care for children, will have major implications for the staff concerned and that in any circumstances they could be embarked upon only after the widest possible consultation. I want to emphasise this because the question of consultation must be a real thing, it must have meaning, and it will take time. Unfortunately in a country like this where there are so many activities, all indirectly bearing on each other, one has to get a consensus, and that takes time.
In order not to lose the impetus given by the publication of the Court Report the three Government Departments involved, namely, the Department of Education and Science, the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Security, wrote on the day of publication, which was 16th December last, to health and local authorities, to community health councils and some 140 organisations concerned in the care and education of children seeking their views on the report and asking them specifically for their reactions to the key structural changes proposed. We have asked those commenting to let us have their views by the end of June, and I can assure your Lordships that we shall take careful account of all the points that have been raised today in our consideration of the general reaction to the report. But bearing in mind that the report was available on 16th December, I think your Lordships will agree that we have not wasted any time. I do not believe we could have moved any more quickly.
In parallel with these external consultations, the Department of Health and Social Security will be attempting a more rigorous analysis of the human and financial resource implications than was possible for the Court Committee. It will clearly take some time after June to digest the results of these two exercises, but the Government hope to be able to make an announcement on their position as soon after June as possible. We are very much aware of the interest with which

1645
the report was awaited. We know of the interest that people in all walks of life have shown in the report, and we recognise that this long-awaited report emphasises the importance to child health services and those working in them of an early decision on the major recommendations. We shall do everything that is within available resources to ensure that the quality of services is sustained during any transitional period.
We believe, too, that prima facie there are recommendations which could be implemented with little or no additional resources, and I said a moment or two ago that we are looking at these. In seeking the view of the interested organisations and the field authorities, we have specifically asked them to tell us where they think there is scope for action in the short-term despite the existing restraints on availability and money. Noble Lords will also be aware that the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales issued Consultative Documents on priorities for the health and social services last year, both of which identify services for children as among those needing priority over the subsequent three or four years.
It is our intention that the outcome of consultations on the Court Report should be taken into account along with other factors in the preparation of subsequent plans for the development of the health and personal social services. Where the Court Committee have lent support to the proposals put forward in the Consultative Document we shall be taking their views into account wherever possible in the revision of the planning guidelines for health authorities in 1977/1978.
With regard to prevention, in his Statement on the report my right honourable friend the Secretary of State drew attention to one of the Court Committee's central conclusions, that much child ill- health is preventable. Your Lordships will know that the Government last year published a Consultative Document on prevention called Prevention and Health; Everybody's Business. Work is already proceeding on a follow-up paper which will deal specifically with services relating to pregnancy and childbirth, and which will emphasise among other things the importance of preventing handicap, whether of physical or emotional origin.
1646
We are also looking generally at ways of carrying further the initiatives already taken on preparing young people for parenthood, to which the Committee referred in their report. We must recognise, as they did, the difficulties in determining how far it is justifiable to promulgate a particular set of values and attitudes about what constitutes good parenting. This is an extremely difficult matter for a Government Department, and, as some of your Lordships will know, in debates last year we were faced with this difficulty of Governments, and Departments in particular, laying down what certain standards and attitudes should be. We will continue to encourage and support initiatives on preparation for parenthood from the funds available for research purposes, and relevant work is already being undertaken by other organisations, including the Health Education Council and the National Children's Bureau.
My Lords, since the publication of the Court Report the Department of Health has agreed with the National Association for Maternal and Child Welfare to assist in their work in providing education in parenthood for schoolchildren and expectant mothers and those with young children. In this they will be liaising with the Health Education Council. We also share the Committee's concern with the need to prevent handicap through pre-natal diagnosis. Research is already being undertaken in this field, and in particular we hope that in the near future a more widely applicable screening procedure will be available for screening for neural tube defects, including spina bifida. The Department of Health and the Welsh Office are at present jointly funding a feasibility study to ascertain whether it will be possible to introduce this test into routine ante-natal care.
In their report the Court Committee particularly emphasised the importance of the health visiting service, and we fully share the Committee's view of the vital role played by health visitors in establishing and maintaining contact between the primary health care services and families with young children, particularly the most vulnerable. In the Consultative Document on priorities in England, to which I have already referred, we propose an expansion of the health visiting services at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, to allow for improvements in monitoring child health

1647
and welfare and support to mothers, and in recognition particularly of the need for more home visiting to all children, and especially those of the lower socio-economic group. In case my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek asks me, when I say that the Welsh document does not give a specific figure for the rate of expansion, may I hasten to say that while it does not give a specific figure I know that a similar improvement is intended.
My Lords, I want to say just a word or two on infant mortality, because this is a matter, I know, of very real concern to the Court Committee, of very real concern because we have been over this ground once or twice in your Lordships' House. The Court Committee expressed particular concern about the level of infant mortality in this country, and my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis also drew attention to it. We share their concern that although the level is being reduced we are not achieving the same rate of success as other European countries. The Department of Health is sponsoring a number of studies and research projects into the field of infant mortality and morbidity, aimed at trying to identify factors that will result in a reduction of the rate, and the Children's Research Liaison Group has a working group studying priorities for further research into this field.
It is so easy for some of your Lordships, and, if I may say so, for the vast army of people outside your Lordships' House, to think perhaps that nothing is really being done in this field. My noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis was quite right in drawing attention to the fact that infant mortality and perinatal mortality rate fell quite dramatically in recent years. However, we acknowledge that it is not good enough, that it does not compare with the fall in some other countries. But we must not labour under the misapprehension that it is because we are not doing enough. We have at the present moment working and researching at a number of hospitals and universities throughout the country multi-disciplinary teams concerned with infant mortality and morbidity. Each of these teams is led by an outstanding academic with medical qualifications. There are about 25 such persons scattered throughout the country in our hospitals and universities—18 of them professors—working day after day,
1648
week after week and month after month on this problem.
This problem is not something that we have taken lying down. It is something that the Government—and, to be quite frank, previous Governments—have been working on. A considerable amount of money has been made available. In August 1976 a circular was issued to the health authorities asking them to review their facilities for neo-natal care and drawing attention to the relatively high infant mortality rate in England and Wales. There is a limit as to what the Government or a Department can do. They can provide facilities, but in the last analysis one is dependent upon the good will and co-operation, which I think we get, of those who have to carry out the work.
We fully share the views of the Court Committee on the importance of the emotional and social needs of both the mother and her family during child birth and the post-natal period. We have supported a number of innovations in this field. We also recognise that sensitive support is required by a mother in handling her new baby and establishing breast feeding. Your Lordships will be interested to learn in this context that work is already in hand on the total revision and updating of a former Ministry of Health booklet called, Human Relations in Obstetrics, which discusses how a sympathetic and understanding approach to parents can best be achieved. The new version will be issued this year.
I turn to hospital services for children generally. Your Lordships will be interested to know that the Court Committee fully endorse the overall policy guidance issued to health authorities in 1971. Perhaps because there is such complete unanimity between the Court Committee and ourselves on this matter, I can remind noble Lords that that Committee fully endorse that policy guidance which recommends that, wherever possible, children should be treated in their own homes, and that where children are admitted to hospital they should be gathered together in a children's department.
Lord VAIZEY: The noble Lord has taken 23 minutes.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this debate is due to finish at eight o'clock.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, if the Minister will give way, I think that it is stated in Standing Orders that the Minister should take 20 minutes. I consider that noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have been unduly hurried. I do not wish to press the Minister, but I hope he will give me time to reply.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Standing Orders say that the Minister shall have 20 minutes; they do not say that he should finish in 20 minutes, but I shall.
7.44 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, his debate has been of considerable value to the cause of improved child health services. Although I consider what I have just said to be the case, I think that as noble Lords were asked in the middle of the debate to speak for only ten minutes, several noble Lords tended to spoil their contributions. It is not quite fair that they should have been asked to do so.
The debate has been of considerable value and I am sure that there will be wide appreciation of the contributions made by noble Lords. As the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, said, it is clear that a short debate does not do justice to this subject, which is really the subject for a full debate. All we have been able to examine during the last two hours and ten minutes is the tip of the iceberg. We must be allowed to take a much closer look at this very large subject.
I should like, if I may, to refer briefly to some of the matters raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, considered that possibly the joint committee for children, which the report recommends, will not have enough strength. But it will be in a very good position to draw together the three principal Departments concerned. It will have a direct line of contact to the Secretary of State. That is a considerable strength and something which does not exist at present. I am grateful for the contribution made by the noble Lord,
1650
Lord Amulree, who has had to leave his place. Despite his reservations about the general practitioner-paediatrician, I am pleased to know that he generally supports the concept of total care for the child. I agree with the point he made, that although the rate of infant mortality is very high—and it is a sad fact that we have slipped behind countries we once led in having a much lower rate of infant mortality—the fact is that the figure is much lower than it has been hitherto.
I am sure that we are all grateful for the remarks made by the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, about handicapped children, and for the very forceful plea she made for a better organisation of services for them and for greater liaison between the health and social services. I entirely agree with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Vaizey. I agree that the first chapter is an extremely important social document—one of the most important social documents produced in a long time—giving a remarkably full picture of family life at this time with, indeed, as the noble Lord pointed out, some surprises. It shows up aspects of social life that perhaps we are not taking fully into account. I also agree with what he said about the need for supporting services of considerable subtlety, and care from the school service as well as the medical service, and the extensions that there are into all areas of our social life which need closer inspection. I am glad of his support, and of the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for the need to publish certainly Chapter 1, and possibly a digest which includes Chapter 1 and the principal recommendations.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford had some of his speech pre-empted by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, though no doubt the Front Bench in their hurry were quite pleased about it. I agree with the view of the right reverend Prelate that the report will not suddenly resolve all our basic social problems which go far wider than that. The report is an important step in that direction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to the difficulties facing the general practitioner-paediatrician in this case load, and wondered whether this would not go against the concept of the ability to

1651
maintain family care in the practice. An important aspect of this is teamwork and co-operation. This must surely be the aim and strength of the group practice. The noble Baroness also raised the point of whether the joint committee for children would have enough teeth. I hope that she will accept that what I have said makes a good case for this.
I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potter-hill. Much of what he said must give us cause to think, and it is important. I think the report stresses, and he emphasised, that the wholeness of the child in totality is much more important than the wholeness of the National Health Service. I am also grateful for what my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek said. He pointed out that the five-yearly surveys show that there is an improvement in dental health. I agree that we have to get a better dental health service. It is clear that the service is not fully meeting our needs at the moment. I think in the report there is produced a statistic extrapolated from some figures, which indicates that out of a school population of about 9 million children 6 million need dental treatment in some form or another. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, carried this further. I agree with him entirely and with the Committee's report about the need for introducing fluoridation. I am perpetually surprised that this subject raises such controversy.
It is also true that there is a need for experimentation with alternate systems of providing dental care. Clearly, the financial aspects need to be carefully looked at, for these are an absolutely essential element in the mix. I agree with the noble Lord about the need for speed. Our dental services seem to me to be in complete disarray. I do not know how much longer we can put up with this situation, particularly as it affects children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, called for a cheaper report. She raised a question underlining the important matter of regional variations in the services. She also raised the matter of occupational therapists, speech therapists, and physiotherapists. There would be nothing to stop them being called into the district handicapped team, as I understand it. The team would be able to
1652
call in a number of different specialities. The noble Baroness said—and I am afraid I cannot recall the report word for word—that nothing was said about voluntary workers in the report. If it is omitted I am sure that that was not intended at all, and that no member of the Committee fails to appreciate the value of the voluntary worker. I accept absolutely what she said, emphasising what the report has pointed out, that there are wide and appalling variations in services in the rural areas, and a need for improvement.
My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said some encouraging and some less encouraging things about the report. I hope that the space of time in which it will have its effect on Government thinking will not be too long. As he says, it is not unexpected to me, as a one-time Member of the Front Bench at a difficult economic time, that reference should be made to resources. That is why the report, in its main recommendations, stresses the lower cost ones.
I am glad to know that thought is being given to the concept of the joint committee for children. Of course much has to be taken into account. I fully understand that. But we are talking about our children, and they pass through childhood very rapidly. How many generations are going to grow into adulthood before we stop talking and consulting, and take some action? Despite that, I am glad that the Department of Health and Social Services have called for views on the report. I hope that they will be able to collect them quickly.
I have no doubt that the DHSS are attempting an analysis of the implications of the report. I do not suppose that it was in fact the remit of the Committee themselves to consider the economic implication. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell says that people are taking the report seriously. I should hope that they are. The question still remains: what recommendations are going to be accepted and implemented by the Government? Without wishing to be in any way offensive to my noble friend, as might have been expected, his reply to the debate has been something of a curate's egg. In spite of this, I hope that the Government will act upon the report of the Court Committee,

1653
at least in implementing without undue delay proposals such as that for setting up the joint committee for children, and that outside the Government general practitioners and others in the medical profession will take up its challenge. I should like to express my thanks to those noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and to those who have attended it. Having said that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to provide an adequate supply of qualified teachers of religious education. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is high time that this House gave much more attention than hitherto to religious education. Naturally I am very much encouraged by the number who have put their names down to speak and by the marvellous attendance on the Bishops' Bench, which no doubt is no coincidence; it is just due to their intrinsic interest in this fundamental subject. I am also delighted to think that so many others are going to speak. This can only be a curtain-raiser to the more fundamental and full-dress debate which is being initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, on religious education in the much wider context on, I believe, 18th May.
I shall myself concentrate on the topic mentioned in my Question: the supply of an adequate number of teachers of religious education. I hope that other speakers will feel free to discuss whatever aspect of the subject seems to them to be relevant. I start with certain convictions that I would hope are widely accepted here. First, we all, and particularly our Government, carry inescapable responsibility not only for the intellectual but also for the moral education of our children. Secondly, religious education is an indispensable element in moral education. Thirdly, there is strong evidence that the vast majority of our population, of our parents in particular, desire religious education for their children. Fourthly, I submit that any general level of religious education that fell below the standard required by the 1944 Act would be quite
1654
inadequate. Fifthly, I submit that in our country as a whole we are falling below that level, and in all too many schools falling far below it. In other words, the law is being flagrantly broken on a wide scale.
The Minister who is to reply won distinction in his younger days as a philosopher. He is probably—I only say "probably", because in this House it is always dangerous to generalise—the only Member of this House to whom an important work of philosophy has been dedicated. If any other noble Lord present tonight rises to make a similar claim on behalf of himself or his friends, I shall give way. But unless this is true of one of the right reverend Prelates, as it might be—I am sure they have all dedicated important works of theology to one another—I hand the palm to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
I am not pressing him tonight to pursue the philosophical implications of this subject. No doubt he will be in his place again on 18th May, and may go into some of these matters from that point of view at that time. I would rather he would direct his attention to the speech made by the spokesman for the Minister of Education in the debate on religious education in the House of Commons last March. I hope that the Minister will at the very least—and a lot of people will be wanting to know what he says about this—confirm in no uncertain terms the support given last year to the religious educational provisions of the 1944 Act. I would remind him at the same time of the Under-Secretary's recognition that these religious provisions are admittedly not being carried out at the present time. The Minister on that occasion fully acknowledged the shortage of qualified teachers, given certain illustrations, which indeed provide the raison d'être for our debate tonight.
Nearly a year later—that is, nearly a year after that debate—I put these questions having given some notice to the noble Lord who represents the Secretary of State for Education here, and we are looking to him of course for an up-to-date assessment and, if possible, a prognosis. I appreciate his difficulties, so perhaps we must not expect too much; nevertheless, we are entitled to press these questions. How far in early 1977 are we falling below

1655
the 1944 standard? How far is this due to the shortage of teachers? What are the main causes of that shortage? Have matters deteriorated since last year and are they likely to deteriorate still further under various factors which are operating at the present time?
Three factors which will occur to most noble Lords are these: first, there are the expenditure cuts—I am not arguing about them now, but we all know that expenditure cuts have been adopted by Parliament in the interests of the national economy; secondly, there has been the closing of colleges of education, apart from the expenditure cuts, due to the declining birthrate; and thirdly, there are various administrative amalgamations, into polytechnics for example, which are due to what is thought to be a more progressive arrangement. In all these cases, the danger to the smaller departments such as religious education is bound to be the most acute and I am bound to say that the cuts in many cases on present plans seem to be made without reference to the shortages in certain subjects; but at the moment I am asking questions and not providing or seeking to provide answers.
When we come to my own statement of the position I would say that beyond doubt there is a serious crisis in religious education today and that unless something drastic is done the situation will get distinctly worse. It is not really a crisis of educational theory, although there is plenty of controversy going on. It is not due in any large measure in a direct sense to the assaults of our Humanist friends, and I am glad to note that at least three eminent Humanists will be taking part in this discussion. I hope I do not insult them, because we are all so fond of them, when I say that up to now they do not seem to have had much influence; in other words, from my point of view they have not done much harm up to now. I do not want to upset them because perhaps they thought they had done a lot of harm. I hope they will not be annoyed by what I have said and we shall hear from them with great pleasure; they are much valued colleagues.
It is not really that the Humanists as such have led to this decline in religious education, although I would agree that if this country were a much more religious
1656
country than it is now, in all these complicated administrative arguments and negotiated cuts religion would come out better than it seems likely to. The most obvious cause of the crisis is a shortage of teachers of religious education; by teachers of religious education I mean people who are equipped by training to teach the subject in a way that is interesting and educationally acceptable. The House will expect me to offer an opinion about the facts of the shortage, but these are very hard to come by; I have never come across a subject in an all too long experience in this House and elsewhere where it was so hard to get at the essential facts, even given the good will of being ready to supply them on the part of the official community.
I hope it is not impertinent to say that I doubt whether the Government themselves—it is impertinent to ask a lot of questions and then tell the Minister that one does not believe he has the answers, but as I shall not have a right of reply I am bound to say something of this sort to give any reality to our discussion—will be able to tell us what we ought to know if we are to have a satisfactory discussion. If the noble Lord is able to tell us, then I shall apologise; but I do not think I shall have to, and I shall return to this point later.
Meanwhile, I have consulted a number of experts and I will offer a few illustrations of a shortage which, so far as I know, is not denied by anyone. In 1971 there was a very thorough report which included the fact that over 63 per cent of secondary school religious education was taught by people who had not been trained in the subject—nearly two-thirds of them had not been trained in it—compared with 19 per cent in history and 36 per cent. in mathematics.
The same report included the fact that a survey of schools in one area of Yorkshire showed that 95 per cent of primary teachers had not received adequate, or indeed perhaps in many cases any, training in the subject—this is talking about the primary schools and this survey was conducted six years ago—although almost all those people would be responsible for the religious education of their own classes. I have been given a great deal of information by kindly experts relating to the period since 1971. On balance—I do not

1657
know whether the Minister would be inclined to dispute this—the position seems rather worse than it was then. On present trends, the immediate provision of specialist RE teachers is likely to worsen annually. Putting it crudely, the position has been bad for a considerable time and is likely to get worse unless something is done.
It is this apparent shortage of teachers which gives a plausible excuse to the numerous headmasters who at the present time are willingly or reluctantly failing to carry out the provisions of the 1944 Act; they say it is impossible because they cannot get the teachers. That kind of excuse at first hearing is difficult to brush aside, but it transfers our inquiry to the colleges of education and the universities, many of which are quick to tell us that there is nothing they can do about it because they are not getting enough recruits from the schools who opt for religious education when they come to college. That would be the defence of the colleges if they are not turning out enough students who are trained in religious education.
In the face of this situation, admittedly difficult, we can either sit down, fold our arms and let things go from bad to worse or we can bestir ourselves into strenuous action. Tonight I insist that the latter course, that of strenuous action, is our bounden duty. Many noble Lords will sympathise with that sentiment, but what can we do about it? To begin with, we can at least demand that steps should be taken to prevent a further deterioration. What is happening in the colleges is extremely serious; colleges are being absorbed at an enormous rate into local institutes of higher education, polytechnics and universities. As they become small fry in these larger bodies, the smaller departments like religious education have every prospect of going to the wall. Examples supplied to me come from Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle among others.
Two responsible lecturers from the City of Birmingham Polytechnic wrote:
"We are the only two remaining members of a hitherto flourishing department of religious studies which for many years was recognised by Birmingham University as competent for both Certificate Studies and the BA Degree in Theology. The result of the closure of the Department of
1658
Religious Education is that within the whole of the LEA sector, opportunity for specialist training in religious studies no longer exists…"
A principal lecturer from Leeds wrote about his college:
"This college is shortly to be absorbed into the Leeds Polytechnic. The prospect for any continuance of religious education in future courses seems remote."
A similar message comes from a lecturer in Newcastle, who says,
"Whatever you may think about what we now teach, nothing will be taught quite soon because there are so very few teachers who have been able to take a course."
A number of noble Lords have specialist knowledge about Newcastle, including the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, so I hope we shall be hearing a good deal about it before we finish.
I should acknowledge that there are pluses as well as minuses. In Nottingham and Sunderland, for example, the prospects for religious education are said to be better than hitherto; but nobody doubts that the overall picture is extremely menacing. The only person who can do much about this situation is the Secretary of State. She is not all-powerful but she is more powerful than anyone else. I call urgently for an assurance—and I shall spell this out slowly—that the Secretary of State will do all in her power to see that religious education is indeed available in all teacher training establishments. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something helpful about that—I did not hear the Minister's remark. No doubt it was very witty but it was sotto voce.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I simply said that I had noted my noble friend's question.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, that is very good. If I may say so, that is what the Minister is employed to do.
What I have just suggested is a minimum. It is a desperate, defensive minimum but, if we really believe in religious education and are genuinely anxious to see the law of the land carried out, we cannot leave matters there. Because we have a wonderful list of speakers I shall mention quickly four other steps that must be taken and shall leave other speakers to develop these or to make their own additions. The first matter is in-service training. By that, I mean the training of teachers who are already at

1659
work in the schools. Everyone agrees on the need for in-service training by which those who are already teaching can be qualified by part-time or full-time courses to teach religious education either for the first time or much more effectively than hitherto. In the present economic circumstances, most local education authorities are cutting down on release of teachers for full-time in-service courses. Everything possible must surely be done to check this trend and to reverse it. Here again, it is the Minister—our own in the first place and the Secretary of State subsequently—to whom we must look for strong leadership.
Secondly, there is the attitude of the headmasters which varies widely through out the country. In the long run it is in the schools that the battle will be won or lost. The supply of teachers in the colleges will depend to a great extent on the standard of religious education in the schools, on the enthusiasm of the headmasters and on the emphasis that they give to the subject. One must point out that, to a large though not to a total extent, the headmasters determine how many pupils take O-levels and A-levels in that subject. We really must do much more than is being done now to see that the 1944 Act is observed. We shall no doubt be reminded of the acknowledged difficulties, but many headmasters could do much more than they are doing, even with their limited resources. Many are concealing a shortage. If any headmasters say, "We are not short of teachers," one wants to look very closely into their arrangements to see whether the minimum provision is being made in their schools. I do not say that they are doing this mischievously but, in practice in many cases, by merging religious education with other subjects, they are taking steps to make sure that none of us knows how much religious education is left at the end of it all. Her Majesty's Inspectors must be given new and much more forceful directions to see that the law is upheld—that seems a modest claim, but I am afraid that it is not being honoured at present—and to see that religious education is indeed available to every pupil attending schools in their area. In so far as there is a vicious circle here, we must break it at all costs, and no one but the Government can take the initiative in doing so.
1660
Thirdly, I believe, as do many others who are much more qualified than I, that religious education must be given an altogether higher status if the 1944 Act is to be honoured. A much more attractive career structure must be introduced if young people are to be persuaded in sufficient numbers to make this a large part of their life's work. The special responsibilities involved in providing religious and moral education are sadly undervalued. However, all that may take some time and I therefore suggest, fourthly, something much more concrete and immediate. May I urge the Government—and here I certainly do not speak for myself alone—to conduct a thorough inquiry into the whole question of the supply of qualified teachers of religious education? I shall of course await with eagerness, as we all shall, the reply of the Minister. I know that, as always, he will be completely frank. If he has not much to tell us, he will not pretend that he has. I do not possess a right of reply but I shall be amazed if by the end of this evening he has been able to give us the factual information for which I have asked him. The less he can tell us, the more overwhelming the case for an inquiry.
8.16 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this matter, which is of very considerable concern to all of us, to your Lordships' attention. I might have hoped that the debate would have taken place after the debate on the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Blake, which I believe will take place on 21st May though it has not yet reached the Order Paper. However, a number of your Lordships may like to be aware that that is probably when the debate will take place. As an Anglican, I must say that immense distinction is added to the debate by the preponderant attendance of the right reverend Prelates. As the Benches and the black and white rows in parallel filled, I thought, first, that an ornithologist might expect them to migrate; secondly, that a theologian would hope that they would pray and, thirdly, that a politician would expect that they would go to sleep. I hope that, in all but the second of those anticipations, I shall be frustrated.

1661
The difficulty of taking the debate now is that we are not addressing ourselves to the question of what is to be taught and, therefore, to the volume of knowledge, concepts and attitudes that are to be handled. That is not a proper subject to raise in this debate and as a result we can only proceed on what we take to be the common, accepted ground of what religious education is. At the outset, we have to establish what is the adequacy of the present supply. We know that 8 per cent of students at present in Church colleges are taking main course religious education and that in local education authority colleges the figure is 5½ per cent., but we know very little more and almost nothing about what is going on during service itself.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I have found this a difficult subject to research. This is partly due to the fact that, in England and Wales, a qualification to teach anything appears to be a qualification to teach anything else and one cannot distinguish between somebody who is a teacher of religious education and a person who is a teacher of physical education. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, through his aides, has been kind enough to make available some figures to which I do not doubt he will advert later but to which I hope he will forgive me for referring now. These figures result from some research carried out by the Department which records the figures of deficiency or surplus of teachers in, in this instance, religious education which are thought to have existed in the years 1969–1975. I shall, subject to the very probable correction of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, try to deduce how the figures were arrived at. It appears that in the years 1969 to 1974 there have been deficiencies of 309, 274, 195, 247, 233 and 133 respectively, with a surplus of 45 in 1975. I pause to let that information sink in to those who are not in possession of it, because it appears to be at variance both with the received subjective information and opinion that we have from those in the field, and with much that is slightly more concrete that has been adduced by the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
Therefore I must quickly refer to the methods of arriving at this, which I understand—and I may be wrong—are by
1662
means of a questionnaire in which head teachers are required to say what they would like to have if they have not already got it, and what they would like to dispose of if they already have it in the way of teaching resources. As I say, this is arrived at by a questionnaire. But of course there is a tedium attached to the filling in of questionnaires and, considerately, the Department has resorted to the technique, which will be familiar to those of your Lordships who have been discussing the Public Lending Right Bill, of a rotating sample. It does not mean that the subjects are giddy, my Lords; it means that they are different every year, and therefore those who answer the question are addressing themselves to it for the first time each time, and one never has anyone recollecting what he said five years ago.
One reason for this apparent sufficiency of teachers may paradoxically, I believe, be the shortage itself, because a post which is filled satisfactorily, so far as the head teacher and the administrators of the school are concerned, by a non-qualified teacher, ceases to present an item of need in the reply to the questionnaire, because if the teacher of classics or arithmetic is very good in part-time as head of RK or as a junior teacher in RK, then the need for a trained specialist, although it may exist, is not felt.
I shall not forget the need, if only for one reason, because for seven out of the ten years in which I was a practising teacher, I was for—I hope it is not inept to say this—my sins and with no qualifications at all, a volunteer part-time teacher of religious education. I became acutely aware of my deficiencies in this field by reason of the fact that I was reasonably well qualified in my own subject, which is history. I was also acutely aware of the relative importance of any damage that I might be doing in the two separate spheres. Therefore I think that this is a subject to which we must address ourselves with considerable patience and care, and not perhaps in great haste; and I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me here.
With the post that we spoke of, as a head of department, filled by a non-qualified teacher we are in fact at the beginning of a spiral. You have a non-qualified head of department. You have

1663
a reduction of academic drive—and academics among your Lordships will know exactly what I mean; it is not a theological concept at all. There is also a reduction of the supply of expertise and resources which a head of department should supply. That means that the other members of the department, who will almost inevitably all of them be minority time and most of them untrained, will be less well led, less well helped and less well motivated. The result of that is fewer and poorer candidates at O and A levels and that means fewer and poorer candidates for colleges and departments of education in religious studies. Then of course the cycle repeats itself, because there are less qualified and less well qualified people to fill the heads of department, and the heads of the school are better satisfied with the better qualified people that they will find in other disciplines. Eventually in some local education authorities' areas the result is that the subject approaches neglect.
This brings one to the question of the standing of the subject in the esteem of local education authorities, and indeed of teachers. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has been very aptly precise on this subject. I should like to fill out a little what he says. It appears to me, in so far as I can make it out, that if you specialise in religious education and submit your applications as a specialist in this field, you can get very rapid promotion in the early years because there is a shortage. This is accepted, and it was in fact accepted, I should like to remind your Lordships, as recently as yesterday in the other place by the Secretary of State in reply to my honourable friend the Member for Chelmsford. The Secretary of State said that the problem is that many of those who teach religious education are unqualified in the subject and have not themselves studied in that subject. That is the situation now and we are on common ground.
Well, there is a shortage and therefore very quickly these new entrants get drawn up the rather short ladder to the top of their career in religious education. They can go only as high as a Grade IV scale post, and of course there is considerable promotion beyond this in other subjects before you have to become head of humanities, or a chief careers counseller,
1664
or a chief counselling teacher, or whatever it may be. This means that the teacher finds himself, if I may so express it, standing on the broad top of a rather short step ladder, and next to him is a long extending ladder to which he can cross over and go on up, abandoning the care of his department into less well proven hands; and he is likely to do this after his fifth, but before his tenth year of teaching practice. That means that always the people in that post are relatively inexperienced because wisdom grows slowly in this of all subjects.
There should be some inducement for them therefore to improve their qualifications other than the grade post, and it may be that the noble Lord in his reply will say whether he would consider extending the grade scale posts available for the heads of departments in this subject. This incentive does not appear to me to be there. One of the best regarded qualifications for improving the standard and efficiency of a teacher of religious education is to take an advanced diploma. That can take 12 months in a residential centre, and the reward for that and for absence from family and friends for 12 months is an increment of £86 on the annual salary. That is very little to give somebody for the considerable effort and dislocation which he will have to undergo to achieve it. So here are two areas in which I shall listen with attention to what the noble Lord has to say, and I shall quite understand if he would prefer to reply to me later about this, because it is a matter to which we may return in our next debate.
We come again—I will be brief, my Lords—to the matter of standing with local education authorities as an academic subject. I think it is worth saying at this stage that the study of theology, which is what it is in a university, and religious studies, as it is in colleges of education, is every bit as respectable as the study of history or the classics as part of a liberal education. It involves the study of philosophic ideas; it involves the study of a language; it involves the study of logic, and of their transmission. Therefore there is very properly an educational argument in favour of a retention of this subject in school and college and university curricula at not less than its present strength, and hopefully a great deal higher; I repeat, an educational as

1665
opposed to a moral or spiritual argument. That needs to be established as a preliminary to any discussions that we may have later.
I hope that your Lordships will take note of the marked change there has been in the content of A- and O-level syllabuses. These are now both good academic courses, but they have changed and the changes have been matched also by the syllabuses of colleges and departments. They have been changed to meet the requirements of an increasingly multiracial community in a world of diminishing size. This means that even qualified teachers, unless they have been very recently qualified, are in fact teaching in an increasing proportion of their syllabus without a sufficient professional academic ground to what they are doing, because the material which is coming in is different in kind and extent from what they studied ten years ago. So, two types of in-service training are wanted. One is to update those who are qualified, and the other is to add a qualification to those who are not. The former of these two may be a major or a minor operation. If it is minor, it will be part-time and it must be locally based.
We come here to another area which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, so wisely touched on at the outset of the debate. It is very important that there should not be large geographical gaps in the availability of this kind of resource, because otherwise people simply will not be able to go into the education they need to improve their teaching. I hope that the noble Lord will tell us what now is the standing of the regional advisory councils in this matter, and what is the guidance which they are receiving from the Department; because this is crucial, and I am not clear (and I am sure many of your Lordships are not clear) what actually is the pull that these councils have with those who are now planning the closure—the necessary closure, to a large extent; that is accepted—of colleges of education. The noble Earl has alluded to Birmingham, Newcastle and other places, and I will not go into further detail.
I think I ought to emphasise, in spite of the fact that I have spoken of departments, that we are not concerned only with secondary education. There is a continuous change of conceptual ability and
1666
approach from five years old to adulthood, which is the period we are concerned with, and at the lower end of the scale the outlook is specifically concrete. My favourite example is of the child who was asked, at the age of, I think, six, to draw a picture of the flight to Egypt and drew a beautiful picture of the Holy Family and the donkey, but there was a large round black dot. Asked what it was, he said: "It says in the Bible here, 'Take the child and flee into Egypt'. That's the flea". My Lords, I do not wish to introduce a note of levity into this debate, but I think we must realise the acute importance of the subject in primary schools. First of all, it is accepted by educationists of all colours and philosophies that what goes on in the first eight years of a child's life is of far greater formative force than anything that happens thereafter. Secondly, I happen to believe (though I am trying to keep this in as unphilosophic a vein as possible) that this is, at bottom, the most important subject that a child is taught.
No school, therefore, would be sufficiently staffed without a qualified teacher of religion, whether it was a major or a minor subject in his course; most schools should have two, and big schools should have three. It is not easy to arrive at a figure. You can multiply up these aspirations by the number of schools and their sizes, or you can say that there is an irreducible minimum of time which should be devoted in any respectable curriculum to the subject. In that case, I can only look at precedent, and I am not sure that I agree with it, but there is a general view that one hour in the week at least should be spent on grounding in such matters, and there are 30 hours in the week; so that is a ratio of 1 to 30 in your specialisms. Of course, you have to add to that what is additional to the grounding; that is to say, the academic or exam-based courses. I should very much like to know, either in this debate or in the not too distant future, what the noble Lord's reactions are, and what his Government's reactions are, to these tentative quantifications of what is required.
At this juncture I think I should tell your Lordships that we believe that religious education should comprise part of the core curriculum upon which much of the great current debate centres, and if it is decided to reintroduce a certificate

1667
analogous to the old School Certificate we believe that this subject might well need to be a part of it. This may not seem to be a revolutionary statement, but the assumption is not often made that it is our belief. I hope that it is the noble Lord's also. It is certainly built into the Act of 1944; and if this is not so then this is a departure of some significance, and I should have thought indicated a decline in our attitude to this area of education.
Before summing up what I have said, I cannot refrain from saying that we are dealing here, whatever we regard as the proper content of religious education, with something which touches the life not only of individuals but of the nation very closely indeed. There is a general concern about declining standards in education, and this is part of it. There is also general concern about declining standards generally, and this, in my view, is a part of that, also. Therefore, we have a great responsibility to see that we discharge the trust which the Act of 1944 and our parents, and indeed our children, lay upon us.
Religion is an integral part of life. Religious education is therefore an integral part of preparation for life, of equal if less obviously commercial importance with mathematics and science. It must therefore remain an integral part, not only of school curricula but also of college and university curricula. There is a need to increase the esteem in which the subject is held—and this is something we shall return to in May—by local education authorities as well as teachers and parents. We must at all costs make available career incentives and in-service training—and career incentives of course include a look at the career structure, and it is not a subject to which there is an immediate answer—and we must finally recognise that the qualification for teaching religious education is not Christian commitment and amateur enthusiasm, or indeed any other sort of commitment and enthusiasm. It is hard and unremitting work, both in the classroom and in preparation for a teaching career. In this the ministry, the Department and Her Majesty's Inspectors have a role to play in securing the esteem in which the subject is held. I hope your Lordships will consider this very closely, without intemperate heat, and keeping in view the
1668
prospect of another and enlarged debate in the same area which is coming shortly. I should like to conclude by thanking the noble Earl once more for introducing this subject; and I think that, if she returns, a word of congratulation to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, might not be out of place, as she is the only person who will have spoken in all three debates this afternoon.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally resumes his seat, may I ask him a question of fact? A few minutes ago (but I did not like to intervene then) he referred a number of times to "we believe" this and "we believe" that. I thought this was a non-Party debate, and I wondered who "we" were
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it is a non-Party debate in so far as we have a bi-partisan approach. It occurred to me that some people might think that that bipartisan approach might not exist owing to a defection from the aims, which I then referred to, from my noble friends. I am assuring noble Lords and the House that that defection has not taken place and will not take place, and therefore I take it we are having a bipartisan approach and this is not a Party debate.
The Lord Bishop of SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one thing? I think he mentioned the date of the next debate as being the 18th; I understood the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to say the 21st, or vice versa. Could the noble Lord clarify that?
Lord ELTON: I did say—at least, I hope I said—the 21st, my Lords. That is certainly what I intended to say, and I will look at my diary and intervene at a later stage if I was wrong. But it is not on the printed Minutes, and therefore it must be taken as tentative.
Earl WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think the 21st is a Saturday.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, the 18th is a Wednesday.
Lord ELTON: It is the 18th May.
8.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of BLACKBURN: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford,

1669
has drawn attention to a very important subject, and it is, of course, one aspect of a much larger subject; but, as he himself has pointed out, it would be a pity if we were to lose sight of this particular problem by indulging in a general debate on the value of religious education, for which we shall get the opportunity in May. We are concerned with the supply, and therefore with the training, of teachers of religious education, and immediately two aspects of the problem can be seen, for this training can be done either as part of the initial training or through the in-service training courses to which reference has already been made.
The Minister doubtless will give us the figures for students at local authority education colleges doing religious education as a main course. For the Church colleges—I refer to the Church of England colleges in this case—out of 14,427 students at present in initial training, 1,163 are taking religious education as a main course, which is just over 8 per cent of the total. The percentage has not changed materially in the last 5 years, though there was a drop in the previous 3 years. Three years ago the corresponding percentage at local authority colleges of education was about 5½ per cent.; the drop in the previous three years in their colleges was nearly twice as fast as that in the Church colleges. In a way this is to be expected; for one of the purposes of the Church being responsible for its colleges is to make provision for this very need. Indeed, those of us who have responsibility for the Church colleges of education must, and, I hope, will, see what better provision can be made. Since, however, we train only one-sixth of the men and women who enter the teaching profession we cannot solve the problem on our own. We shall maintain at all our colleges a main course in religious education and the growing close co-operation between the Churches in this field—not least in Liverpool with the coming together of two Roman Catholic colleges and one of our colleges and, again, not least, in the Roehampton Institute of Education—is to be welcomed.
While I should like to place on record our appreciation of the considerate and fair treatment given to our colleges by the Secretary of State in her recent statement, even if we were to double the number of students taking religious education as a
1670
main course at our Church colleges, it would increase the national total by only 25 per cent. It makes sad reading, therefore, when we hear of local authority colleges where the religious education department is likely to close down. It is understandable that where a college is reduced in size as a result of the current cut-back in numbers, there should be a measure of rationalising of courses; but if this means cutting out courses in shortage subjects it is regrettable. The DES letter 76/1 on the rationalising of college courses asks the regional advisory councils, "to maintain an adequate provision for shortage subjects" and quotes religious education as one of those subjects.
There is a further factor which aggravates the situation. If religious education is regarded in a secondary schools as part of an integrated area such as the Humanities, the shortage of qualified RE teachers may be concealed when the school annual return on staffing is made. Again, the same DES letter underlines the importance of religious education in any professional training for primary school teaching. Clearly, the Churches have a responsibility not only to maintain RE courses at all of our colleges, which we shall, but also to encourage young people to take up the teaching of RE as a vocation, which I hope we shall do. But with the cut-backs over the whole range of colleges being rather more than 50 per cent., not only would our Church colleges of education have to double their percentage of students doing RE as a main course but also all the LEAs would have to do the same to have an input of qualified RE teachers equal to the present input; that is, in actual numbers. Like the Red Queen, you must run twice as fast in order to be able to stay where you are.
Thus, my Lords, while there is no substitute for strong initial training of teachers at all levels, particular attention must be given to the in-service training to which reference has been made. There are two good reasons for this. In the first place, it would provide for an increase in qualified RE teachers, or partially-qualified RE teachers, without making a shortage in any other subject; that is, if people came into the course and added religious education as a further qualification what, in the Service Chaplains' Department, we used to call a "conversion course". This is not only an arithmetical asset but it is

1671
also an educational asset. Because of the shortage, qualified RE teachers teach a larger number of pupils for a reduced number of periods than is the case in any other subject. Yet, in religious education personal knowledge and understanding of the pupil by the teacher is more important than in probably any other subject. If, through in-service training, teachers can add religious education to their existing qualifications, they could teach children whom they already knew through other disciplines; and the value of their teaching of religious education would thereby be enhanced.
The second reason for paying attention to the in-service training element of this is that the provision being made by the Secretary of State for 20 per cent of our college places to be devoted to in-service training gives opportunity for a substantial improvement in the situation. If the regional advisory councils can take seriously the shortage of qualified RE teachers, as also the shortage of mathematics teachers, the situation could be materially improved. The Church colleges can, and will, make provision for in-service courses but, as the voluntary colleges are not officially represented on the regional advisory councils, we can do little to ensure that the teachers are given the opportunity of the provisions which we will try to provide. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Inspectorate and the local authority advisers can, between them, encourage the local authorities to make the necessary financial provision especially in the case of part-time courses. Further, it should be pointed out that the religious education resources centres—and I refer to those at St. Gabriel's, Camberwell, and at Ripon and York in particular—are available to all schools and teachers and not only to Church schools and teachers. There are several other resource centres at different stages of development, not all of them Church founded. I refer to those at Canterbury, Durham, Exeter, Carlisle, Gloucester, Lancaster, Birmingham and Isleworth.
My Lords, reference has been made to one factor which militates against an increase of students opting for RE, either at initial training or at in-service training; and that is the small number of higher graded posts and allowances. I note that this factor was specially referred to in the
1672
report of the Working Party on the Recruitment, Employment and Training of Teachers of Religious Education set up, with encouragement and financial support, by the DES in 1969 and which reported in 1971. Perhaps as a consequence of the position revealed by that report, there could be set up by the DES, who has made financial provision for it, a small unit to monitor its results; that is, to monitor year by year the recruitment and supply of RE students and teachers and also the number and distribution of graded posts in the subject.
Finally, I believe that the qualified teachers of RE in our schools are as devoted to their subject and as academically well qualified as those in other subjects; but far too few teachers are qualified and, as a result, the best qualified have the largest pupil load, making the conditions for teaching less effective. Again, the number of schools encouraging pupils to opt for A-level in religious studies is less than it should or could be. But if the number of graded posts were increased, if the local authorities could ensure that a fair proportion of in-service places in the colleges were allocated to religious education, the situation could materially improve. On our part, the General Synod Board of Education will try to persuade the clergy of our parishes to encourage young people to take up religious education as a vocation. We have a dual system of education not only in the schools but in the colleges as well, and in this particular matter we must work as partners. I will do my best, through the Board of Education, to see that the Church is a willing partner.
8.51 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, for the first time since my privilege to be present in your Lordships' House I find myself sitting among the Prelates, not of my choice—that would be impudent, and I would not be so presumptuous—but because of their overflowing numbers tonight. I venture to hope that this physical coincidence will be reflected in the ecumenical spirit in which I try to speak of the overwhelming importance of the education in Christian matters. I believe, in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that Christianity is the way and the truth and the life and, for that reason, I regard it as having a priority which is unquestionable.

1673
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this topic, and also for the warning that we should operate tonight with a fairly restricted front. I beg leave to introduce a wider consideration on the grounds that if you look, as no doubt you have done, at the various words in this Motion, you will find that the operative words are contingent and dependent. We are to consider the adequacy of the teaching staff. We are to consider the availability of such processes of qualification as will suit those who are to teach, properly to undertake that office. We are to think of the religious education in itself. Both adjectives, and indeed the noun, are entirely dependent for their veracity on what is the adequacy, what is the required qualification and what, after all, is religion and whether or not you can educate people in religion at all.
I will briefly try to say something on those three themes. It is because I believe the inadequacy at the moment of teaching in religious matters is a result of the prevailing secularisation of the community in which we live that the need for such religious education is no longer paramount and is widely disregarded. It happens that on Wednesdays when such debates take place I try myself out on Tower Hill, which is a fairly robust preparation for any discussion. Once again, today it has been my opportunity to test out the kind of feeling that people have about the need for education in religious matters. I hope that it will not startle your Lordships if I find that it has almost totally disappeared.
There is a residuary group who believe that here is an imperative need which at all costs must be served. But there are a great many people who no longer find any sense of peremptory importance in Christian matters. For that reason, those who endeavour to provide an adequate preparation in religious education are very largely dealing in an area where to begin with there is no response. There is no family background upon which to build and no general sense of great and imperative need for the prosecution of the Christian case.
It is a miserable fact, but it has come home to me again and again that the ignorance of the average man and woman today is a sorry comment on the kind of religious education to which he or she
1674
was exposed when younger. My own memories of the theology lesson or the scripture lesson are that it was a prolegomenon to arithmetic and the time when you marked the register. The only spiritual comment that I remember about one of the most beautiful hymns, "Holy, Holy, Holy", is that we were adjured to mind our aitches. That is not because I was brought up in a non-Christian home; I was surrounded by Christianity and baptised by a hosepipe, almost. But, nevertheless, I believe that you cannot provide an adequate need if that need is not itself felt. Perhaps the greatest of all the obligations to which we must attach ourselves is to recreate that need.
I will not press the Christian claim, but I will offer a much more commonplace reason for the imperative need for religious education. At least those who are going to be atheists should know why; and those who are going to reject the Christian faith should have an ample opportunity of knowing on what grounds—suitable and substantial grounds—they make such a decision. The plain fact is that it is deplorable that people should reject Christianity; it is even more deplorable that they should reject it for totally unrealistic reasons. Those reasons are prejudicial to any common sense and have no root in any kind of ideology.
I would break a gentle lance with the noble Earl: though I believe that religion is pre-requisite of morals, yet there is an increasing number of people who think that morals can get on pretty well so long as you have an ideology, and that ideology need not essentially be religious. This is part of the climate of disaffection with the primary needs of Christianity or religion as they are still purported to be generally accepted when, as a matter of fact, they are not.
In the second place, what is the qualification to teach religion? I believe that religion essentially is caught rather than taught. I am persuaded that you cannot communicate the reality of religion unless you are a participant in its activities and have a realistic approach to its principles. It seems to me that the evidence is considerable that a great many of those who purport to teach religion have in themselves no substantial faith, which is the prerequisite of any true communication. Children listen much more to what you are than to what you say, and if what you

1675
communicate is some academic list of facts upon which you presume yourself to be neutral, it should be no surprise that, though you may have a textual and scholastic qualification about Church history and certain of the articles of the faith, unless you are committed to that faith, it is impossible to implant it in the minds, let alone the hearts, of those whom you seek to teach.
In the same context, I believe that there is at the heart of the problem of religious teaching a dilemma which as yet we have not resolved. It is the dilemma of selecting a particular subject as having a priority in authority not possessed by any other. After all, the concept of the inspiration of the Bible is the literary counterpart of infallibility. I would communicate to your Lordships that the whole word "inspiration" is a snare and a delusion. Unless it is absolute it has no philosophical and no substantial meaning whatsoever. You cannot be fairly inspired, considerably inspired or rather inspired. One of the troubles that has affected so grievously the communication of religious matters in schools has been the attitude of those who have had, perforce, to regard the Bible as a document which cannot be criticised. But at the same time they are invited to criticise it, and they get into an awful mess because at one and the same time they would regard it as infallible and would at least pretend to their scholars, and those to whom they endeavour to present their case, that it should be subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rightly said, to the normal processes of thought.
I remember that attitude was communicated to me in particular in relation to the story of David and Goliath. I found my sympathies were entirely with Goliath, though they were not supposed to be. Here was a nasty boy throwing stones from a safe distance at a man walking at about two miles per hour in four tons of armour. When David knocked Goliath unconscious he chopped his head off. I do not find that an edifying story. If you believe the Bible to be inspired, you are inevitably endeavouring to communicate something which, on further evidence, any sensible youngster will repudiate as being ridiculous. That is one of the problems. It is a problem which is not universally
1676
shared, and I do not want to make too much of it; but there is an automatic and final distinction between a subject which can be argued about and in which criticism ought to be promoted, and a subject which is so authentic and sacrosanct that all that is required of the scholar is to receive it, to imbibe it and to accept it finally.
The debate with regard to religious education as yet in your Lordships' House has not ventured upon what, after all, is the circumstantial problem that outweighs in its significance, and indeed in its difficulty, all the others. One of my heroes is Blaise Pascal: I think he had one of the purest minds of which history has any record. If you read his Pensées you will discover there that he brought the most acute critical faculties to everything except the Bible and religious matters, which he seemed to accept because the prevailing temper, atmosphere and climate conduced to such exceptions.
No longer is that so; and added to the problems that face any critical attitude to Christianity is the proliferation of other faiths. My spiritual father was John Wesley and he had a lot of difficulty on one occasion with a meat chopper in Nottingham; but as far as I know he never had to debate Christianity with Buddhists. But in Hyde Park, not so long ago, there were a number of Buddhist missionaries sent over from what was then Burma in order to save us at the last ditch from the peril of our own violence in the West. They started very properly in the North of Scotland and worked their way South. I found them in Hyde Park, and they knew considerably more about Buddhism than I did. What is more, there were elements in what they said that I found impossible to refute and which showed up in some measure delinquencies and failures in the faith, or at least in the history of the faith, to which I am committed.
When you think of the multiracial society which has come to stay, when you think of the Sikh and the Buddhist, to say nothing of the tremendous revival of faith in Judaism—I do not say that in order to placate anyone sitting here who may later on be taking part in the debate, except to say how much we owe to it—in fact it can be very clearly shown, as I remember a Communist agitator showed to me, that Christianity is, so to speak, not a

1677
fallacy but a heresy of Judaism, that Islam is a heresy of both and that Communism can be regarded as a heresy which compounds most of the failures of the other three. Whether or not you agree with that, surely it is true that any religious education in the future must take note of the fact that there are a great many people who do not subscribe to the Christian faith and are not likely so to do. Heady ambitions that evangelism or evangelical jamborees of past days or present times are likely to produce such an overflow of Christian enthusiasm as relatively to blot out these other things, I think, relate to a Cloud Cuckoo-land of the most ridiculous nature.
Therefore, believing as I do that Christianity is the way, the truth and the life, I believe we have to take a much more humble attitude to those who disagree with us, and we have to provide—this is an existential requirement—for those of other faiths an equal and democratic place in the communication of what they believe and instruction in what they should believe. That should include Humanists and, for my money, Marxists as well. But of course that puts an intolerable strain on those who are required to teach. How, in a curriculum of two or three years, can you provide an acquaintance with the various great religions of the world so that they can be more or less taught to those who require to hear them? It is impossible.
May I therefore make a practical suggestion before sitting down. I am quite sure that sooner or later religious education must be taken very much more in the hands of the established Churches and must be undertaken very much more by the priests, ministers or representatives of those particular cults. That will relieve of boredom a great many parsons today. It will give in restricted areas, where evangelical and religious opportunities are nothing like what they were, an added zest. It will provide the basis on which a far better and more effective communication of religious education can be made. It will, I think, in many respects, also save the Church from an increasing sense that it is not only ineffective but irrelevant. These may appear to be rather hard words, but they are beaten out of a very long experience now of the declining ability of the present generation to communicate with any efficacy the basic
1678
truths in which I believe, and to which our fathers gave their adherence, and which I hope this debate will help to recreate.
9.5 p.m.
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY: My Lords, may I first join in the gratitude expressed by others to the noble Earl for initiating this discussion. I come from Scotland, and my first temptation was to use this occasion to deal with the parallel situation against a very different legislative background. I am resisting that temptation. The whole educational system in Scotland may soon be devolved beyond the influence of this House and so I rise now with two intentions. The first is to underline the vast importance of the essential question, not only in the United Kingdom but indeed across the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has been saying in effect, by reason of the rapidity of change taking place in the consciousness of youth everywhere.
That the future lies with youth is a cliché, but it is a cliché which now has a very sharpened significance. How many people, for example, are aware that in France half the population are under the age of 30 years, that in the United States half the population are under 25 years of age, that in China half the population are under 21 years of age? That is a symbol: what does that spell for disturbance unless we come fairly rapidly to some conclusions? Romain Rolland says that this world:
"has become a unity and for this high destiny mankind is not yet fit".
The late President Kennedy, just before his death, speaking about the Third World, said:
"A revolution is coming, to be settled either amicably by consent or violently by necessity, unless we soon find a united objective and a world thesis."
My intention, then, is twofold. In this area of the world for which we are responsible, I would urge, first, the vast importance of religious education coming much more to the forefront. My second intention is to be short—which means I must risk being telegraphic, almost staccato—but to clear the ground, and again for the sake of brevity, may I first remove two misconceptions that might be in the minds of listeners and make it difficult for them to deal with the main issue. There may be those who say in

1679
this House that this is an attempt to return to a new authoritarianism; that is, to put the old faith across good and strong. I think it is important to say that this is not the intention; nor, indeed, is it a possibility. The whole educational system itself is a move away from authoritarianism to an atmosphere of colloquy; or, again in one brief sentence, it is a move from corporal punishment to amicable discussion—teacher and taught. The whole educational system is moving from confrontation to dialogue, and as that happens to be the essence of the Christian faith it is not only welcome but essential to a united world. So it is not an attempt to return to a new authoritarianism.
There may, secondly, be others with a different kind of apprehension for the opposite reason that the Church is now altogether too liberal, that religious education now covers the whole board—so broad as to be hopelessly vague, as has been said by several speakers. This position—again for brevity—is perhaps best summarised by a poem recently written by a teacher, a Mrs. Sandeman called "I only teach RE"—
"Oh, no, I'm not a Christian, a Moslem or a Jew,
Involvement would unsettle my objective point of view,
And when I take my lesson I don't moralise or preach:
In religious education basic facts are all I teach.
I give notes on each religion, however small or odd,
The dates of every prophet and the names of every god.
And when the facts have all run out I turn to other creeds;
Trotsky, Marx and Lenin fill my syllabuses' needs.
I do not teach morality or charity or hope,
Such abstracts as the love of God are not within my scope.
Their spiritual development does not depend on me,
No! Let them get their faith elsewhere. I only teach RE."
This is a good summary of the situation, and there is an apprehension that attaches to it that the Church is too liberal.
But, here again, let us be careful. The Christian witness must be respected. In our cities, whether in Scotland or in London, very many classes have almost as many Mohammedan and Sikh children, Jews and Humanists, as they have young Christians. Would it really further our faith to ask all these to leave the room, so to speak, while Christianity is extolled? In a united world, it cannot be bad to have united classes. They are a representation of the world in which we are now living.
1680
They are a place in which, if rightly expressed, there is far more fruitful teaching, provided many of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke about are also in the mind of the teacher. It is very important that it should be, as I say, right across the board.
It is justified apprehension and this partitioning is not only in religion, but in the whole business of our approach to society. There is, that is to say, the third apprehensive group, who say that we are so hopelessly individualised; that the whole faith, in its essence and its power, is corporate and this is justified apprehension. But this individualising is not just isolationism of Christian issues or religious issues. It is not just in the religious sphere; it is the bane of science, also.
Noble Lords will know the story of the young man who, at the age of 19, went back to the village where he was born, and met the old doctor who had brought him into the world. He told the old doctor that he himself was going to become a doctor, so the old man asked "Are you going to be a general practitioner?" "No, no", said the young man, "I am going to specialise". The old man asked "What are you going to specialise in?", to which the reply was "The nose, the nose. "At this the old man said "You must mean ear, nose and throat", but the young man answered "No, that is far too big a subject. I am going to specialise in the nose. "So the old man asked "To which nostril are you going to devote your life?".
It is a quick way of touching on a serious blemish in our society, scientific and religious. Our departmentalising, unless it is somehow solved, makes it quite impossible to understand the world in which we live. Indeed, the only thing likely to save us is young people themselves, and it is here that I move finally to the positive. I turn to the positive, and plead for serious consideration to be given to religious education in its broadest sense. So much is said against young people today that I would end with a word in their favour which only reinforces our duty to assist. I want to give the shortest instances of the hope that springs up, personal and corporate, from young people themselves. Two great marks of modern youth are their sensitivity and their togetherness. These are our great hopes on which to build.

1681
The first instance is that for years we have had camps for borstal inmates in Iona. Hundreds have come to Iona for a week's holiday, and none has ever run away. But there has been a recent development. The governor of a Scottish borstal institution has made a genuine advance in understanding modern youth. Instead of sending up to our camps, as for years he did, two officers and 20 inmates for a week's holiday, to have a good time, he now sends three officers and 12 borstal inmates because, along with the 12 borstal inmates, there are 12 crippled lads from a home for cripples. Instead of giving the borstal inmates simply a good time he insists that each should be guardian to a cripple—each to help his opposite number perhaps to eat, or to trundle him in his wheelchair, or to take the more active down to the beach and help them to go in for a bathe. What an experience and a joy for a cripple actually to be able to bathe in the sea, each attached to a borstal lad.
With the best will in the world, last summer the three officers thought of making an advance on this. They said, "We will get each of these borstal lads to study the cripple for whom he is personally responsible and, either writing or by coming to one of the officers, to say what are the characteristics of the lad." Obviously the theory was good; it was thought that there would be a reaching out by the borstal lads to understand other people, but at once the lads rose up in indignation and said that in no kind of circumstances would they do such a thing unless the cripple in question was present at the discussion that took place or at the reading of the document. What about this for sensitivity? They typify modern youth—the new youth to meet the new world.
Again—and much shorter—a young man, who happens to be the son of a Church of Scotland Minister and who is very Leftist and up at Oxford, went to Kenya last summer for three months on an aspect of the work done by Voluntary Service Overseas. Before going to Kenya his father wanted to make him the gift of a rather good camera. At once the boy refused the camera, on the ground that he was not going to view Africans as if they were specimens of the human race and that to produce a camera when they were fishing, or working at agriculture, or sitting around the fire would
1682
simply mean looking at these people from outside. What sensitivity is this! Very often it is deeper than the sensitivity of the Church. There is this wonderful new opening—this sensitivity which is deeper, I repeat, than the deepness of the Church.
The other great area where they beat us is in togetherness—symbolised, if you like, by all wearing common-or-garden jeans right across the world. It was there in France in 1968 when the youth disturbances took place. The youth protested against the humanist sciences. They protested against psychology, sociology and philosophy, because these sciences had become the vehicle to adapt the worker to a repressive society. "How", they asked "can psychology be used to adapt young people to a society whose very nature is alienation?" Stated more positively, they knew that people come first and that science should be in the service of people and not people as the instruments of science. This is France in 1968.
Or go to American Vietnam. This was the only war in history which was brought to an end by the protest of young people. They knew that colonialism should be subordinate to the welfare of human souls, but here women and children were being napalmed by the 10,000 in the name of freedom, in the name of visiting Christianity. So 95,000 young Americans said, "No" with their feet and disappeared to Canada and Europe—in the name of "togetherness" with the yellow races. This is tremendous, vibrant Christianity, very largely expressed by young people who do not go to Church at all.
And now China in 1976. This is the only country which has moved from mediaevalism to Communism without the intervening stage of capitalism—from mandarins to communes. Your Lordships know that no one can go to university in China who does not spend three months of each academic year working as a labourer on a farm. To understand life or technology you must be a Friend of the Earth, opposed to the West's slavish service of the machine. Which is nearest to the God revealed in our religion? Is it what we say or what they do? We must put this issue right at the top of our priorities. There is a revolution coming, to be settled either voluntarily by consent or violently by necessity.
9.21 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, with others I want to say that I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has raised this Question tonight. I think the fact that nearly 20 Members of this House have asked to speak in a debate on an Unstarred Question indicates the wide interest which is felt by us all. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I agree on some things, disagree on others; but no one who knows him has any doubts about the utter dedication to human welfare which he always expresses when he takes up causes.
I shall be putting a different point of view from those which have been expressed so far. I am not a Christian. I am a Humanist, but perhaps I may say this: I hope I am as dedicated to the ideal of service to the community and to mankind and to the world as any Christian can be. I feel almost humble in following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary—that wonderful work that he has done in the Community of Iona. I appreciate immensely the breadth of attitude which he expressed in his view of Christianity and, if I may, I would say the same of my noble friend Lord Soper.
But I think very great difficulties arise from our debate tonight. I have been interested in one thing. The Question before us refers to "qualified teachers of religious education". I would have amended that to "teachers of religions" and I would have added "ethics". T believe the list of speakers which is now before the House indicates one of the difficulties of religious education: a representative of the Anglicans, a representative of the Roman Catholics, a representative of the Methodists, a representative of the Scottish Church, a representative of the Hebrew religion, myself a Humanist, an Agnostic and an Atheist. This list of speakers indicates the difficulty in our diverse society of teaching any particular religion in our schools.
I have been interested that the Question does not suggest the Christian religion, but it has been assumed in all the speeches which have been delivered that the thought is of the Christian religion.
There are these difficulties: first, that Christians themselves have no unity as to the theology they are to teach. They say in their creeds and their prayers and
1684
their burial services a theology which very few intellectual people accept today. Is it to be Christian religion of that old church theology or the Christian religion of the much broader theology which exists even among Christians at the present time?
It is not merely the diversion of conviction among Christians. We are now living in a society which is not only multinational but multi-credal and no credal. I think my noble friend Lord Soper is probably correct when he says that to a very large extent public opinion today is no longer concerned with Christian theology or Christian religion. When in our schools we have Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, as well as those of the Christian faith and those who do not have any religion at all, it seems to me quite intolerable that there should necessarily be a part of our curriculum which is for the teaching of the Christian religion.
This does not mean that I do not appreciate the necessity for teaching ethics in our schools. I deplore as much as anyone can do the attitude of materialism, the attitude of violence, the attitude of individual against individual that is so abroad in our society today. I would have in our schools social, ethical, moral teaching, which would be not only the ethics of Christianity but the ethics of most religions and the ethics of many of those who do not claim to be religious at all. Take the assemblies which are held in our schools—they are mere formal occasions. As the pupils listen to the prayers being read, is there any conviction in their hearts? They regard them as a routine exercise in the curriculum. I am not sure that that type of Christian teaching in our schools does not do more harm to Christianity than if it did not exist.
I would have among the younger students in our schools ethical, moral teaching, teaching insisting upon the supreme ethic of love, of tolerance, of compassion, of human fellowship, of justice, of mercy, of the freedom of thought and expression, of the fulfilment of personality, of identity with others, of appreciation of beauty, kindness to animals, the brotherhood of all races, the exclusion of violence and the need for peace in the world. That is an ethic which is common to Christianity and to nearly all religions; it is an ethic which is

1685
common to us as Humanists. If that broad teaching were given with dedication, it might alter the whole outlook of those who are leaving our schools.
There are those who are in the higher classes, the 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds—those young men and women who are seeking the way to life. I expect among nearly all of us those years must have been the age of decision of our attitude to life. I would teach those young teenagers in our schools comparative religions; teaching—yes—the value of Christianity, but also teaching the value of other religions and the value of the contributions of the great Humanists who throughout history have held up the ideal of human fulfilment. I admit there would be the difficulty of finding teachers capable of performing that task. It might be met by inviting representatives of different points of view to discuss these issues with older pupils before they leave school. If this were the case students would leave the schools not merely with a religion or an ethic which they had learned as though it were the only one to be taught, but having seen the value of all religions and the value of the Humanist attitude. There would then be a conviction among them which would be much deeper than simply an emotional view of the teenage years.
We have been extolling the value of religion in schools. Religion in schools also has a great deal to answer for. It has to answer for much of the situation in Belfast and Northern Ireland at this time—the segregation of Protestants and Catholics in schools and the teaching from youth of this difference between them. It is not only a situation that exists in Belfast, Northern Ireland; it also exists in Glasgow and Liverpool and other cities. We must be extremely careful that we do not teach religion in a way which, instead of serving the purpose of the ethics of Christianity, of other religions and of Humanism, means a division among those at school which has such a terrible effect in their subsequent life.
9.35 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, we have heard some notable oratory tonight and, if I dare to pick out two or three examples, I was tremendously influenced by the noble Lords, Lord Soper, Lord MacLeod, and Lord Brockway, for I stand very
1686
much in the same position as they do, if one can put together three people who really pretend or profess different beliefs but have, I think, the same objects and faith. In conformity with the customs of this House I hope to be able to stay until the end of the debate, and I shall be fairly short myself, but if it is a question of deciding between my last train and hearing the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, it is just possible that the last train may win.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: This is a question of morality, my Lords.
Lord PLATT: Of course. I must say that I was really amazed by the assumption of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, that things are getting worse because religion in the old sense of the term, the kind of religion which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would discard, is no longer being taught in schools; and beyond that, that the 1944 Act, which I suppose is now 33 years out of date, is not being adhered to. In any other subject than religion the first question you would ask is whether there is still a demand for this kind of teaching. The second question would be whether the Act of 1944 is still relevant to present day thought on religious matters. It would seem to me obvious that if we were discussing a notable shortage of teachers of engineering, the first thing we should consider was whether we were teaching the right kind of engineering and, secondly, whether there was a need for more engineers. If there was, then of course we should make every possible effort in money and in other ways to increase the number of teachers. If, on the other hand, we became convinced that there was no need for the number of engineering teachers that there used to be, then we should not take action on those lines.
Having expressed this kind of view, I would go along very largely with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in feeling that the present religious teaching does not convince the pupils at whom it is directed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, faces facts so marvellously, when he tells us without any doubt of how few are the people to whom this kind of teaching appeals. I have difficulty in calling myself by any special name

1687
because I could not call myself a practising Christian in any way. Nevertheless, I think that the principles of the Christian religion and teaching are probably the best in the world up to the present time. I would be all in favour of the teaching of Christian principles, but not of strict adherence to passages in the Bible which, as I can imagine, no intelligent person today can receive as an absolute truth, or as teaching the kind of ritual which most children nowadays really rather despise.
I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it is surely possible to teach the ethics of life—if you like, including the ethics of religion, and not only the Christian religion but others—without this dogma being included. I would hope that if the Act of 1944 is now 30 years out of date, the next 30 years will see the coming together of Christians to try to design some sort of education which will include the virtues, the ethics, of the Christian religion, without the kind of rituals which most people nowadays do not want.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Platt, a question, although it carries us somewhat outside the subject tonight? Does he really believe that one can teach the ethics of the Gospels without bringing in what Jesus Christ said about himself; in other words, without the theology?
Lord PLATT: I do not think I ever said that one should, my Lords. I should have thought that one would have to quote Jesus Christ because he was one of the most important ethical teachers of all time, and I would therefore surely include him. But that does not say that you must go down on your knees and worship a God who is benign, when all you see around you and in the daily newspapers is nothing but disaster.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has not understood my point at all, but, as the hour is late, I will not delay him.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord asked whether I would quote Jesus Christ, and my answer was that of course I would.
The Earl of LONGFORD: That was not my point at all, my Lords, but no matter.
Lord PLATT: The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, took the very words out of my mouth when he spoke of the dangers of getting children at a very early age and indoctrinating them. This was well known and is still well known, particularly to the Jesuits, who believe in inculcating doctrine when people are young; and so we have Protestants and Catholics, not only at each other's throats, but murdering each other in the streets of Belfast.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, imputed to myself and to other noble Lords an opinion which I do not think we hold—certainly I do not—may I ask him to take note of the fact that it is not the submission of most of us that religious education should be taught exactly as it was in 1944? Indeed, a great deal of the burden of what I said was that the changes in content and approach were so rapid that it was necessary to have not merely efficient training but efficient retraining. As the noble Lord came to me, as it were, as I finished my speech, I hope he will allow me to come to him as he finishes his and put this straight.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to this in many different ways; but he said more than once that the very law of 1944 was no longer being observed, and he put that down as some failure on our part. I suggest it is a sign of progress.
Lord ELTON: I do not withdraw that remark, my Lords; it was the earlier remark which I wished to put right.
9.44 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, if I do nothing else tonight, I give your Lordships a brief interlude of a female voice in this debate. Something seems to be going very wrong throughout our schools; there is an infectious epidemic of stealing. As a member of a board of visitors of a borstal for about 15 years, I have seen the boys becoming younger each year. We now have many schoolboys; boys who have long records

1689
of criminal acts and court attendances. They tell me that thieving is all too easy. It starts with little things and grows, and many of these boys have told me they wish they had been stopped when they started aged seven or eight. Now, at the age of 15, they return to school boasting of the adult life they have lived in borstal, even though they get some opportunities of helping people, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary.
What has happened to our Christian moral law? Is it no longer part of our heritage? Have our young children nothing good and right on which to base their lives? Is not the teaching of the difference between right and wrong part of education? Why is there such a spread of violence? I believe that we are depriving our children if we do not give them the chance of religious education at school. It was at school and not at home that I found my way to becoming a Christian in my own right, through having an inspired and dedicated Christian teacher who taught me that the Cross stood for "I" crossed out. The children who do not want to take part in religious education for reasons of conscience are readily excused. There are many people throughout Britain who feel that Christian teaching in schools must be maintained. Perhaps our society has become as it is because the Christian way of life has not been put over in a positive and inspired way. People should want to follow Christ. Children should want to give to society, not always to take from it.
It seems to me that at the present time the Government are not taking any steps to provide an adequate supply of qualified teachers of religious education. Rather the reverse. I must bring to your Lordships' notice the proposed closure of Saint Mary's College of the Sacred Heart at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. If this college is closed, there will be no Christian teacher training college North of Ripon in Yorkshire. It will deprive many prospective students of the opportunity to train in a institution that values the Christian way of life. Does not the Minister agree that the closure of this college would have a very serious effect on the provision of religious study specialists in the North-East? Saint Mary's takes and trains as religious study specialists between 40 and 50 candidates each year.
1690
Some are Roman Catholics, some are non-Catholic. The closure would mean the termination of a wide range of successful in-service courses. Is not the type of training necessary of value to teachers of religion? It appears necessary to reduce the number of teachers being trained within the country as a whole, but the North-East seems to have had a disproportionate share of these cuts. The Government have greatly reduced the opportunities for higher education in an area which is already poorly supplied and suffering considerable deprivation and high unemployment.
The true Geordie speaks very fast and in an accent that is difficult for many to understand. If Saint Mary's closes the students will have no choice other than the polytechnic. I believe that the Government will be very unreasonable and unwise if they continue to contemplate the closure of this college. Already colleges which run most successful courses have closed. If jobs in religious education are to be available in the future this can be done by seeing that the subject has an adequately staffed department. This will only happen if the local education authorities support the policies. Essex seems to be an example of what can be achieved. I hope that the Government will consider the great concern that many people have for the future supply of qualified teachers of religious education and will carefully study this point before closing any more specialist colleges.
9.49 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, this has become an excellent debate. I say that because there were moments at the beginning when it seemed that this House might concentrate upon the mechanisms of the provision of education rather than upon the content of that education itself. There was a moment, too, when it seemed that we might become obsessed with partisanship in agreement around the subject that we were discussing when what we must always do is to expose the truth of the subject. It is the truth, for me at any rate, that I do not even agree with my own Government on the issue of the provision of teachers in general. I do not believe that there is a sufficient number of teachers of religious education. I do not believe that there is a sufficient number of teachers.

1691
I believe that there is a shortage of cash and that it is a priority that the Government may at this moment be forced to accept that they cannot spend more money on the education of teachers. But how can there be a sufficiency of teachers of anything when truants are roaming the streets of the cities, when the type of thing about which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has spoken can be reported, and when we all know that the very fabric of our society is in need of care and attention and loving teaching? Of course, there is no surplus. All that there is is a shortage of resources. I wanted to say that first of all, because I believe it important to set our debate in context.
I want also to say that as one practising daily (when I am not in this House) in the field of in-service education, there is a suspicion gathering in my mind—a suspicion that does not go unshared—that in-service education is being seen as a panacea and as an escape clause from the real point about our education service. Education's first priority is to make certain that our young people get the opportunity to follow through courses with a careful teaching that will lead them to the point where one can add to a store of knowledge of life, rather than offering them in-service education to make up for ravages caused by the failure of the system.
I also want to say that we have oversimplified the problem caused by in-service education itself. When a teacher is taken out of the classroom for his in-service education there is an almost geometric progression of teachers taken also from the Education Service in order to provide the in-service training which is to be given to that teacher. It is possible to prove that in-service education provision in the various amendments to the Education Acts of the past five or 10 years neglected the true arithmetic of the provision of those needing to be released from teaching in order that others might be taught in-service.
I want to go on to some research that I have done in my own area. It will not surprise your Lordships that I went to the Polytechnic of Wales for these figures. There were 19 students sitting finals, having taken religious education as a main subject in the summer of 1975. Six returned to the college to follow Bachelor
1692
of Education courses. Only three of those six specialised in religious education, and of the remaining 13 two failed their finals. Eight obtained posts and three did not appear to have done so. That means that there were three out of that year of teachers of religious education specifically trained who joined the ranks of the 40,000 unemployed teachers. The figure of 22 students who took religious education as a main subject and sat their final certificate in the summer of 1976 broke down in this way. Seven returned to the college for Bachelor of Education degrees. Of the other 15, nine have posts, 6 do not appear to have posts, and of the Bachelor of Education group of 1976 all three have obtained their degrees and have also obtained posts. If these statistics seem sterile to your Lordships, they do not seem sterile to me because among the unemployed teachers of religious education in Wales at this moment there is my own 22-year-old daughter.
There is a point that I wish to make as a result of application to distinguished members of the teaching service who are teaching teachers in Wales. It is a point that comes clearly in a letter which I will quote to your Lordships. I ask you at this stage not to request me to reveal the name of the writer because I do not have his permission. It is a view from a very respected educationist who says that:
"It is quite clear that very many schools have paid scant attention to the serious business of Religious Education and from the evidence of the students entering our institution for teacher training we know that far too many at 'O' and 'A' level have had no opportunity of continuing to consider moral, ethical and spiritual questions as part of a necessary general curriculum".
With your Lordships' permission I will come back to that point in a moment.
A survey of Welsh education was specifically undertaken in 1976 and it came to similar conclusions to those quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in initiating this debate, for which we thank him. It said, referring to teaching staff and their qualifications in religious education that,
"Graduate teachers account for forty per cent, of heads of departments, but of these fewer than half stated that they held specific qualifications in theology or religious studies. Rather more than ten per cent, have taken RE as a main subject…".
Rather than quote figures which have already been quoted by the noble Earl, I will go on to say:
"…almost twenty-five per cent. of those in charge of RE had no specialist qualification and only a

1693
very small proportion, fewer than ten per cent, of staff assisting in the RE department had any such qualification. This in all probability reflects two factors. First, it is a result of the national shortage of teachers "—
not surplus of teachers, but shortage of teachers—
"particularly non-graduates, with specialist qualifications in RE, and second it suggests the reluctance on the part of some head teachers to make appointments solely for RE when faced with other needs ".
It was at the point when the noble Lord, Lord Soper, rose to his feet that I felt encouraged in the debate, because I had myself felt that we were falling short of the real challenge of the expression of the ethic which then took over in the debate. The other noble Lords who followed emphasised what I thought was far more important than what I call the mechanics, the mechanisms, of providing teachers. There are many teachers looking for jobs at this present time, and I emphasise and re-emphasise that fact. There are qualified teachers in the field of religious education who are unemployed, and I emphasise that fact. But what we are really talking about is the ethical basis of the society in which we live. We are concerned with any contribution to it by any one of the institutions that inform that ethic: whether it be the Christian Church, which is losing its influence; whether it be the schools, which have lost their way in many cases over what they should teach, what the content of their subjects might be and the methods through which they should teach them; or whether it be in fact the home, as has been suggested here, the issue is one of the central ethic of democracy.
It is a fact, my Lords, that the totalitarian régimes of this world do not neglect the basic myth (or they would call it the ethic) of their society; they drum it home. Provisions are made first and foremost to see that those who live within totalitarian States either are coerced or are convinced into accepting the ethic upon which it is based. We, I think, neglect it; and it was a joy to hear my old mentor, leader and noble friend Lord Brockway come to the same conclusion that I think we all have basically, that social, ethic and moral teaching is something which is fundamental, which is basic to the teaching of all subjects. I believe that you cannot in fact teach any subject in the curriculum without bringing into it your basic, fundamental ethic and moral status.
1694
I am just turning the emphasis round from the way it was put earlier; and I am going to have no hesitation at all. Like the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I am going to accept the challenge and to quote from Jesus Christ. The central commandment that he gave to his disciples was:
"This is my Commandment, that ye love one another".
It does not seem to me that we need to distinguish in our teaching; it does not seem to me that we need to divide our society; it does not seem to me that we need to divide ourselves or our children. In this multiracial society, which is gradually growing around us, with all its infinite variety; in this multi-religious and, as someone has already said, non-religious, post-Christian, semi-secular society in which we live, we all know the meaning of love. "Love", as St. Paul said, "is the fulfilment of the law", and I think the fulfilment of the law under the Education Act of 1944 is the provision of as many teachers as our society can afford.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? When he says "a multi-religious society "and" a non-religious society", could he elaborate or clarify that point a little? It seems to me that a multi-religious society and a non-religious society are two rather different things. Perhaps he could make the point clear.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, if in fact the syntax of my sentence gave way to the emotion of the moment, I apologise to the noble Viscount. What I was saying was this, that we have in fact a multiracial society in Britain, but not all members of that society subscribe to any religion. A case could be made for saying that the majority of people within this country do not subscribe to any religion. Therefore, we have a multi-religious society and at the same time a secular one.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I was puzzled by what was said by him and by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I follow them up to a point. The code of conduct laid down by Jesus Christ, the code of conduct of the Christian religion, I understand they would have taught in schools and they would associate it with

1695
the Christian religion. Would they be willing to see that the other part of Christ's teaching was taught; in other words, the salvation of the individual which is, in some ways, the central part of Christian teaching rather than perhaps the code of conduct? Are they willing for that to be taught?
Lord PARRY: My Lords, I, too, am puzzled because I fail to see the conflict. I am not dodging the question. To my mind, the salvation of the individual is for the individual with the help of whatever institutions have informed him in the course of his life.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the point is that the noble Lord quoted what he called the central dogma of the Christian religion: "Love thy neighbour as thyself". That is the second and great commandment. The first is: "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul". We are asking whether there is an arbitrary separation of the doctrine of our Lord, part of which he accepts and would have taught and part of which he does not accept and would not
1696
have taught. I do not want to go into this too long.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, I am gratified by the interest that noble Lords are taking in my personal religious life. In fact, there were two misquotations in question put by the noble Lord, Lord Elton to me. I actually quoted the words which Christ said:
"This is my Commandment, that ye love one another".
I was quoting words attributed to Jesus Christ in the Bible. I was not entering into the wider theological question of whether there is a God. I could have a very long period of conversation with him about that; but I doubt whether this debate is the place and time for it. I believe that love is perhaps another name for what people call God; I say that Jesus Christ gave as a central commandment and I subscribe to it.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, can I say that the speaker is entirely right. There is the well-known quotation in the Bible that "God is love".
10.4 p.m.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, I think that what we have seen this evening—and especially at the end of the speech of the noble Lord opposite, with much of which we all agree—shows that we can get into difficulties of order, as it were, on a subject like this which the noble Earl has wisely put down as a curtain raiser to the bigger debate we are to have later. It is very difficult indeed to keep oneself strictly in order on such a subject as this. It is difficult to say something about teachers and the difficulty of getting teachers without going into what it is they are to teach. Strictly speaking, it is the lack of teachers which is the problem we have to discuss tonight. That is not to say that I myself may not do just what other noble Lords have done this evening; but unless I hear any discreet—I hope, discreet—coughs or such-like, I will not stop what I am saying; although I promise that I shall not take long.
My Lords, I begin by saying that here, where we are now, in this Chamber, in 1944, was passed the Act of Parliament the provisions of which it seems are not being carried out. I had just come out of the RAF after four years' service, to take part in what was the first great domestic measure which the House of Commons had seen since the beginning of the war. I can only tell your Lordships what a joy it was to get one's mind for a moment off the struggle—which, thank Heaven! by that time had seemed to be an inevitable victory for us—and to be able to talk about the future and the world which we wanted and, in particular, the education problem. The right honourable R. A. Butler (now Lord Butler of Saffron Walden) sat where the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is now sitting, and Mr. Chuter Ede, his excellent Parliamentary Secretary of the Labour Party—because we had a Coalition Government at that time—sat on the other side of the Chamber and not beside my noble friend.
We went through the Bill from the beginning of the Sitting after Christmas until we rose at Easter. For the most part during that time we spent two days a week on that Bill. There was a Coalition Government, and one might think the Bill would go through very much "on the nod"; but, oh dear me, no! There
1698
was as much opposition then as there is now, as my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has reminded me by his smile. In saying that, it was a great joy at that time to have my noble friend back with us for the first time, having recovered from that terribly long illness which I remember well and which most of us have read about in his book.
A great deal of our time was spent upon the religious aspects of the Bill. The main one was set out in what is now Section 7. It was clearly laid as a duty upon local authorities, so far as their powers extended, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community—note the order of those words, my Lords—by securing that efficient education throughout those stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of the area. That set the matter out. In Clause 25 were the details of how that was to be done. They are now enshrined in that section. We are here tonight to see that those legislative words which were passed then are put into practice; or else it is the duty of the Government to bring in some other Bill to change the situation entirely.
Until such a time as that arrives, what we are doing tonight is saying to the Government: "There is a bad situation in this country today. There are not enough teachers of religious education. Why not? What have you done about it?" I should like to put a few direct questions to the noble Lord who is to reply. I beg him to be assured that I do not necessarily expect him to know the answers now. He is one of the most overworked noble Lords among us and to expect him to know all the answers is more than anybody can expect. However, I should like an answer at some time, perhaps when we come to the debate which is to take place in May.
I should like to ask what are the possibilities for providing serving teachers to retrain as teachers of religious education. I have made inquiries and have been told that although the number is not large, there are teachers who would like to avail themselves of this opportunity. There are courses available, but they do not somehow seem to be called together or to be dealt with as they should

1699
be by the local authorities. The noble Lord has the power, or rather his right honourable friend has the power, to bypass those channels and set up these courses, provided that could be done—and I stress that I would not advise that it should be done, but I believe it could be done—within the existing budgetary possibilities of the Department.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, in order to be clear about the question which the noble Lord is asking, may I ask whether he is speaking of in-service training courses? Am I right?
Lord HARVINGTON: Yes, my Lords: that is correct, and I should be very grateful if we could have an answer to that question at some stage. Again, I should like to emphasise what has been said by so many speakers tonight: that any proposed cuts in the number of teachers we have should be levelled out in such a way that the teachers of religious education are not the ones to suffer the greatest cuts of all but that these cuts—necessary as they may be—should be made absolutely fairly, and because all has not gone well with the training of teachers they should not be victimised in that way and suffer a bigger cut.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has, I am glad to say, made the case very much better than I could have done for the retention of the College of St. Mary's in Newcastle. I should like to emphasise all that she has said about that. Here I find myself in a somewhat difficult position, because I believe that the noble Lord will tell us that the present situation has arisen as a result of an agreement between his own Department and the Roman Catholic authorities that there should be some phasing out of the college and that the work done there should be done by the Polytechnic in Newcastle. I hope that is not true but, if it is, I still think it is wrong, because that college has an immense knowledge and an immense background of teaching religious education. It turns out nearly as many non-Catholic teachers as it does Catholic teachers. Owing to the geographical position, which the noble Baroness set.
1700
out so well, I think it would be a great disservice to allow that work to go to the Newcastle Polytechnic which, until the present moment, or at any rate just recently, has been busily engaged in dismantling the faculty altogether. Therefore, the knowledge which they can have of the job must be infinitesimally small compared with that of St. Mary's College itself. Is this not an unwise thing to do, when you have ready-made a skilful, trained machine to produce the very article which is in such short supply?
If I may turn to another matter, I should like to ask this question: how many of the local education authorities have special advisers whose services in these matters are of such great value? I shrewdly suspect that quite a number of them do not avail themselves of this possibility. Also, may I remind noble Lords of what to me is a very sombre, if not sinister, thought, that the chances of a graduate student being able to take religious education as a main subject in his or her course have declined in the last 12 years to half what they were in 1965. I think that the Government—and not only this Government, but other Governments, too—must be held very much to blame for allowing this situation to arise.
This is the point where I have to follow some other noble Lords and ask: why am I worried about all this? Why are we all worried about this? When I say "all", I mean that large numbers of people are worried. It is surely because we believe that children should have the right to learn everything about the Christian religion, which is far and away the main religion of this country, when they are young. What they do when they grow up is their affair. But I think that we ought to give them the chance and that we should foster this.
When the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—for whom none has a greater affection and respect than I have, because I have seen him at work for many years and know the good he has done—talks about ethics, and how he is so gone on ethics, does he ever stop to think of where these ethics come from, where they were born? These ethics were born in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, in the words of our Lord and the practices of

1701
the early Christians. Those are ethics. Look, my Lords, at what the Romans said about the Christians when they were in the arena—"Look at these Christians. See how they love one another." That is what we have to get back to, and we can do that only if we have the teachers to teach us about them. Surely, if "education" means anything, we should have the intelligence when we grow up to be able to decide how we will practise the ethics, of which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, talks, in the knowledge of where they have really sprung from.
I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment, as I have been far too long already, but I just want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, one other important question. Will the Government consent to a survey, which would not be very difficult to hold, to find out one or two facts: for example, what percentage of religious education students actually go into RE after completing their courses; secondly, how far is religious education available as a truly realistic option for CSE, "O" and "A" levels—that is, the religious teacher potential in schools; and, thirdly, why do people choose, or not choose, to do RE? If the noble Lord could have a survey made to tell me that, we might be able to get useful data which would help to put matters right.
I conclude by asking one other question on Schedule 5 to the Education Act. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, state that where a local education authority has set up a conference to prepare an agreed syllabus, and the conference has not agreed unanimously—that is the interesting point—on the matter to be taught, then they must report that fact to the Minister who will set up his own body to decide what it is to be, and that decision will then be implemented. May I ask the noble Lord whether he can say to what extent the Minister has had to make these decisions, if at all, during the last 10 years.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if I may answer off the cuff—and I will confirm this—I think never.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, there you are!
10.21 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I venture to enter into the debate, which has been extremely interesting, but in view of the late hour I propose to deal very briefly with the view that is taken by myself and the Jewish community in this country. I appreciate the points which have been made in many of the speeches. However, I happen to be of the opinion that the basis of the ethics which we want to bring home to our youth and with which we want to inspire them rests in the religions which we respectively observe if we happen to be religious people.
As I understand it, this is a debate in which we are considering the necessity for having a sufficient supply of teachers who will be in a position to bring to our youth—indeed, to our adolescents, if necessary, and I think it is necessary—the ethics, the principles and the observances of the religions which those of us who happen to be attached to religious beliefs observe. Therefore, I shall speak for a few moments. There is much which I could say about the points which have been raised in the course of the debate, but it is very late and there are other speakers. Nevertheless, I wish to bring to the notice of the Government and of all Members here what the position is so far as the Jewish community is concerned.
Due to the small numbers of my particular community, it has never been possible for us to establish a college similar to those which are run by sections of the Christian community. Tonight we have heard an appeal in respect of one of them—I think correctly. Therefore, it has been our practice to encourage qualified teachers to undertake a further course of study at an institute of higher Jewish learning. It will be readily appreciated that such a course, involving a longer period of study that is not commensurately rewarded, is not attractive to a young person who is anxious to launch himself or herself upon a career. In recent years, therefore, we welcomed—and T want to ask my noble friend to take note of this—the opportunity which was afforded to us at Trent Park College to establish, within the religious studies department of that college, a course of Jewish studies.

1703
I think one other college also had a similar course. This has enabled young people to emerge as qualified teachers, but having a specialised knowledge of Judaism obtained during their course. Due to closures and amalgamations which have taken place throughout the country, the possibility for such an arrangement in future has receded. The Jewish community in this country is therefore very much concerned, first, that overall facilities should be available for teachers to obtain adequate training, and further, that the community in particular will be afforded facilities elsewhere, similar to those which were extended at Trent Park.
I should like to venture a few words, not regarding any sectional interest but affecting the life of this country as a whole. We have heard eloquent speeches in respect of ethical principles, and so on, and there are some of us who believe that the teaching of our respective religions is as important in that particular direction as any other kind of teaching that may take place. In times of increasing violence when moral standards are eroded and young people are subject to ideologies inimical to the traditions of the Western World and, if I may say so, of the Judaeo-Christian civilisation, I believe it is of vital importance that we should sustain a supply of qualified teachers who are able to impart to young people a consciousness of values which transcend purely material considerations. In my view, religious education fosters responsibility, citizenship and regard for the rights of man.
I cannot place sufficient emphasis—I wish I could—owing to my lack of being able to express myself as I would wish to, on the importance of religion in that particular respect. We are drifting into a state of society which is absolutely contrary, and which adopts methods and actions—and noble Lords will have heard me refer to these on a number of occasions, terrorism and Heaven knows what—which are contrary to the real principles of our respective religions. In my view, it is so important that the children in our country today should be taught by people who are religious people in the sense in which some of us understand religion.
I appreciate of course the points of view of noble friends who do not believe in
1704
religion in the sense in which we understand it. For example, I have always had a very high respect for my old friend—one of a number who have spoken—Lord Brockway, but in this respect I disagree with him entirely. Maybe it is because I had instilled into me in my youth the principles of Judaism and those principles mean something which is of extreme importance to me and which I believe is of importance to the world. I know, of course, that we are in a minority so far as our respective religions are concerned; I do not think we are in a minority in so far as our regard for religion itself is concerned. The fact of the matter is that we need to get our young people together and give them a challenge—which teachers can do if they are properly trained, because it is the duty of a teacher not merely to teach by the ordinary process of setting something forward, but to present a challenge to the people he is teaching to accept whatever he has to offer them in the way of information and advice. That is where it is so important, in my view, that we should do what we possibly can—and I hope the Government will keep that in mind—to provide teachers.
I know it is a difficult time at present: I know all about the economic situation. God knows, if you sit in this House for one day you hear so much about the economic position that you feel like going and drowning yourself! I hops I am not putting it in too sordid a way. As to everything we bring forward we are asked, "Can we afford this?", "Can we afford that?". But can we afford to lose our soul? That is what I want to know. Can we afford to take away from our community men and women who will be inspired not only to teach but to teach what we feel is right, and teach it in a proper and trained manner?
I strongly appeal to my noble friend to consider the position—I have come down to earth in the course of the debate—in the light of what I have tried to plead for, that every assistance possible should be given to the acknowledged religions, so that people can teach their children a religion. That, after all, is the basis of our understanding of religious teaching, that people want a child to be taught in a particular religion. It is a remarkable thing how that penetrates: we know it in the Jewish religion. We know very well

1705
today that the family spirit which prevailed years ago in consequence of the fact that people were religiously observant has been eroded. We want that spirit brought back again so that once more our children will have the benefit of being taught in a manner which will destroy the kind of thing put into their minds today, which in very many cases makes them want to be violent and to be barbaric. Those who know anything about the courts know what has happened. May I say one word further, my Lords. I hope that our own people in their homes will regard this as a message to themselves, because, after all, to a very considerable extent they are the teachers of the family.
10.33 a.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising this question of the supply of teachers of religious education. I take part in this debate with considerable trepidation as many speeches of great quality have made me realise what a difficult, delicate and complex subject this is. My only excuse for doing so is that, as a parent and a member of the Church of England, I have a direct interest in the subject. I should for a few moments like to add my thoughts to the aspect of the question which touches on the status of religious education, as it seems to have an important bearing on the way in which we attract young people to become teachers.
First, I would deal with two general points. One is that the word "indoctrination" is often used against those who wish to emphasise the religious side of religious education. I think it is generally agreed that indoctrination does not have a place nowadays, and that what we would rather do is to lay a foundation for future belief. I know that I left school with a foundation that was incomplete. Perhaps I might be allowed to give a rather frivolous example to illustrate this. About a week after I left school I joined the Army and the first morning the NCO came in at 6.30 am, banged rather heavily on the table and said, "Rise and shine". It was only a few weeks ago that I realised that he was, in fact, quoting from Isaiah, Chapter 60. Certainly the religious education that I received at school was of tremendous value later when the Christian
1706
faith began to mean something to me. Several noble Lords have mentioned the damage that is caused between denominations of Christians. Unless I am mistaken, denominational emphasis in training is certainly frowned upon under the 1944 Act. Perhaps the noble Lord, in replying to the debate might like to comment on that particular aspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in a forceful speech, said that he would like to see a shift of emphasis in religious education. My only comment on the rights and wrongs of that is that there would be difficulty if one expected people to teach the ethics of Jesus Christ without teaching the other claims that he made. However, the shift of emphasis would have important implications on the status of religious education. I believe that the tendency for religious education to be integrated with English, humanities and social studies would be increased. Shorn of its spiritual side there is a danger that religious education would be entirely absorbed, it would be difficult, therefore, to attract potential RE teachers and to assure them that their careers would have an established future. This particularly applies to those of lively faith.
In a recent booklet published by the Association of Christian Teachers it is heartening to read something which I believe puts religious education into its true perspective in the context of education as a whole. It reads:
"The final justification of the use of RE material is not its function in transmitting culture, cementing social morality or increasing general knowledge. Ultimately the acid test of RE is truth, not relevance."
As surely few would deny that one of the aims of education as a whole is to help pupils develop a sense of understanding based on truth and sound perspectives, that statement seems to emphasise the central rather than the peripheral place that religious education should have in education as a whole. Likewise, education is often well-described as leading to personal fulfilment or helping pupils towards personal fulfilment. Throughout history man has demonstrated his need for a religion to satisfy him, to lead him to personal fulfilment.
I want to take issue with a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, about the interest and general need for religion shown by people nowadays.

1707
It is interesting to note that the Good News Bible, which was published last October, has already sold one million copies throughout the world. The connection between this important aspect of education and religious education needs to be emphasised continually so that the vital importance of RE can be made clear. Therefore, although I very much welcomed the assurance given in the debate in another place last March, that the Government had at that time no plans to introduce changes in the law on religious education, I should not only like that assurance to be reiterated tonight but like to see a positive acknowledgement of the educational importance of religious education: and an undertaking that administrative steps—including, if necessary, an inquiry to establish the present position—would be taken to ensure, so far as possible, that RE would continue to be taught as part of the basic education of every pupil. I feel that this would go a long way to reassuring teachers of RE, and potential teachers, that their careers had a worthwhile and established future.
10.41 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I shall speak as a Humanist—one of those people whom the noble Earl, Lord Long-ford, was contemplating with misgiving. Perhaps I am a Humanist because of my religious education. At school I had a headmaster who was rather rough. He happened also to be my superintendent at Sunday school. We used to go out in the darkness of the night and stand outside his house and sing, "Mr. Shepherd's a very good man; he gangs to kirk on Sunday, and prays to God to give him strength to strap his boys on Monday". Now I did not quite appreciate that strength of religious teaching. I think, however, that I arrived at my Humanism by a much wider and deeper experience. I should like to believe that it is not something about which I would argue with my noble friend Lord Soper, or indeed with the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod.
I have not the courage of my noble friend Lord Brockway's conviction, and I am not an Atheist. I am a scientific Humanist, which means that I am an Agnostic, because in true science you
1708
cannot say God does not exist because you cannot prove it; and, secondly, I cannot say personally that I know that God exists. As a scientific Humanist I acknowledge that there are phenomena about which we are at present ignorant, but I maintain that it is a function of science to reduce the supernatural to the natural, to remove the mystical and disprove superstition. There is a very profound saying, and that is that faith is certainty without proof—and I grudge no one their certainty, although I personally look for proof—while science is proof without certainty, because at least scientists are humble. I think that they do not assume that they have all the ultimate knowledge.
I grudge nobody their personal right and concern about religion, but I object to those who want to impose dogmatic beliefs on others, and invoke the authority of the law (as the 1944 Act does) to do so. I reject the idea that religious bodies are the only authorities on morals and ethics. That I repudiate absolutely. Indeed, I would argue that we in the Humanist movement uphold standards of behaviour, and have a respect for our fellow human beings and for the community of mankind, which is often a reproach to the shortcomings of the Churches. And to some extent, as was shown by my noble friend Lord Soper and other speakers tonight, we are trying to fill a vacuum produced by the failure of the Churches. For, my Lords, with the decline in Church membership, and even of nominal Christianity in this country, we cannot claim that this is a Christian country, as is implied in the 1954 Education Act.
We are a multi-sect, a multi-racial, multi-credal society. We are a country of many religious beliefs, and of none. In the Act it is religious instruction and I presume some people are complaining that we are not observing the 1944 Act because we have conceded now that it is not instruction but education, which is a change with quite a difference. Religious instruction is the only subject imposed on schools by Statute under the Act and, under the Act, it requires a doctrinal basis. In practice, as I say, this has shifted to religious education. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw the programme "The Headmaster" on television the other night. I gather the series is going rather well. In the co-educational school in the programme they are having

1709
an argument because they are very sorry for the teacher of religious education because he is not getting the subject across, and they discuss, "Do you remember when there was scripture? That became religious instruction and now it is religious education." Somebody replied, "Soon it will be religious knowledge ".
If it is education, it is something to be brought out and not forced in and it must include not only explanations of Christianity but of comparative religions—there has been substantial support at least for that view—because the comparative religions exist and are facts, not of faith but of life, of the international world in which we are involved as well as in our own domestic society. In my missions for the United Nations, I once said that if I had not been a Humanist I should have had to be a polytheist because I would have had to accept all the Gods of all the religions. As a Humanist, I could be broadminded about them all and sympathetically understand their followers.
I repeat that the religious bodies do not have the monopoly and have no right to claim the monopoly of a sound ethical or moral approach. As a Humanist, I think pupils should be helped to understand the various religions, for it will help them better to understand the Jews, the Moslems, the Hindus, the Sikhs who are their neighbours and who are sitting next to them, often in their classes. But I also think they should learn about non-religious outlooks or systems of belief; their options should not be restricted or reduced by doctrines imposed on them as a captive audience in the classroom. They should be allowed to form their own judgments because when they react against imposed judgments and imposed doctrines they will be cynical and there will be disillusionment, and I say as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, said, that I do not think that the young people today are naturally cynical. Like him, my experience has been of a very idealistic, very committed, very sincere but rather bemused generation which is not finding the world conforming to what they have been taught are, if I may say so, Christian ideals.
We are 30 years removed from 1944 and these have been a phenomenal 30
1710
years. I have said in this House before, and I repeat, that in those 30 years we have had four major revolutions as epochal as the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, all happening and all impacting on one generation at one time; the atomic age, the computer age, the space age and now the bio-engineering age. Try to fit that into a small capsule that you can call any one of your religious sects or creeds. It cannot be done. This is a world which has been changed considerably by man himself and it does not fit into any of the pre-conceptions which are accepted as blind faith or non-reason in religion.
We must recognise this changed world. We must recognise that our younger generation, for whom we are all concerned, will not be salved simply by being told. "You can pray". I have had this experience in terms of hunger throughout the world. The answer to hunger is prayer and fasting: the praying is done by the religious and the fasting by the starving. This is not the answer. We have to find the practical answer and that is what we should be explaining in our schools. I have no quarrel whatever with religion, in the sense that I accept that people need the comfort of religion. The fact that I do not is nobody's business but my own, but the fact is that, at least in our schools, we must have a widening, an opening up of the options for young people to understand better what are the essential morals and ethics in this world, as my noble friend Lord Brockway said. Everything he said, I underscore. We have our religion. Like him, I hope we would call it Love, but if others want to call it God they are welcome.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one practical question? How can comparative religion and the major ideologies of the world all be taught in one or perhaps two periods a week?
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I do not think it right to try to do so. I think that this is in the nature of our educational system. I would say categorically that we do not need—and I am speaking out of turn because I do not think that the British Humanist Association would say this as categorically as I should—or should have something called, "religious education" as a prescribed

1711
subject. It is part of a much wider, much deeper, much more significant educational system than we have today.
The LORD BISHOP of LEICESTER: My Lords, when the noble Lord asks that in religion and matters of philosophy the children and young people should be entirely free to make their own decisions, is that a principle that he would apply also to scientific truth?
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, if one is dealing in facts and demonstrable truths, one gives every option. I know of many disbelievers of science in science. We are at least modest in science; we do not make these arrogant assumptions that we know everything that there is to know. We form a judgment on the facts.
The LORD BISHOP of LEICESTER: My Lord, that was not my impression as the noble Lord spoke. He seemed to speak with considerable dogmatism about the changing ages that we had gone through during the last years. He is fully entitled to his views, but I think that that is a kind of dogma.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, that is not dogma, it is serious historical truth.
10.52 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, so many different and sometimes conflicting results are hoped for from religious education that agreement on the ideal teacher and his training is virtually impossible. There are those whose interest lies in the study of all religions equally, seeing the way to truth and harmony of life as much in one religion as in another. For them, religious education—that is, the teaching of Christianity as the one true way of life—is an imposition and a limitation of their rights. They have the right to withdraw their children, but that does not provide an alternative.
All the syllabuses are based on Bible study and the history of the Christian Church. The Christian interest in religious education might be as a form of recruitment and the belief that, even when that fails, it is the best possible
1712
influence on society. But those whose greatest interest religious education serves—the Christians—present the case for Christianity in the worst possible light. Each branch of the Christian Church, believing its way to be the right way and that it alone holds and teaches the truth and has authority, presents to our youth the babble of a market place of claims, a witness to the truth and merits of Christianity that is contradictory and unconvincing. I firmly believe that with- out unity the next generation will break the inherited link with St. Augustine and the Early Fathers of the Church, a bond that has played such an important role in the formation of the English nation and our national character.
Next, we have those who are opposed to religious education and who see it as a superstition, something left over from the Dark Ages. They are just as concerned with the upbringing of good citizens as any other group, but all they are offered are the guidelines to Christianity. This seems to be blatantly unfair. The Christians in many schools form only a minority, and in some are barely evident. If an alternative were offered the teachers of Christianity need not fear the competition. The fruits of Christianity are abundant and self-evident. On this I stand with Jeremiah:
"Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord…For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters and that spreadeth out her roots by the river."
Jeremiah 17.
Then we have the hopes and expectations of Government and the Ministers. What do they seek from religious education?—quite clearly the stable, decent, hardworking, law-abiding citizen of tomorrow. But Christianity was not made to serve the State nor solve its problems:
"The last temptation is the greatest treason, to do the right deed for the wrong reason,"
says St. Thomas in Murder in the Cathedral.
In no way can we expect all these conflicting interests to agree on the best means to guide the youth of the nation. The Roman Catholic Church has made great sacrifices to control the education of young Catholics. Religious education in a Catholic school is not simply confined to the prescribed assembly and periods of Bible study and the study of comparative religions and philosophy. This could be, and is, arranged within the State system. It is rather the attempt to lead a Christian

1713
life, to show theory in practice, in a Christian community, where virtue is respected and vice is neither amusing nor entertaining. All the attributes of the good citizen are approved and encouraged in such schools.
Since the war, the Catholic population has contributed vast sums of money to support the Catholic schools, over and above its contribution through taxes, like all other citizens, to the State schools. Even the wealth and power of the State could hardly equal the effort that has been made to influence young people in the Catholic schools, to grow up in the way Catholics consider to be right; that is, good Christians, good citizens. This can be something of a yardstick. I do not think a greater effort could be made, and yet the results appear disappointing.
So far as standards of good citizenship are concerned, Catholics are as well represented in criminal and anti-social activities as any other section of the community, and so far as recruitment to Christianity is concerned, the school leavers do not all become regular attenders at church. This is not the only test, but the Judgment Book is not available to us yet!
There is no teacher to suit this variety of interests—suit all, suit none. To continue with the present syllabus we need a teacher qualified in this subject, someone preferably with experience of the world outside schools, someone who is stable in life and stable in occupation. The 70 per cent. turnover of previous years is self-destructive. Does he need to be a practising and active Christian, a member of one of the Churches? A teacher can have qualifications without belief, but this is hardly the ideal.
In Hastings a most interesting situation has developed. Local ministers of religion and Anglican priests, who are qualified teachers, are teaching religious education in the county schools. This is surely a situation to be commended, with the one exception that no Roman Catholic priests are involved in the town, perhaps not in the county. Can the Minister tell me how many Roman Catholic priests are teaching religious education in State schools—that is, secondary, grammar, and comprehensive schools without religious affiliations—and whether there is any regional pattern?
1714
As I was saying, ministers and priests, sometimes the local parson, are teaching religious education in State schools in East Sussex. But from 1st April this year, due to the need for economies, all the part-time teachers of religion in East Sussex are to be dismissed, including several, perhaps many, of these dedicated men. The good citizen is of more importance to our country today than paper certificates, but economies are being made in this vital training. For example, where the head of the religious education department leaves his graded post, his extra salary is often used to attract a well qualified teacher for another subject. I would suggest that promotion prospects are not so good in this field.
The Press and public are so geared to exam results that even the most enlightened headmaster can be coerced into judging results by certificates. Of course, certificates can be obtained in religious education, but many children do not persevere in this subject. It may be that a certificate in religious education is not so valued by further education or by prospective employers as are other certificates. As a sixth-form boy said recently in a letter to a newspaper:
"Learning facts became imperative, so that the same people who came top in English or maths came top in religious studies, too. What should have been an interesting and relaxed lesson became just another academic subject to be passed or failed".
We are only paying lip-service to the importance of religious education.
I had a talk with the Anglican priest, a qualified teacher, who is head of the religious education department at Prior Road School in Hastings. How fortunate we are to have such men! He is a graduate of the Church of England Theological College, Edinburgh, which prepares candidates for ordination in the Anglican Church but where they also acquire a Diploma of Education, the qualification needed to teach in State schools, thus supplying a bridge between Church and young people, the old relationship between priest and flock re-established. No priest should be ordained without this qualification, and every priest with this qualification should be encouraged to act in this capacity.
Let us keep open the school doors to men who have consecrated their lives to Christ. Let us set aside the penny-wise

1715
economies that bring short-term relief but increase the long-term problems. Let us give religious education and social training in schools their rightful priority. Let institutions of further education and employers give full credit to the academic value of the certificates in religious education; and, finally, let Christians drop the scandal of denominational barriers and unite round the banner of Christ. We legislators must also play our part.
11.2 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I must apologise for inflicting myself on your Lordships twice in one day. So great is the interest that I take in education, perhaps naturally as a professor, albeit of the dismal science, that I listen to these debates with even more attention than I give to other debates in your Lordships' House. I can also assure your Lordships who were here for the earlier and vital debate on the Court Report that this time I shall speak more slowly.
May I say that it is a rare occurrence indeed when both the Secretary of State and the Opposition shadow spokesman on education are deeply committed Roman Catholics. I think it is without precedent. Like some of the other noble Lords who have spoken, I speak as a pratiquant—if it were not a contradiction in terms, I should describe myself as a fanatical Anglican—and therefore I speak with some feeling. I would say to my noble friend Lord Ritchie Calder, whom I respect and like very much, that I do not need the comfort of religion; it is merely that I believe it to be true. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is a very comforting thing. But it is not directly about religion that I want to speak to your Lordships tonight. The debate is actually about a very difficult and technical question—the supply of teachers of religious education—and I feel even sorrier than usual for my noble friend Lord Donaldson in having to reply to this deeply interesting but wide-ranging debate, when actually the subject is rather a specific one.
Frankly, before I come on to this subject, in which I hope I may make some remarks which will help my noble friend Lord Longford about the numbers, I
1716
should like to make some general remarks. I can conceive of no more difficult a task than directly to seek to inculcate a morality in the young. It can be done, I think, by blazing example. I think, for example, of Kurt Hahn, and his extraordinary influence; and I can think of schoolteachers today of equal power. I will not name them, but I know them. I can instance the example of the philosopher G. E. Moore, who influenced Lord Keynes and a whole generation of brilliant young Cambridge men and women—a great moralist! It is said that one is lucky to come across one great teacher in a lifetime. I have been extremely fortunate; I was taught by two such.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, will my noble friend name them?
Lord VAIZEY: One, my Lords, you would not know; the other is a Humanist named Lady Robinson.
My Lords, I do not think that we can legislate for moral example. It seems to me that moral example is a gift, in the literal sense of the word, and, I would venture to say, from God. What we can do is to see that the appropriately qualified teachers are available in the right numbers, at the right places and at the right times. The noble Lord, Lord Boyle, years ago, put me on the National Advisory Council for the Supply and Training of Teachers. I like to think that I have been a little influential in getting the statistics of teacher requirements improved and in getting the adequate number of teachers that we now have today available for our schools. I do not speak of quality but of quantity. I was chucked off that Council when I got the figures right and the civil servants got them wrong. But since 1965, parents, as I mentioned in the debate on the Court Report, have become less and less inclined to have children. I know that my noble friend Lord Longford, as the father of immensely distinguished children, might regret this; nevertheless, it is true.
We are now in the happy position of seeing the number of children for whom my noble friend Lord Donaldson has to produce schools, teachers, buildings and so on, fall. At last, we are not chasing numbers, we are chasing quality in education. This is the first time in my adult lifetime, in my political lifetime, that

1717
we can say that that is true. Previously, we have had to finds roofs for heads; now we have enough roofs for heads and must begin improving quality.
In effect—and this is the point at which I may help my noble friend—this means that, at most, only about 3 per cent, of the people working as teachers in the schools in any year will be newly-qualified in that year. To put it another way, if we take a school with 10 teachers, one newly-qualified teacher would turn up every three years; or, if we take a big comprehensive with 100 teachers, there would be only three newly-qualified teachers arriving at that school in that year.
Let me add that in conditions of unemployment—which we have at the moment, unfortunately, and which we all regret—teacher turnover drops dramatically. People are unwilling to give up their jobs because they quarrel with the headmaster; and they do not leave the schools. In most places, for the first time for years, we have stable staffs. We have reverted to the "Mr. Chips" situation. Until now teachers have been going through revolving doors in the schools; no child was ever taught by the same teacher for more than about one term. This is no longer true. Often, the same people will be there when they leave. I think that this is probably for the good.
But, my Lords, it is quite unrealistic to suppose that more than a handful of those newly-trained teachers will be specialists in any one subject, however important that subject may be, whether mathematics, craft or religion. We are short of mathematics specialists, short of music specialists—as I happen to know because I am chairman of the Committee on the Training of Music Specialists—and we are short of craft specialists. Even if, as many of your Lordships have asked, special priority were given to religion, new religious education teachers can only be a drop in the ocean.
I hope that I carry your Lordships with me in this rather disagreeable arithmetical, but I hope logical, argument. Your Lordships' arguments about particular colleges in particular places are most moving. I have been weeping buckets. Unfortunately, they are arithmetically preposterous. Frankly, they butter no parsnips. What is the point of training teachers for unemployment? The conclusion is inescapable: if anything is to be
1718
done, it is to be done by the in-service training of existing teachers. That is where we start. How do we improve the quality of existing teaching? That is the question which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Longford, and that is the question to which we shall have to address ourselves.
Here I wish to address myself—and hope in this respect I am helping my noble friend the Minister; I do not usually help Ministers, but I will help him for once—to a number of practical problems. I am glad to see that the Department of Education and Science is coming round to the view which I have been expressing for the past 20 years, that there is a basic curriculum, a core curriculum, which should be available for most children. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins (who I regret is not here tonight) that the English have committed a crime of outrageous dimensions in requiring academically gifted children to specialise so early. I see no reason why every boy and girl should not take five big subjects until they are 18: English, French, mathematics, science and a liberal subject. I have argued that for 20 years and I am pleased to say that, at last, educational opinion seems to be swinging in my direction.
Besides these five fundamental subjects for the continuation of the academic civilisation, and indeed the functioning of industry in this country, there are three other subjects which form the basis of civilised life. One is sport and physical recreation. We can assume that the core curriculum by implication includes that. Another is music and art. The noble Lord who is to reply is deeply committed to the arts and has done an enormous amount for the arts. I should like to pay public tribute to the enormously increased grants that the Arts Council and other bodies have obtained from his absolutely terrific efforts. I think he will agree with me that the current passion for engineering is, however, making the case for the arts and music more difficult than it might otherwise be.
But there is a third subject, and that is religion. I will state a prejudice which some of us have expressed tonight and others have not. I believe that it is axiomatic that religious questions are of the highest importance. I have a deep suspicion of watered-down common-core syllabuses showing that at heart Buddha,

1719
Christ, Mohammed, Voo-Doo and Karl Marx are all getting at the same thing by different routes. For one thing it is quite clear that they are not. They are not getting at the same thing at all. For another thing, everybody—however dim they may be—can see that this is intellectually and morally threadbare.
What, then, do we want? In my own humble opinion, the opportunity to discuss moral and ethical questions arises in every subject. The first year lectures that I give in my own university are mainly about when we can rationally say that one economic state is better or worse than another; that one man is better off or worse off than another; that an East German is better off than an Englishman, or something like that. That seems a central moral dilemma which one can discuss perfectly properly in the context of an academic course on economics.
It seems to me that these moral questions can arise on any subject, whether mathematics, French, economics, physical education, or whatever. These need to be buttressed by a firm teaching of religious doctrines. I must honestly say that nowadays nobody knows anything. They have not read the Bible, so they cannot understand most of our literature—not to mention a great many of the swear words which they currently use. They know no history, so they have no idea whatsoever of what past ages have thought about God and man. And they certainly do not know the great works of Christian apologetics, which explain Christian moral attitudes to sex, war and civil society. My noble friend Lord Longford will know exactly what I mean, since we are both connected with a movement for peace in Ireland, when I say that never was it more important that Christian teaching should be brought home to people who allegedly are taught Christianity.
My Lords, I have been rather self-indulgent in going rather beyond the terms of my noble friend's Question, but I see the problem of the supply of teachers in terms not of the supply of new teachers but in terms of raising the intellectual level of the teaching force as a whole. I see it in terms of a shift to a core curriculum, in which explicit teaching of the facts of religious doctrine is not replaced
1720
by vague "uplift", which manifestly does not and cannot work. In my view, this requires in-service training and, above all, in-service discussion, especially with parents and clergy.
The problem of in-service training, which my noble friend Lord Parry has argued we are constantly facing, is incredibly difficult and it raises central and very difficult questions about the organisation of the schools and of the way in which teachers are released for full-time in-service training. In my view, it will require a totally changed attitude on the part of everybody in education and teacher training. I am very glad indeed that with the present Secretary of State and the newly revived and enthused Department of Education and Science, we can at last look forward to a period of substantial progress in this field.
11.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of CHELMSFORD: My Lords, this is the second time that I have had the misfortune to bat immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who steals my clothes! I brought one speech into the Chamber, but I shall make a different one because I want to try briefly—though not as briefly as last time, when I took three minutes—to return to the subject of religious education, which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, admitted to be a good tiling so far as it went. The noble Lord went on to say that we impose dogmatic beliefs—which is not religious education, or anything like it. He said we know everything which is to be known. But that is not our claim, and it certainly would not be part of religious education. He talked about "captive audiences", whereas all the schools that I go to have audiences which, although captive, are always distinctively active and rather aggressive.
We are talking not about dogmatism, but about growth and the quest for truth. There are certain questions which everybody asks: about life and death, about purpose (if there is one), about suffering in the world and about right and wrong. Those, I think, are either basically religious or philosophical questions: I believe they are both. Nearly all religions have within them the endeavour to find answers to some of those questions, or to find partial answers. Religious education seems to

1721
me to try to create a critical understanding of what religion means; to try to define the nature of religious experience and what that means, and how it comes—in what modes. Unless these words mean nothing, I believe that its purpose is to show boys and girls that there is a moral and spiritual dimension to life, which, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, can be found in any subject. But there must be a place where these things are put together and discussed, and where understanding is sought.
The point has already been made that it is not possible to give all the options in religion and philosophy to answer all these questions. I have found that it is not possible to know all there is to be known about the Christian faith; I learn daily, as indeed I am promised in the New Testament. So you have to get into a faith to understand it and be educated in it. Is it possible, therefore, to have a tremendous kaleidoscope of views? You must start somewhere. You must have a standard judgment whereby you can judge other things, which we do in almost every other subject, and as Christians we do it in our faith. We see in our Christian education that the point of departure, the point where you start, is the Christian faith. You understand this, you come to terms with it and then you must make up your own mind about what you believe: we will give you the tools, but you must decide for yourselves.
It may be said: why start with the Christian faith? If we were in Saudi Arabia, we should have to start with the Moslem faith; and, indeed, we should not be allowed to start with or consider any other. Why, then, start with the Christian faith? The point has been made that the Christian faith has entered the very structure of the life of this nation—our traditions, our literature, our law, our culture. Nothing can be understood, in terms of these and many other things, without the knowledge and the sense that they have emerged through the faith of times past. This Palace of Westminster is saturated with the insights of the Old Testament and the New Testament—mostly concerned with the law, but there it is. Wherever we go here we are surrounded by this.
So why start with the Christian faith? It has been said, and I think it is true, that most parents want it to be so. We
1722
gather that around 5 per cent, of the population are committed Church people. I believe—and I have evidence from my own peregrinations—that a fair number of people who are attracted to the Christian faith cannot abide the Christian Church, and I have some sympathies with them. I think that many young people are attracted to the person of Jesus Christ, and the Jesus people—which was a passing phase—have had a continuing effect on many young people. They provide a focus for their lives. They provide the kind of fulcrum by which they can move things. They provide a person at the heart of things, which they need.
We have talked a good deal about morality, and it is argued—it may be coincidental—that the decay of Church-going, the decay of belief, if you like, has coincided with a general decline in morals. Are the two things connected? I suppose that they are. But the Christian faith is not basically about a moral law. It is about love, as we have heard; about God who is love, about love who is God. The Commandment is, as we were reminded, "Love God and love your neighbour". I believe that a satisfactory morality can derive from any strong faith, whether it be faith in humanity, faith in Mao Tse-tung or faith in God. The advantage of God, according to my understanding, goes on for ever. It is this which is the keystone of the morality which emerges from our attempt—a fairly awful attempt for a good deal of the time, as we have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I should not like to be offensive to him, but he seems to me probably to be a saintly character. This is no new phenomenon. We discuss constantly in our schools those people who manage to live lives of greater unselfishness than do some of us Christians.
As Christians, we believe that religious education starts with God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ, and that the morality follows from it. That is why we start with Christianity and why we need committed Christian people who are able to present it as a collection of Truths, constantly growing and deepening—Truth based on tradition and revelation from the past, yet constantly being added to; Truth which can be added to as we meet men and women of other religions, faiths, non-faiths and other ideals.

1723
My experience is that I can meet no man without learning from him something of the nature of God, life, love and humanity—which I pray that he learns from me. We cannot have any experience without learning, unless we are completely bogged down in our imposed dogmatic beliefs, which I do not believe that we are. However, we need to be committed to ourselves and to know where we are going so that we have criteria of judgment. This is why our teachers have to be real professionals with academic drive, men of integrity, men who are prepared to follow the Truth where it leads. One of my best friends is an atheist who followed the Truth where it led. I must not say what I believe about that and about what is going to happen to him ultimately, but I believe that ultimately he will see the Truth and recognise it.
What we do for our young people is to present Truth to them in the ways in which we have learned it so that they can make their own decisions in life. They are soon going to be attacked by other faiths and meet them. In fact, my teacher would introduce them to men and women of other faiths in order thay they should meet them first hand. No longer can we go back to the days of my youth, when I gave courses of lectures on the Moslem and Hindu faiths out of a little book, saying how good they were but where they went wrong. That is no longer any good. These people are living among us and we must meet and learn from them, because God speaks in many ways and His Truth is variously shown.
What we want of our young people is maturity—the ability to decide. I am struck by the fact that Jesus in His teaching never imposed dogmatic beliefs. When people asked Him a question, He asked them another question or told them a pregnant story and said, "Think about it and go and do likewise". When they asked Him to make their decisions He said, "No, you make your own decisions. I am not going to tell you how to split up your father's money, but beware of envy". This is His way, the way of enabling growth, leading into Truth. This is my understanding of Christian education.
All I would say, then, is that if it is important, as I believe it is all important,
1724
that we should have such men, one comes back to the Unstarred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. We, the Church, have to arouse in our young men and women the zeal and the desire to enter into Christian education and to go and get on with it. The State cannot do it for us; nobody can do it for us, and if we cannot ourselves produce men of such faith and resilience then it is a poor thing. But I believe we can.
11.30 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I rise with rather more humility than usual this evening because I am speaking after 16 speakers, all of whom know exactly what they think, whereas I am, and have been for many years, in a state of some confusion. I am a stumbling Anglican with many doubts but modest convictions, and I find it perfectly simple to state what I should like to see. I should like to see every child made to think about the non-material, about the numinous, about the possibility of God, about the teaching of Jesus Christ, about the Bible—Old Testament and New Testament—about the Koran at a later stage, and about Buddhism at a later stage still. But how to do this without being almost counterproductive I do not know at all.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who benefited very much from his religious education at school—and I suspect that we may have been in the same place, but whether so or not it is the same principle—I became an Atheist sharp at 16½ and remained one until I was about 35. Since then, as I have said, I have been a stumbling Anglican. It was always perfectly obvious to me that, with the best will in the world, we should not spend this evening talking about my noble friend's Question, but about the realities of religious education, because it is so very much more interesting. If I were a private citizen I should like very much to make quite a long speech about this. I have many ideas about it, but at the moment I am not speaking as a private citizen; I am speaking for the Government.
My noble friend has made a pretty definite statement and I think I must deal with his statement rather than with the generalities of a fascinating kind in which

1725
we would all rather indulge. However I must make one or two comments on the evening's debate. The right reverend Prelate who spoke last interested me by saying that Christianity was concerned with faith rather than morals. I think I agree, and I suppose the next step is to say that it is concerned, like St. James, with Grace rather than works. Once you say that half the world has not the slightest idea what you mean, so we get into difficulties straight away. My noble friend Lord Vaizey gave figures which were extremely interesting; rather disturbing, but in so far as they were facts they were facts which we have to face. It was an extremely helpful speech. In particular he emphasised something which I shall mention later; namely, in-service training, which I think is very important, and he said something which I agreed with; namely, that he is hostile to vague uplift. I suppose we should all say we are, but many of us indulge in it pretty freely.
The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, made a fascinating speech. I particularly liked the sentiment that Christianity is not made to serve the State. I see the noble Countess is not here so I will not go on with that point, but it was an interesting statement. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder astonished me by calling scientists "humble". They may be humble in relation to God or the facts of life, but they certainly are not humble to non-scientists. It was very refreshing to have the Jewish point of view put by my old friend Lord Janner, and in so far as there is a risk of something that he and his people want not being done, perhaps he can tell me more about it and I will see whether I can help.
I have answered one or two of Lord Harvington's questions already; others will be answered in the course of my speech, and at the end we will add it up and I will write to him about anything that is left over. Of course, I was very interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Parry, particularly his contention that ethics are more important than mechanics, and particularly that the totalitarians can teach us how to teach religion; this may or may not be true, but I think it is what he said and I thought it very interesting. I shall answer Lady Masham's question in the course of what I have to say. I must say to my noble friend Lord Brockway that, however he
1726
may wish teaching of religious education in this country to be secular, I think it must include intensive study of the Bible. I think that to teach religion of any kind in the United Kingdom without intensive study of the Bible is not to be teaching religion at all. I do not think we need make people think they ought to believe in it, but at least they must have read it and know what is in it.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLeod, gave me great pleasure by saying that the approach to religious teaching must be non-authoritarian and must be amicable discussion. I think this is absolutely right. My noble friend Lord Soper, with whom I so often differ—and who, I think, from what he was saying, may be wasting his time on Tower Hill—said one very interesting thing, which is that he thinks that religious education is for the churches. If that were to be the view this would change a good many things. The right reverent Prelate, the Bishop of Blackburn, pleased me again by saying it was the Church's job to persuade people towards religion. I entirely agree with this. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a speech with which, to my great surprise, I almost entirely agreed; so I will say nothing more about that.
I am not going to let your Lordships off tonight. If we have a debate as serious as this, with as many people speaking, starting at eight o'clock, I must reply fully to it. Normally on these occasions I rather rush through, but I am not going to tonight; it is too important. I am going to try to deal with my noble friend's Question, and I should like to begin by confirming, as he asked me to, in no uncertain terms, that the Government have no present intention of modifying the religious education provisions of the 1944 Education Act.
One cannot discuss any failure to recruit without wondering why there is such a failure and asking oneself whether the subject is itself attractive enough to bring in would-be students; and this inevitably involves a brief look at what the subject has become. In the old days, and in the thinking behind the 1944 Act, religious education was regarded as giving children a thorough grounding in the beliefs and tenets of Christianity. Non-believing parents were allowed to opt out for their children, but it was assumed—and I think

1727
rightly—that nearly all other parents wanted this thorough grounding for their children. Arrangements were made through the voluntary schools for this thorough grounding to have its denominational variations, and the type of person who taught this thorough grounding was generally someone who believed he was dealing in eternal truths and that the imparting of such truths to his pupils was the most important lesson in their whole education.
There is no doubt that there have been some changes in people's views of religious education. It is no longer always regarded as the inculcating of sound Christian belief; rather, as a look at some recently revised Agreed Syllabuses makes clear, it is coming to be seen more as a study of the non-material things of life, with special emphasis on the Christian tradition which has done so much to make us what we are. Proselytism and evangelism are now thought of as being primarily the province of the family and the Church. The sort of person who is interested in learning and then teaching spiritual thinking of different kinds is not necessarily the same as the man who has been brought up as a church-goer or a chapel-goer and who thinks that everyone else should be one, too. He will tend to be intellectually more sophisticated—and, therefore, probably less numerous. I throw that out as one of the reasons why recruiting has become difficult.
I should like to question one statement that has been made by my noble friend Lord Longford—I believe that another noble Lord questioned it during the debate. He said that religious education is an indispensable element in moral education. Surely that is wrong. The reverse is, or ought to be, true. But moral education as carried on by many Humanist and other organisations is quite independent of religious education, unless the word is used in the Pickwickian sense. It is tempting to pursue these philosophical questions and to discuss the minority religions and how those children should be treated in school, but my noble friend has shown great restraint and so must I.
I turn to the nub of the Question; namely, the supply of teachers of religious education. For a number of reasons the practice of appointing specialist teachers
1728
for the subject was slower to develop in religious education than in some other areas of the curriculum. The general assumption in the immediate post-war period was that religious education would be taught by those with a personal interest in the subject who numbered this as one of their teaching subjects. The trend towards appointing specialist teachers in secondary schools gathered momentum from the late 1950s, and the number of specialists has grown very much since then. However, the problem has been that of keeping pace with the rising demand due to the growing desire to appoint specialist teachers, and the shortage in this field is long-standing rather than something new.
This increasing demand has gone along with the widening of the scope and content of religious education which is reflected in revised Agreed Syllabuses for religious education, such as the recent ones of the Cheshire and Avon authorities. Both give a central place to Christianity, but they also take the view that if the pupil is to be prepared for life in contemporary society, he must at least be aware that there are other major world faiths by which men live. This puts a new demand on the teacher's knowledge, while other developments have increased demand upon his professional skill. These syllabuses are the result of very thorough, reflective and careful work. I was reading the syllabus of the Cheshire authority this afternoon and it is the result of years of hard work and very hard thinking. In so far as there has been a development in the idea of what religious education is, it is the result of serious people taking time and thinking hard. This probably is about as good a way as there is in which to have such a development.
My Lords, I was sorry to hear the allegation by my noble friend that there have been wide-spread flagrant breaches of the law. The 1944 Act lays down that each day, in each institution, should begin with a collective act of worship. I note in passing that the same custom prevails in your Lordships' House, and very meagrely is it attended. The Act recognises that there may be circumstances where a single collective act of worship is not possible and head teachers can then consult with their local authorities about alternative arrangements. Such arrangements do not constitute a breach of the

1729
law. The Act also provides that there should be reasonable provision of religious education; but this is not defined so there is no legal minimum. I must confess that this means that if there is indifference to the idea of religious education, the letter of the law can be kept without much attention being paid to the spirit.
The prime responsibility for ensuring that the statutory requirements in this subject are met lies with the local authority. It is right that this principle of local responsibility should be retained. Her Majesty's Inspectorate are very willing to advise schools and authorities on these matters, and where it appears that the provision for religious education in a school is seriously inadequate, they will certainly draw the attention of those concerned to that state of affairs.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, do I gather that the noble Lord says that all is impeccable? He says he is sorry to hear me making allegations. I am much sorrier to hear that there are all these breaches of the law. Is he saying that breaches of the law are not occurring and, if so, what is the basis of his knowledge?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if the noble Earl had listened rather more carefully, what I did was to explain that the situations he alluded to were not breaches of the law, though they might well be breaches of the spirit of the law.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I did not say any such thing. The noble Lord must be a little patient. He said that he is sorry about something that I have said, and gives the impression that he knows what is going on. I do not think he has any idea of what is going on.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Earl is entitled to his views. That is all I can say about that. It is impossible to prove a breach of the law by suggesting that too little time is given to religious education. I thought I was giving my noble friend what he wanted when I said that if very little time is given to religious education this is a breach of the spirit of the law, but it is not a breach of the letter of the law.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I did not refer to the letter of the law; I just said the law, so we seem to agree.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, that is a relief anyway. The Schools Council has a responsibility for advising the schools on curricula matters, and is certainly discharging this responsibility in the field of religious education. The Council has funded three major research projects; two in primary education and one in secondary. One of the primary school projects is still going on; for the other two, reports have been published, and other teaching materials for use in the schools have been, and indeed are still being, produced. Two further projects sponsored by the Council, both on moral education and covering between them almost the whole school age range, are also relevant.
I have already acknowledged that there is a shortage of teachers of religious education, and the Government share the concern of noble Lords about this. There have been many suggestions for action from the centre, and we will do what we properly can within our highly decentralised education system. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the difficulty of getting full and up-to-date facts. He is right; it is very difficult. One can understand why when one realises that there are 4,500 secondary schools alone containing over 200,000 teachers of all subjects. To accumulate and keep up to date a body of useful statistics about them is no easy task.
First, however, the Government can take the lead in improving information about the size of the teacher shortage. A 10 per cent, sample of teacher shortages and surpluses in secondary schools has in fact been carried out by the Department for each subject in the curriculum in each autumn since 1969. These surveys indicate that over the last three years the shortage of religious education teachers has tended to diminish—I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to this figure—from some 250 in 1973 to a small credit balance in 1976. But this is no basis for complacency. The present type of survey is subject to a number of limitations, not least that it does not reveal the level of specialist training among those already in post.

1731
However, noble Lords will be interested to know that my right honourable friend, following an initiative by her Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers, will this autumn be seeking, from a sample of secondary schools, information in much greater detail about the composition and characteristics of the teaching force; about the way the teaching force is deployed in the schools, and about school curricula and organisation. My right honourable friend is at the moment in consultation with the local authorities and teachers to this end. My noble friend has asked me specifically, and so have other noble Lords, whether we cannot set up an inquiry into the provision of qualified teachers of religious education. I hope that they will be satisfied that the survey to which I have just referred is a proper answer to their request. It will, in my opinion, produce the information we are seeking.
The Government are doing what they can to ensure that opportunities for specialist studies in religious education are available and that the subject has a significant place in the training of intending primary school teachers and others who are not taking it as one of their major academic subjects. There is, as my noble friend suggested, a chicken and egg situation here; the courses exist but not enough students come forward for them. I have yet to hear of a student wishing to train in religious education who has been turned away because he could not find a place on a course. They do not come forward, for one reason, because the teaching they received failed to catch their imagination, and that was surely because it was not imaginatively done; but imaginative teaching needs training, so we are back to the training courses.
The noble Lord asked in particular in this context whether a worsening situation must arise as the result of closing down colleges of education and amalgamations of others with polytechnics and other more broadly-based institutions. I think this need not happen. In formulating her proposals, the Secretary of State has taken account of the provision made for religious education in the various colleges and has tried to maintain a sufficient provision and proper distribution of facilities around the country. Where, because of other considerations, she is having to propose the
1732
end of teacher training at a college with known strength in religious education, she has looked carefully at the alternative provision in the region to satisfy herself that the loss in one place can be adequately compensated elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Vaizey was very helpful in pointing out how this kind of thing has to be done, and it is not really any good thinking that one can escape it. These proposals are to be the subject of consultations with the local education authorities and voluntary bodies concerned. Final decisions will not be taken on individual colleges without this consultation.
The contribution of the Church colleges is very relevant, though they have of course no monopoly in this training. For example, the Roman Catholic Digby Stuart College at Roehampton, referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, is already in process of joining with a Church of England, a Methodist and a non-denominational college in London to form an ecumenical federation under the title and administration of the Roehampton Institute of Higher Education. In such a federation, each college surrenders a measure of control to the central Institute in order to achieve the most efficient use of total resources in the joint promotion of teacher and more general higher education courses, while retaining its individual identity and community ethos.
This represents a new and exciting venture in co-operation by the Churches and the new proposals envisage the establishment of a similar federation of the Catholic Colleges of Christ's and Notre Dame and the Church of England College of St. Katherine's at Woolton in Liverpool. The Secretary of State's proposals take full account of the place of the Churches and would preserve the historic shares of the Church of England, I think one-sixth, and the Roman Catholic Church, about one-eleventh, in total provision. Naturally, one must talk in terms of proportions and not in absolute numerical terms. The pattern of pro-vision within a training system of 115,000 places, as it was three years ago, cannot be precisely reproduced in one of 45,000 places and still be educationally viable.
There will have to be some reworking of the forward plans which training institutions were asked to make last year for their contributions to initial training

1733
in the early 1980s in the light of the outcome of my right honourable friend's proposals for further contraction of the system to 45,000 places instead of the 60,000 places on which the plans were based. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will be much concerned to ensure the best practical alternative provision for that which may disappear as a result of proposed college closures. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, pointed out, St. Mary's Roman Catholic College at Fenham, near Newcastle, with its strong provision for religious education, is a case very much in point. I will not give a detailed explanation of what is going on there to the noble Baroness, because the Secretary of State will be going to Newcastle in the course of this coming week. She will be receiving deputations on behalf of the college and the whole matter will be the subject of further discussion, so I think we will have to leave the subject till then.
With the inevitable reduction in initial training, in-service teacher training becomes increasingly important in improving the teaching of this and other subjects. The Government's proposals for teacher training in the 1980s envisage that the equivalent of some 10,000 places in teacher-training institutions will be devoted to in-service training generally. It is too early to talk about proportions for particular subjects, but clearly religious education will share in the benefits. Despite financial constraints, a great deal of local in-service training and curriculum development in religious education has been initiated by LEA advisers for the subject, whose numbers have significantly increased in recent years. The Department is currently providing direct financial support towards specialist centres concerned with the provision of resources and in-service training for religious education, as has already been mentioned, at West Hill College, Birmingham, and Borough Road College, Isleworth. These centres which are now in full operation were established in response to an initiative from the Christian Education Movement which is itself active in in-service training, as are other professional associations. In addition, the National Society for Promoting Religious Education has established a centre at St. Gabriel's College, London, and an associated one at the College of Ripon and York, St. John.
1734
The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, asked me a question. She is not here, but I shall answer it all the same. She asked about the number of Roman Catholic priests teaching religious education in county maintained secondary schools. The Department has no information, nor has the Catholic Education Council, so I am unable to answer. I feel that though it may be bad that I am not able to do so, it is probably worse that the Catholic Education Council cannot.
There were two points which my noble friend Lord Longford raised, to which I must refer. One was, roughly speaking, the behaviour of headmasters. The other was the status of religious education. As regards the first, this seems not to be a thing which, unless it is in some way reprehensible, can possibly concern the Department. It must be dealt with locally. The important thing is that the right people should be appointed and should then be fully supported, and I do not feel that we can pursue this subject at all. I do not feel that it would be right to do so.
As regards status, if it is possible, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested, to arrange certain grade changes, I shall certainly get my right honourable friend to look at this. There may be something to be done on that, but my own view is that a debate like this helps the status of religious education and that more could be done locally by taking an interest in the Agreed Syllabus and in the running of the school than can possibly be done from the centre. I think that these are both important points, but not points that I can deal with.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat the assurance which I gave at the beginning of my speech, that the Government have no present intention of modifying the relevant sections of the 1944 Act. I should also like to say that my Secretary of State is fully aware, not only that there are shortages of teachers in religious education, but that there are considerable difficulties in remedying the shortages. I have described what she is doing and she is determined that the remedy shall be effective. I hope that those who are in touch with young people who are going on to higher education and whose interest in this important field of human experience has already been awakened will encourage

1735
them to consider qualifying themselves to share in the religious education task of the schools.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for having raised this question and having raised it in such an interesting way, and for having helped us to have such a very interesting debate. I hope that he will have noticed that my reply has not been a complacent one.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him whether he will accept the thanks of all those who have taken part in this debate?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, this is most unusual and very gratifying. I am delighted to do so.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, that is without prejudice to any policy statement. I was simply referring to the attitude of my noble friend.

DWELLINGS COMPLETED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS: BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS

England and Wales: 1972 to 1976

Number of dwellings

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

Local authorities

1 bedroom

29,569

26,751

34,260

38,842

39,564

2 bedrooms

26,456

21,599

26,232

32,303

31,877

3 bedrooms

33,367

27,500

34,474

46,905

47,717

4 or more bedrooms

4,243

3,439

4,457

4,807

4,994

All houses and flats

93,635

79,289

99,423

122,857

124,152

Housing associations

1 bedroom

3,508

3,864

4,153

6,429

6,429

2 bedrooms

2,334

3,091

3,463

4,986

4,962

3 bedrooms

1,287

1,583

1,716

2,355

3,039

4 or more bedrooms

123

69

108

157

188

All houses and flats

7,252

8,607

9,440

13,927

14,618

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
  HOUSE PRODUCTION
  HOUSE PRODUCTION
  COHO SALMON EGGS
  COHO SALMON EGGS
  BRITISH-CZECHOSLOVAK CULTURAL AGREEMENT
  BRITISH-CZECHOSLOVAK CULTURAL AGREEMENT
  VAT TRIBUNAL CENTRES
  VAT TRIBUNAL CENTRES
  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK LOANS
  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK LOANS
  SILVER JUBILEE CROWN PIECES
  SILVER JUBILEE CROWN PIECES
  SALMON: ILLEGAL FISHING
  SALMON: ILLEGAL FISHING
  BRITISH EMBASSIES: AMBASSADORIAL VACANCIES
  BRITISH EMBASSIES: AMBASSADORIAL VACANCIES
  PORTON RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT: PRODUCTS FOR SALE
  PORTON RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT: PRODUCTS FOR SALE
  EGGS AUTHORITY LEVY
  EGGS AUTHORITY LEVY