Sitting of 22 February 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    RAF Germany
    Mr. Georgeasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the state of combat readiness of the Royal Air Force in Germany; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): The state of combat readiness of our units in RAF Germany meets or exceeds the requirements laid down by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Alliance representatives carry out tactical evaluation checks without prior warning to confirm that these requirements are being fully met. RAF Germany has consistently achieved the highest standards in these tests.
    Mr. George: Will my hon. Friend confirm or refute the allegations recently made that the RAF in Germany lacks sufficient arms, ammunition and spare parts, that in the event of a conflict there would be delay in resupplying ammunition, and that RAF fighters' lack of sufficient electronic counter-devices and missiles makes them vulnerable to enemy attack?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I am happy to be able to refute those suggestions. The RAF ammunition and spares stocks in Germany are sufficient to meet NATO requirements. However, if the Supreme Allied Commander were to change those requirements, in the light of any developments we would of course review and evaluate what changes might be necessary to meet those requirements.
    Mr. Wiggin: Are those requirements as agreed by this country with NATO, or are they the more widely advertised requirements of being available for more than 30 days' all-out war?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Those requirements are the requirements called for by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. The United Kingdom is meeting its obligations and will be able to continue to meet them.
    Mr. Churchill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that RAF Germany has a seriously inadequate number of air-to-air missiles? What proposals have the Government to remedy that?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: We are constantly reviewing the force level and the missile levels in RAF Germany. At present they meet the requirement. Since the change of Administration in 1974 there has been a significant increase in both the quality and quantity of our contribution to NATO by the RAF in Germany.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was total expenditure on defence by the United Kingdom in the last complete financial year expressed as a percentage of the comparable figures for 1971–72 and 1972–73, respectively, in constant price terms.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The figures are 97·1 per cent. and 99·8 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Clemitson: I have two simple questions. First, how can the Opposition continue to criticise the Government about defence expenditure when we are apparently spending more or less the same on defence as they did when they were in office? Secondly, why on earth are we not spending a great deal less?
    Mr. Mulley: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is that we are spending the amount necessary to sustain our contribution to the North Atlantic Alliance, which is an essential part of the defence of this country. As for the reason why there is clamour by the Opposition for cuts in public expenditure generally and increases in expenditure on defence, that is a question for them, not me, to answer.
    Sir John Hall: What amount is being spent on civil defence How does it compare with the amount being spent by Soviet Russia and other Warsaw Pact countries?
    Mr. Mulley: Without notice, I cannot give figures about civil defence, because the matter does not fall within my departmental responsibilities.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not my right hon. Friend's original reply make nonsense of the war hawks' propaganda that we have slashed our arms spending? Will my right hon. Friend note and act on the recent NATO statistic showing that in 1976 Britain increased its proportion of gross domestic product spent on defence from 5 per cent. to 5·1 per cent.,
    whereas the other NATO countries reduced theirs from 3·8 per cent. to 3·6 per cent., on average?
    Mr. Mulley: We have had discussions before about these percentages. One of our problems is that our GDP has not grown as fast as we would have liked over the past decade. But I note what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Why did the Secretary of State not give a straight answer to the first question from the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson)? He gave an answer, by implication, in his speech at Munich, when he said that the expense of equipment had increased considerably over the last few years.
    Mr. Mulley: I issued a rather long paper at Munich, and I am sure that I would be out of order if I tried to read it to the House this afternoon. I take the right hon. Member's point. I am in the position in which he was placed in 1973. When general reductions are made in public expenditure, defence must make a contribution.

    Nimrod Airborne Early Warning System
    Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the Government's plans regarding the Nimrod airborne early warning project.
    Mr. Mulley: No conclusions have yet been reached about the NATO AEW programme and therefore no decision has been made about the future of the Nimrod AEW project, development of
    1202
    which is continuing in the meantime. Following the December meeting of the NATO Defence Planning Committee there have been recent meetings of financial experts, and I expect to have further discussions with Defence Ministers shortly.
    Mr. Pattie: Is the Minister aware that the Government's decision in principle to buy the AWAC system is extremely hard to justify, except on the emphemeral basis of a NATO-wide purchase? The system is more expensive than Nimrod, it is in no way superior, it will not be ready soon, and it will generate only 450 jobs compared with the 7,500 that would be generated by the British Nimrod
    Mr. Mulley: The decision in principle to seek a NATO-based early warning system was taken two years ago, and it would be immensely to the advantage of the Alliance and the defence of this country if early warning against low flying aircraft was NATO-wide. It was for these considerations that we agreed to go along with the NATO scheme if one could be arrived at. There is no question of this country buying the Boeing AWACS. If we have to make national provision for our NATO tasks in the Eastern Atlantic we shall have to fall back on the Nimrod. That is why we have kept our options open.
    Mr. McNamara: May I underline the important employment provisions of this project? The British aircraft industry is facing severe cutbacks, and in my constituency, where there is already high unemployment, the problems will be aggravated if Nimrod is not accepted by NATO as a cheaper and more effective early warning system.
    Mr. Mulley: Unhappily, there is no prospect at all of NATO taking the Nimrod alternative for the whole Alliance, because Nimrod is for military requirements which are different from those needed for the whole NATO territory. Either there will be a collective NATO scheme, or alternatively, we shall have to make national provision. I am well aware of the job position. We have brought forward an order for more Hawker Harriers, and that should assist my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the Secretary of State ever feel a twinge of conscience when he is lecturing his NATO colleagues about the desirability of buying this expensive system at a time when we are planning to slash our own defence forces?
    Mr. Mulley: I never seek to lecture anyone on any subject, but the provision of an airborne early warning system—whatever system is adopted—is extremely expensive. But provision against low flying aircraft is a very high military priority.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Will the Defence Secretary change his practice of not lecturing people by uttering some short, sharp words to the German Minister of Defence if the newspaper reports are true that the Germans intend to pull the rug from under the AWAC project and then put the blame on us? If we are going for Nimrod let us go for it, and put the blame on the country on which it belongs.
    Mr. Mulley: It is never easy to put the blame where we would like to see it rest. I have very good personal relations with the distinguished German Defence Minister, Herr Leber. I do not wish to have sharp words with him and I do not think that he has occasion to have sharp words with me.
    Mr. Churchill: Is the Secretary of State aware that already there has been too much delay in the choice of a successor airborne warning aircraft to the Shackle-ton? The Government have been stalling for 15 months. The arguments are strongly in favour of the British project, and we could have twice as many airborne warning aircraft if we opted to buy British. At least they could be in service as quickly as the Boeing AWACs, and would provide employment for 7,500 people compared with only 450. Will he undertake to come to a firm decision in favour of the British project by next month if there has not been a NATO decision by then?
    Mr. Mulley: It is very odd that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) one week charges me with not consulting with our NATO Allies, and the next he criticises me because they have spent 15 months on this very important project. For me to take a unilateral decision when the whole matter
    1204
    is under discussion in NATO is a negation of the doctrine that the hon. Member was preaching in the recent debate.
    Mr. Pattie: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Ulster Defence Regiment (Equipment)
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the equipment currently being supplied to the UDR.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Townsend: Is the Minister satisfied that the UDR is being supplied with the latest and best equipment? Will he tell us when the latest range of radio sets will be given to the regiment?
    Mr. Brown: The UDR is, in fact, equipped fully on the same scales as the Regular Army, with very few exceptions. We are buying new radios this year, and these will be issued to both the Regular Army and the UDR.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Minister telling the House that he is as satisfied with the existing scale of issue as he is with the quality of the equipment?
    Mr. Brown: I am satisfied that the existing scale of issue to the UDR and to the Regular Army is good and that the equipment is also good.

    United States Secretary of Defence
    Mr. MacFarquharasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to meet his new United States counterpart to discuss matters of mutual interest concerning defence.
    Mr. Mulley: I have no immediate plans to do so, but I expect to meet Dr. Brown at the next NATO Ministerial meeting.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: When my right hon. Friend meets Dr. Brown will he ask him his opinion of the continued value of the Turkish presence in NATO, on the southern flank, in view of the Turkish action in the Cyprus issue?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not sure that that would be the No. 1 priority on the agenda. It is more a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. There will be some discussions about the future of the southern flank and Cyprus.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State recall saying, in the recent defence debate, that the purpose of forces on each side—East and West—is to deter the other side from attack? Is that the view of the United States Administration and of our NATO Allies? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the purpose of the massive Warsaw Pact forces is to deter NATO from attack?
    Mr. Mulley: I have never put it in quite those terms. I have said that the NATO posture is wholly defensive, and to deter possible aggression. I have also said that I have no reason to suppose that any attack by the Warsaw Pact forces is imminent.
    Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the almost total lack of progress of the mutual and balanced force reductions, and the enormous increase in expenditure on defence by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact Powers? Will he, when he speaks to the United States Defence Secretary, reassure him that no further substantial cuts are intended in our defence programme?
    Mr. Mulley: I gather that there are some questions involving reductions in the United States defence plans. I shall discuss the basis on which we are making our NATO contribution, and I am sure that the good relations that have existed for many years between ourselves and our United States counterparts will continue.
    Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequate and inaccurate nature of the Secretary of State's reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a formula to be followed by hon. Members who wish to raise matters on the Adjournment.

    BAOR (Reinforcement)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he proposes to make in the capability of the
    1206
    Armed Forces to reinforce British troops stationed on the Continent of Europe.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: The arrangements for reinforcing BAOR are kept under continual review.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Minister recall that in June and again in December last year the NATO Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Defence, reaffirmed the principle that NATO forces should be maintained and reduced only in the context of mutual and balanced force reductions? Will he confirm that that principle must apply to reinforcements of NATO as well as to those stationed on the Continent?
    Mr. Brown: As my right hon. Friend has told the House on several occasions, we intend to keep to the absolute minimum the effect of those cuts in our contribution to the Alliance. I am well satisfied that our mobilisation plans will more than meet that requirement.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the massive build-up of Warsaw Pact forces on the central front, which still continues, it would be utterly damaging to the Western Alliance to give the impression that the Russians can overrun NATO at will?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful for those remarks, because I am certain that my hon. Friend appreciates that, although we accept that there is a growing threat from the Warsaw Pact powers, we do not face the Warsaw Pact alone. We are part of an Alliance which together faces the Warsaw Pact, and that is a vastly different matter from suggesting, as some Opposition Members seek to suggest, that we are standing alone against those forces.

    Nimrod Aircraft (Fishery Protection)
    Mr. Ernest G. Perryasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the performance of the Nimrod aircraft in the fishery protection rôle.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I can tell my hon. Friend that Nimrod has carried out effectively and excellently its requirement for fishery protection. This is not just my view; it is also the view of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
    Mr. Perry: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure the House that his view is shared by British fishermen whose livelihood is tied up with these considerations and who at present are threatened by foreign trawlers fishing in our seas?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: If we judge by the evidence given recently by the Scottish trawlermen to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, they believe that Nimrod will be extremely effective in fishery protection. I was interested to note that Nimrod is seen not only as a flying surveillance aircraft but as a significant deterrent to those who fish without authority.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is not the Nimrod an expensive aircraft to operate in this rôle? Does it not cost about £1,200 per hour? Has the hon. Gentleman seen the claim by Fairey Britten, that its aircraft will cost only £45 per hour to carry out the same job?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I have seen the Fairey Britten pamphlet. On the evaluation that I have carried out the advertising material seems to refer only to the cost of fuel—petrol and oil—and probably spares. I doubt whether it covers the cost of crews' salaries, expenses, and the cost of ground support facilities. Therefore, the comparison that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make is not fair.

    Recruitment
    Mr. Grocottasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce expenditure devoted to recruitment to the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I would not wish to see a cut-back in our recruiting effort which will affect our ability to recruit either in terms of the numbers we require or of the quality we need. Nevertheless, I believe that there is scope for reductions both of single-Service careers information offices in favour of colocation and, as a result, of staff employed. Therefore, expenditure on recruitment is one of the many areas now being examined with a view to achieving the required savings in defence expenditure.
    Mr. Grocott: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that although recruiting problems have eased generally
    1208
    in the last few years the cost of recruitment has increased substantially? Are not many recruiting offices dealing with only a handful of inquiries per week? Is the situation considered to be economic? Whatever our views about defence expenditure levels, do we not all agree that wasteful expenditure should be reduced, and is there not room for such a move in this area?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I am determined to maintain sufficient recruiting facilities to enable the Armed Forces to encourage people to enter the Services and to join an exciting and honourable profession. At the same time, there are areas in the recruiting service in which further economies can be made. We are actively pursuing the matter, and I am by no means satisfied about the present cost of the recruiting campaign.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: Do the Minister's remarks in this context apply to the TAVR? I do not need to remind him that in many parts of the country the force is well below the establishment fixed by the Government, and that more rather than less recruitment is needed.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As far as I am concerned, as Minister responsible for across-the-board recruiting I shall endeavour to see that all branches of our Armed Forces are at the required establishment.

    Queen Alexandra Military Hospital
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of the Millbank premises in Westminster when the Queen Alexandra Military Hospital is closed down.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: That part of the premises which lies to the north of the Tate Gallery and contains the hospital is to be made available to the Tate Gallery Trustees. That part which lies to the south and on which stands the Royal Army Medical College is being retained by the Ministry of Defence, although the long-term use for some of it has yet to be determined.
    Mr. Lipton: Would it not be better to pull down the Queen Alexandra Military Hospital as well as the Tate

    1209
    Gallery and to put in its place a swimming pool, a gymnasium, a place for children to exercise—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not suggestion time. It is Question Time.
    Mr. Lipton: I have many more suggestions to make.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can make them after Question Time.
    Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to the comprehensive development of this very valuable site in the heart of London?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has made some interesting proposals, but the demolition of the Tate is not within my remit. Since my hon. Friend has so many suggestions to make, he may wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Buck: Is there not great concern about the future of the Royal Army Medical Corps relative to the support that it is able to give to Army families, especially those who serve in Northern Ireland? There is a great deal of concern about the closure of the Queen Alexandra Military Hospital, and even more concern about the proposed closure of the Colchester Military Hospital, the abolition of which will mean that there will be no proper facilities for military families serving in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into what is happening at Colchester, since it is far removed from this Question. I accept the expression of concern made by the hon. Gentleman about the closure of the hospital at Millbank. He knows that we have excellent facilities in Woolwich, which will come into use this year.
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the urgent request of my hon. Friend the Minister, I beg to ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: There can be no further point of order.

    MBFR Talks
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the progress of the Mutual and Balanced Forces Reductions talk in Vienna.
    Mr. Mulley: We are disappointed by the lack of response from the East to Western attempts to bridge the gap between the positions of the two sides. We shall continue our efforts to reach an agreement based on an outcome of parity.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the stumbling blocks in these talks lies in the misconception about the concept of parity? Does he agree that now that the West has adopted a more qualitative approach, it should provide some hope for these talks? What are his views about the idea of national force reductions as an element in the talks?
    Mr. Mulley: As to greater flexibility on the part of the West, my hon. Friend will know that the Western countries have collectively made proposals that we had hoped would receive a more positive response from Warsaw Pact countries but, so far, that has not been forthcoming. As to national ceilings, that would be contrary to the whole concept of NATO's collective rôle. It is only right that the total strength should be assessed on an Alliance basis rather than that we should seek to impose national totals. But I hope that as a result of the increased interest of the new American President we shall be able to achieve a further impetus in these important talks in Vienna.
    Mr. Forman: Will the Secretary of State say whether it is true that the term "balanced" has been dropped from the Russian title of the talks? If so, what conclusion does the Minister draw from that?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not aware of what alterations the Russians may have made in their own terminology. We must ponder carefully the fact that there would be no point in a percentage reduction that would mean that an imbalance in conventional forces would remain.
    Mr. Lee: If we are to make a credible and not economically enfeebling contribution to defence, should we not pay attention to General Kitson and make the British Army into anti-terrorist terrorists? Would that not be more useful than what we are doing on a global scale?
    Mr. Mulley: I have not read General Kitson's recent book, but as far as I know he made no observations on how to conduct talks in Vienna.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: What arrangements have been made to link the talks with the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the new SALT agreement?
    Mr. MulleyAs far as I know, there are unlikely to be direct links, although the United States keeps its allies informed on the progress of SALT. I do not know what happens within the Warsaw Pact, but the area in Central Europe defined in MBFR talks is narrowly confined, whereas SALT deals with strategic weapons held in a wider area than the MBFR area. One would like to see progress on both fronts.

    Parachute Regiment
    Mr. Trotterasked the Secretary of State for Defence why no airborne landings at or above battalion strength were made by the Parachute Regiment in the last two years.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: This Question is not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual high standard. He has made a mistake in tabling it. Clearly the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There were three such landings in each of the years in question.
    Mr. Trotter: Does the Minister accept that none of those landings was carried out in Germany? The operational rôle of the regiment is concerned with the enforcement of NATO boundaries, yet not one of those landings has been in that rôle. Is that not a change in operation? How can a crack unit maintain its efficiency if it never exercises in the area of operations where it would be required in time of war?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot accept that from the hon. Gentleman. He realises that he has boobed and he wants to have a go at
    1212
    me for giving him the facts. An Airborne drop of battalion strength is useful training, irrespective of where it takes place. Clearly the hon. Member could not conscientiously say that there is nowhere in this country that compares with the western plain of Germany.

    BAOR (Spare Parts)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the position over spare parts for both Army and RAF units in BAOR.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): In general, yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that I have eloquent testimony from BAOR as to the complacency of that reply? Can the Minister confirm that vehicles are often off the road for months because of the lack of spares and that plant machines have to wait as much as two years for lack of spares? Is the Minister aware of the unserviceability of large stocks of vehicles that are held for the TAVR, that only some of them are ever used, and those that are soon go off the road? If the Minister does not believe me, will he pay a visit to REME workshops and vehicle parks and see for himself?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am planning to go to BAOR before long. I have invited the hon. Member to give me details about the shortages, and I shall be happy to look into any specific information that he gives me. All BAOR training programmes for this year and next will be maintained.
    Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister make a statement on helicopter spare parts, most of which, happily, are made in my constituency, but some of which—we read—may be made in unknown places in the world?
    Dr. Gilbert: I do not know whether I ought to make a statement, but there is no concern about spares for the Wessex helicopter and the Sea King. On the Sioux, the situation is cloudy and we are having it investigated. My advice is that there is no need for any of the planes that are used by the Armed Forces to be grounded.

    Ulster Defence Regiment (Manpower)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the strengthening of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: In accordance with the announcement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 17th December last year, action is being taken to increase the number of full-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment by 200 men.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Have these five conrate platoons, of 200 men in all, been formed and are they not insufficient for the UDR to have an effective daytime presence? As for the part-time element, what has been done to keep up and add to the numbers, which show signs of having fallen off in the previous year?
    Mr. Brown: We are creating full-time platoons to provide UDR with a daytime operational capability, and that is a step in the right direction. Forty-seven new recruits have been enrolled so far this year for full-time service, in addition to 25 part-timers who have transferred to full-time duties.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware that the 200 additional full-time men must be regarded as a first instalment of what is necessary? Will the Ministry of Defence make sure that when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replies to the debate tomorrow he will be able to indicate specific ways in which the recruitment of UDR men—which was generally disappointing in 1976—will be improved in 1977?
    Mr. Brown: I accept what the right hon. Member says about the 200 being a first instalment. The Secretary of State made that clear in his statement. I cannot anticipate what the Secretary of State will say tomorrow, but I shall apprise him of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that no matter how much we go on strengthening the UDR, the Northern Ireland solution must be a political one and that, although we can talk indefinitely about strengthening the security
    1214
    forces, in time we must grapple with the politics of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brown: I certainly do not disagree that the only solution for Northern Ireland is a political one. But as long as we have the problem with us we must take every step to ensure that the security forces are strengthened at every turn.

    West Stirlingshire (Departmental Land)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many acres of land his Department owns in West Stirlingshire.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: 958 acres of freehold land.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the Central Regional Council, in conjunction with the Scottish Development Agency, is trying to acquire about 10 acres of land to construct an industrial estate adjacent to Bandeath naval depôt, but that the farmer who at present leases the land from the Ministry of Defence is reluctant to part with it? Cannot the Minister take a firmer line with this obstructive farmer by telling him that his dog-in-the-manger attitude is holding up the creation of new jobs for my constituents?
    Mr. Brown: The Scottish Development Agency has sought planning permission for the proposal that my hon. Friend mentioned, but, as he says, the farmer has lodged an objection, as he has a statutory right to do. Planning permission is, of course, a matter for local authorities in the first place. However, the Ministry of Defence is co-operating closely with the SDA in the matter. I understand that the agency now intends to try to identify an alternative site at Bandeath, and this will have our close co-operation. I assure my hon. Friend that nothing I shall do will in any way detract from the great efforts that he has made, on behalf of his constituents, to bring extra employment to the area to replace jobs lost through the closure of the depôt.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wigley—but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Question relates to West Stirlingshire.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the disproportionate acreage in Wales that is used—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to put down another Question on that subject.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that a large proportion of the acreage used for military purposes was originally taken from farmers against their will? Now that there is a rundown in expenditure on defence, will he consider whether some of that land can be given back to the farmers from whom it was taken?
    Mr. Brown: I was in the Principality last week, on an extensive visit, so I am well aware—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that I were in the Principality, but the Minister must not go further than did the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley).
    Mr. Brown: I defer to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to the Defence Lands Committee, commonly known as the Nugent Committee. That shows that we are making great strides in releasing Ministry land in Wales and Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it policy in West Stirlingshire to beat swords into ploughshares, rather than vice versa?

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made towards the renunciation of independent nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Mulley: It is not Government policy to renounce unilaterally our nuclear capability. Any reduction in the United Kingdom's nuclear capability, all of which is committed to the Alliance, must depend on the successful outcome of multilateral negotiations.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the hitter disappointment among hon. Members on the Government Benches at the Government's apparent inability to meet their manifesto commitment on this issue? Will he take this opportunity to renew that commitment?
    Mr. Mulley: As I understand the manifesto, there was no commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament. It said that we would exercise our best en-
    1216
    deavours to get a multilateral agreement, which I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would like to see. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his initial reply will give some reassurance to the people of this country? Does he agree that his first responsibility is to safeguard the security of all the people of this country and not just to pander to the meanderings of the Left?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman spoilt the beginning of an excellent contribution by his last remarks. I hope that my reply will have given general satisfaction.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the commitment in the manifesto—which is the manifesto for all the party—refers to United States nuclear bases here? What action has he taken to fulfil the commitment to rid this country of United States Polaris bases?
    Mr. Mulley: The Polaris submarines that use bases in this country make an important contribution to the deterrent forces of the Alliance and, in that way, to the defence of this country. Our policy has always been to seek a reduction in the number of these weapons and in armaments generally on a multilateral rather than unilateral basis. That remains Government policy.
    Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the face of the current Soviet nuclear and conventional build-up, Great Britain's independent nuclear deterrent assumes even greater importance than in the past? May I assure him that he has the full support of the Opposition in the steps that the Government are taking to improve and modernise our strategic capabilities?
    Mr. Mulley: I should prefer to put the matter in the context of our nuclear capability being an important part of NATO's general conventional, theatre nuclear, and strategic nuclear deterrence.

    Hong Kong (Military Garrison)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held recently with the Government of Hong Kong concerning payment for the British military garrison.
    Dr. Gilbert: There have been no such discussions since my right hon. Friend answered a Question on this subject from my hon. Friend on 9th November 1976.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a military absurdity to keep any garrison in Hong Kong? If even that is not recognised, does he not agree that it is absurd that the British taxpayer should pay for the garrison?
    Dr. Gilbert: I cannot agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's proposition. I am sure that he will be aware that my predecessor negotiated an extremely favourable arrangement with the Hong Kong Government, under which they will be contributing 50 per cent. of the cost in 1976–77, 62½ per cent. in the following year and 75 per cent. in the year after that.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 22nd February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the National Union of Mineworkers.
    Mr. Canavan: Can my right hon. Friend find time today to consult the new Foreign Secretary about invitations to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference later this year? In view of the widespread revulsion felt about the atrocities attributed to President Amin of Uganda, and particularly recent reports of the brutal murders of two Cabinet Ministers and the Archbishop of Uganda, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be absolutely repugnant to the vast majority of Commonwealth citizens to invite to this country such a ruthless barbarian, who has no respect for human rights or for human life itself?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's revulsion at the reports that have come from Uganda. If they are true, there can be no words strong enough to condemn what has happened. There are problems in regard to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, because although this country is the host, we do
    1218
    not issue invitations, and attendance is a matter for all members of the Commonwealth. I should be willing to take soundings on this matter, but, in view of the delicacy of the situation, I should not wish to go further than that this afternoon. In the meantime, I can inform the House that the Foreign Secretary has instructed our delegation at the United Nations Human Rights Commission to call for an investigation and to ask Uganda to agree to an investigation into what has transpired in that country.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I say how very much we agree with what the Prime Minister has just said? We wish the new Foreign Secretary well in his important responsibilities. As the Prime Minister has appointed to the post of Foreign Secretary one of the most committed Europeans in his Administration, does this mean that he will take the earliest opportunity to introduce into the House the Bill for direct elections to the European Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: I note the right hon. Lady's tripartite question. I am grateful for what she said in the first part. On the question of direct elections, I have nothing to add to what has been said before. The Government are pressing on.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Repugnant though it might be to have General Amin in this country, should we not consider whether the best thing that we could do for the people of Uganda, who should be our prime consideration, would be to assist in getting him out of Uganda and into this country for as long as possible, in the hope that something will happen while he is away?
    The Prime Minister: Whatever our views about General Amin—and I certainly have mine—it is not for me to say at this Dispatch Box that we welcome armed coups of any kind, in whatever circumstances. There is far too much lawlessness in the world today, and it is not repaired by the encouragement of further lawlessness. I recall vividly that General Amin did not come to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in Jamaica, and I do not think that we would regard it as a slight if he stayed away from London.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Will any of the Prime Minister's meetings today be concerned with the fact that inflation is now running at 16·6 per cent. and rising, as opposed to the promised 8·4 per cent. and falling?
    The Prime Minister: I shall not be discussing that matter today. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that a number of factors are beginning to turn in the direction of this country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join with me in welcoming them. Apart from the issue of inflation, I am sure that he is pleased to see that exports are rising, that sterling is more stable, that the rise in the money supply is decreasing rapidly, that interest rates are falling, and that industrial output has risen for the first time for over a year. I am glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman, he having pointed out that one factor is still not yet working properly, that there are at least six others that are.

    TUC
    Mr. Wrigglesworthasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 3rd February.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the latest unemployment figures? Will he discuss with the TUC the problems of youth unemployment, and especially the possibility of increasing Government-sponsored training, so that not a single vacancy is left in an apprentice school or technical college while the present levels of unemployment are maintained?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend has no doubt noted, there is a welcome decline in the rate of unemployment for the past month. I do not want to try to make any deduction from that, any more than I do from any single-month figure. It is encouraging that there has been a decrease in the number of unemployed and a decrease in the amount of short-time working, which I always think is some sort of symbol in this context.
    1220
    I think that youth unemployment is almost the most serious aspect. It involves a great many other countries. One of the issues that I want to take up during the forthcoming series of international discussions is whether it is possible for us to operate on a European basis, or even on a wider basis, to try to deal with this especially difficult problem.
    Mr. Budgen: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC will he draw to its attention the recent speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade, entitled "The Politics of Economic Interdependence"? In particular, will he draw to its attention the passage in page 43, in which the right hon. Gentleman states:
    "The source of economic growth is more likely to be the vigour of industrialists, the co-operation of labour forces than in the devices of government"?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's speech must be taken as a whole. I read it with very great care and attention. I thought it was an excellent speech. I hope that everyone else will read it with the same attention as the hon. Gentleman. As for the relationship between industry and Government, I think it is more generally accepted by industry than by the Conservative Party that what is needed is a proper, healthy inter-relationship between the two. I hope that one day the Conservative Party will catch up with industry on this matter.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest impediment preventing a satisfactory outcome to the discussions now taking place on phase 3 of the social contract is the current rate of price inflation? Does he agree that large sections of the TUC General Council are insisting on the return of free collective bargaining? Does it not therefore seem sensible that if the Government would prepare a scheme for price control and allow free collective wage bargaining to be conducted against price ceilings we might thereby formulate a method of overcoming the difficulties?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the increased level of prices is one of the present causes of discontent. The Government will take every realistic step that they can to control prices, where possible. I have pointed out to my hon. Friend on previous occasions the limitations on a

    1221
    country that is so dependent on imports as ours is in this matter.
    I do not comment on any member of the General Council because I do not think that that is our business, particularly, but I say to those who are calling for a return to free collective bargaining that in my view that would be a return, this year, to free collective chaos, and I should not support that. I think it is right that there should be a certain modification and greater flexibility, in order to overcome differential problems and other matters of that sort in the next pay agreement that is reached, but we must have another pay agreement.
    Mr. Tapsell: Will the Prime Minister draw to the attention of the TUC the fact that the longer-term economic advantages to be won from restraint on wages, on public expenditure and on the money supply are being largely nullified by the Government's failure to maintain the international value of sterling, which is the prime cause of the current high rates of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: No, the TUC would not take that as being a fair representation of the Government's position. In any case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, sterling is being extremely stable at present and I trust it will remain so.

    PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the rules governing the rôle of Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Ministers.
    The Prime Minister: Parliamentary Private Secretaries are appointed by Ministers to assist them with their parliamentary and political activities. They are expected to act generally in accordance with their special position in relation to the Government.
    Mr. Aitken: Does the Prime Minister recall that following the last occasion when he dismissed a batch of wayward Parliamentary Private Secretaries his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) publicly described him as behaving like a stupid dictator? To avoid any repetition of such comradely language, will the right
    1222
    hon. Gentleman care to clarify his attitude towards those of his hon. Friends who in tonight's important Division on an issue of great constitutional principle may be intending to vote according to the dictates of their own patrotic consciences?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I should sooner have the insults of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) than his compliments. As for Parliamentary Private Secretaries, I have nothing to add to what I have said.
    Mr. Kinnock: Might it not be a good idea if my right hon. Friend obtained some compliments from my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) before giving a judgment on the matter? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is better for Parliamentary Private Secretaries to exercise influence on the Government than for people such as the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and his predecessors to exercise the sort of influence that they have had?
    Will my right hon. Friend seriously reconsider the whole position of Parliamentary Private Secretaries? I acknowledge the need that busy Ministers have for particular kinds of assistance, but should we not stop this silly throw-over from the public school fagging system and this unwanted extension of Prime Ministerial patronage?
    The Prime Minister: No.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the offence of a Parliamentary Private Secretary in voting against the Government, sometimes on a quite minor matter, is any greater than that of the Secretary of State for Energy when he claims to speak at a Press Gallery lunch as a private Member of Parliament and repudiates the doctrine of collective responsibility when discussing constitutional reform?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my original answer.

    HONOURS LISTS
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list those persons whom he will consult in drawing up Honours Lists.
    The Prime Minister: There is no fixed list of people whom I consult about the drawing up of Honours Lists. It is open to anyone to suggest to me the award of an honour in the half-yearly list, which I recommend to Her Majesty the Queen. I receive proposals for each list from my ministerial colleagues, and I also receive directly a large number of proposals, including many from hon. Members of this House. Each suggestion is carefully considered, and I have available to me for this purpose the advice of my ministerial colleagues and all the Departments of State, as well as eminent authorities outside Government in any relevant field of endeavour.
    Mr. Adley: Did the right hon. Gentleman say "Field"?
    The Prime Minister: This advice is co-ordinated for me by the head of the Home Civil Service. The final responsibility for recommending the award of an honour in the half-yearly list which I submit to the Queen is mine.
    Mr. Ridley: Does the Prime Minister remember his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), his predecessor, saying that his policy was not to give honours to politicians? Is that the Prime Minister's policy or not?
    The Prime Minister: I do not recall that statement. What I do recall is that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has himself submitted 14 proposals for honours since 1974. I am very glad indeed to have them, and I promise him that any further proposals that he wishes to put to me will receive appropriate consideration.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will not regard me as one of the more contumacious members of your flock in the raising of points of order, but I put down to the Secretary of State for Defence some weeks ago a Question asking:
"… if he will consider switching some or all of the 300 employed by the Defence Sales Organisation from promoting the export of arms to promoting the export of non-military engineering and other products; and if he will make a statement."
1224
On 13th January, I received the following reply from the Minister of State:
"The promotion of non-military engineering exports … is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade."—[Official Report, 13th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 561]
Therefore, although the Defence Sales Organisation is within the Ministry of Defence, I tabled the same Question to the Secretary of State for Trade. To my astonishment, the Question was transferred back to Defence and I received a reply from the Minister of State saying:
"I have been asked to reply.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 13th January."—[Official Report, 16th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 276.]
In other words, having been told that the matter was the concern not of Defence but of Trade, I found that the Question had been put back to the Secretary of State for Defence. That means that neither Minister will reply.
As an ordinary layman inexperienced in this bureaucratic buck-passing, I regard that as a glorious example of nonsensical governmental obscurantism and refusal to answer. "Catch 22" had nothing on this. The practice is making a mockery of parliamentary democracy.
That is not the end of the story, Mr. Speaker, because you arc involved. I thought that you were about to interrupt me to say that this was none of your business. However, last week I went to the Table Office to put down the same Question again, this time for the third time, to the Secretary of State for Defence, but I was told, "You cannot table this Question since it has already been answered." It would be more accurate to say that it had already been non-answered. You are responsible, Mr. Speaker, for the Table Office.
This malpractice could spread to other Questions in future, unless it is stopped. It could provide a means for Ministers to evade awkward Questions. One of the purposes of Parliament is to provide Back Benchers with the opportunity to ask awkward Questions of the Government of the day. Thus, as the upholder of the right, Mr. Speaker, you are involved, and I ask you to intervene by allowing me to put down this Question once again and requesting that one of the two

1225
Ministers involved should give me a proper answer.
Mr. Ashley: Further to the point of order. There is a further way in which Ministers are dodging Questions—not quite in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has so articulately described. When hon. Members put down a large number of Questions which are accepted by the Table Office and by the responsible Minister, the Questions are then evaded by the giving of monosyllabic answers, thereby evading Questions just as effectively as the practice of which my hon. Friend has complained. Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, in which you can solve the paradox that you are not responsible for the answers of Ministers but, on the other hand, that you defend the rights of Back Benchers to have replies from Ministers, who are now beginning on a large scale to evade Questions?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has raised two questions. In reply to the first, I must refer him to the answer that I gave to the House on a similar point of order about rearrangement of Questions on the Order Paper. If Ministers seek to transfer Questions, that is not my responsibility. However, I must tell the House and Ministers that if I were in the hon. Member's position I would be raising this matter as well. But I have no authority to direct any Minister about the transfer, or indeed the content, of his reply. That would put an unbearable burden on the Chair and one that the House itself would never accept.
Mr. Allaun: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to pursue this, but I maintain that your Office should be ready to accept the Question and it is your Office which has now refused me leave to put it down again.
Mr. Speaker: I shall gladly look at that, but, as all hon. Members who have been in the House any time know, there is a long understanding that if a Question has been answered—
Mr. Allaun: It has not.
Mr. Speaker:—however unsatisfactorily, it cannot go down again. However,
1226
I will look at the matter to see what can be done.

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL (NEWSPAPER REPORT)
Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: We have finished with the earlier point of order.
Mr. Kinnock: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I was able to give you only the briefest notice. There is a report today in the Western Mail—which describes itself as the "national newspaper of Wales", as you may know—by a journalist called Mr. John Osmond, reporting the activities of a research secretary of Plaid Cymru, Mr. Robert Griffiths, who appears, according to this report, to have drawn up a league table of "wreckers and filibusters" on the Scotland and Wales Bill.
I am not so sensitive as to want to make a song and dance about the possibilities of a breach of privilege arising from this article, but I would ask whether you could confirm that it is within order in this House, and that it is the duty of Members of Parliament, especially in Committee, as we have been for the 10 days of which this report speaks, to raise points with Ministers and with other hon. Members and that there can be no claim that there have been filibustering or deliberate attempts to wreck the Bill as a consequence of hon. Members doing their job properly, as they were sent here to do.
Mr. Speaker: I will gladly rule that it is the duty of a Member of Parliament to do his job properly.

POST OFFICE MAIL (EAST LONDON)
Mr. Spearing Mr. Spearing (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement concerning the continued delay to postal services in East London.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The Post Office tells me that the mail posted in the Eastern District for other destinations is going out normally. First-class mail for the Eastern District is now subject to only slight delay and the Post

1227
Office expects that by the end of the week there will be no delay. Second-class mail is still subject to delay and it may take another week to clear the backlog fully.
Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the seven days' backlog may not be delivered until 5th March and that this delay is causing acute problems to people in East London, particularly to those receiving pensions and where money is in the post? Is he aware that the Post Office has made no public statement concerning these delays, either to the people of East London or to the nation generally, so that proper account can be taken of the problems? The people of East London are angry because they believe that if these delays had occurred elsewhere in London the Post Office would have made a statement. Why does there have to be a Private Notice Question for a statement to be made on this issue?
Mr. Kaufman: We recognise that the aftermath of the industrial dispute has caused considerable inconvenience to those who live in the area. The Post Office is doing everything possible to clear the backlog and the postmen are working hard to get rid of it. I hope that my hon. Friend is not implying that the Post Office would distinguish against the type of area that he represents and distinguish in favour of more fortunate areas, because there are areas represented by Opposition hon. Members that are affected by other disputes as well.
Mr. Tebbit: Is the Minister aware that I raised this matter 14 days ago in a Private Notice Question? Is he aware that large quantities of mail that were posted weeks ago are still not being delivered, although mail that is currently being posted is being dealt with? Is this not a clear breach of the Post Office Act in that it is a selective delaying of the mails? Among the letters I have received on this issue is one from a firm in my constituency that is facing severe financial difficulties because of the dispute. Will the Minister confirm that part of the so-called settlement was that disciplinary proceedings be dropped against a postal union official in respect of occurrences that took place before the strike?
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member sets himself up as a one-man enforcer of the law. The dispute has been settled by the normal, sensible process within the Post Office and an acceptable settlement has been reached. Most of the backlog has been reduced or eliminated altogether. The hon. Member is wrong in his implication that the Post Office is dealing first with letters that have been posted immediately and that it is leaving the backlog behind. The work is being done in rotation.
Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister aware that in several parts of the House there is grave disquiet over this incident, not least because of the rather casual reaction of the Department of Industry when the matter was raised in a Private Notice Question on 7th February? Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that the Post Office makes a statement that makes it clear in which rotation the mail is now being dispatched, since there is a widespread view that has been contradicted in his statement?
Mr. Kaufman: The Post Office will take full account of the exchanges in the House today. Naturally I made my own careful inquiries before coming to the House to answer the Question. I am satisfied that the information made available by the Post Office is accurate but naturally when the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) puts a question such as that to me I shall undertake to have the matter examined further.
Mr. Pardoe: I declare the same interest that I declared when the matter was raised last time. The Minister says that most of the backlog has been dealt with, but that conflicts with the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who said that it would not be cleared until 5th March. What is to stop the Post Office bringing in temporary labour? Is it union pressure or finance?
Mr. Kaufman: Almost all the first-class mail backlog has now been cleared. There is only a short delay in the delivery of first-class mail. But there is still a considerable backlog of second-class mail. The backlog that accumulated during the dispute is about half that which it was originally, but that still means that there is a considerable backlog to be cleared.

1229
According to my information the hon. Member's misgivings are misplaced. The industrial dispute was a vexed one, as unofficial disputes often are. The intricacies of personal relations within a particular postal district are not a proper subject for questions across the Floor of the House. The correct proceedings have been adopted. Everyone hopes that those who have the right to expect prompt delivery of letters will get that as soon as possible.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the Minister aware that there is rising anger all over East London, including my constituency, about the lengthening failures of delivery of mail which is exacerbated by the total silence of the Post Office and its refusal to make any statement about what is going on in the Eastern District? Is he aware that his own truculent self-righteousness is no substitute for a proper statement from the Post Office?
Mr. Kaufman: At least the letters are not having to be delivered in the dark. The hon. Member's own misrepresentation of the situation may be responsible for some of the anger in his constituency. I do not quarrel with any anger that is felt by his constituents because of the delays in the mail. The Post Office has now resolved the dispute, and it has been over for several days. The backlog is being reduced and the Post Office hopes that by the end of next week the backlog on second-class deliveries will be over. If the hon. Member wishes to stir matters up in this way, that is up to him. An industrial dispute that caused trouble has been resolved and we hope to get back to normal as soon as possible.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bagier: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not drawing your attention earlier to the matter about which I complain but
1230
I received only 15 minutes ago a copy of today's The Journal, Newcastle upon Tyne, on which my complaint is based. Today's The Journal contains a report which is headed:
"Jobs hints may swing vital vote."
The article reads:
"Hints of Government jobs for North-East Labour MPs who back down and support a Scottish assembly in the Commons tonight have put the outcome of the vital vote on a knife edge. Premier Jim Callaghan is understood to have dropped broad hints about ministerial posts … confidential talks with some of the potential rebels he has called in for drinks."
As one of the northern hon. Members who attended a meeting with the Prime Minister last Thursday—to which I assume the article refers—I can absolutely refute that there is any possible truth in that statement. I should like you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that saying what is patently untrue could possibly be intended to exert pressure on northern hon. Members of Parliament in their areas. Stating something that is absolutely untrue is an indirect way of putting pressure on Members as to how they should vote. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, will you consider the possibility that that article, printed as it is, in the present circumstances, is a breach of privilege of the rules of the House?
Copy of newspaper handed in.
Mr. Speaker: Following recent custom, I shall give my ruling on this question of privilege tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of Time to Bills), Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put at Ten o'clock any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion relating to the allocation of time to the Scotland and Wales Bill.—[Mr. Ashton.]

FOOD AND DRUGS (AMENDMENT)
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to food and drugs.
Billingsgate is not always the most attractive form of parliamentary language. In seeking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act 1955, I must ask the forgiveness of the House it it sounds a bit fishy, because a whole lot of it will be about fish.
There are more fish in the sea than ever came out of it—or at least there were until the last lot of Russian trawlers got going in the North Sea. The fish are of many species and they have surprising shapes and names. There is the roughback and the thickback, the forkbeard and the tusk, and many others which I have recently learned through studying the Statutory Instruments issued under the authority of the Act which I am seeking to amend.
We live in the age of Statutory Instruments. A county secretary recently complained that, whereas 20 years ago a year's supply of Statutory Instruments weighed 8 lb. and it took seven years to fill a library shelf, now a year's supply weighs 30 lb and takes only three years to fill the same shelf.
Statutory instruments are currently being issued under the authority of Acts at over 1,000 every year. Many of them are concerned with the labelling of food, as has been found to his cost by a fishmonger constituent of mine who is currently serving 120 days' imprisonment in Gloucester Prison for not paying a fine of £30 levied on him for being three labels short on his fish display counter.
In the first 12 years under the 1955 Act some 30 of these Statutory Instruments were issued and finally, in 1970, there were the Labelling of Food Regulations, which deal with fish. If one is buying a tinned product or a patent medicine, a label is of help. When one wants to buy an opening medicine, it is annoying to be sold something to stop diarrhoea. But fish are natural things
1232
with different flesh and faces. One might have thought that, with all that we spend on education, the budding housewife might have been taught at school how to distinguish the lobster from the octopus and the shark from the conger eel.
Fishmongers have to learn much more than that, and learn it in Latin. if one wants to sell the species lophius piscatorius, one must label it, surprisingly, enough angler. If one wants to buy the species sardonops sagax ocellata, one must be careful—at any rate, if one is a Labour Member—because legally it must be labelled South African pilchard. If one wants to sell the species huso huso, one must label it beluga. But if one wants to sell haliotis—not halitosis—one must label it abalone or ormer. If one wants to sell sprattus sprattus, one must, surprise, surprise, label it sprat. Other labels that one must put on so that the housewife can be quite sure of what she is buying include Argentine, atherine, huss, rigg, garfish, lascar, megrim, sild, roker and witch. If one does not, one can be run in.
We have offices full of little men who draft all these regulations for which we are paying. We have other offices full of little men who go round inspecting and bringing prosecutions, for which we are paying. We have magistrates' and higher courts to enforce them, for which we are paying. We also have prisons for offending fishmongers, for which we are paying.
Might it not be better to cut back on all this, for housewives to be encouraged when buying fish to "use their loaf" and, when need be, to sue the fishmonger or to shop elsewhere?
I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce a Bill to restrict the issuing of such Statutory Instruments. If not, I shall want leave to issue another Statutory Instrument, for which I cannot give the precise Latin equivalent, but the English translation on the label would be "Codswallop".
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Anthony Grant, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. Peter Temple-Morris.

FOOD AND DRUGS (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Jasper More accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to food and drugs; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th March and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Lord President, I want to refer to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse).
I have carefully considered the amendment, but have come to the conclusion that it is not in order since its effect is to instruct the Business Committee to do something which the Standing Order under which it is set up gives it no power to do.
Under Standing Order No. 43, the Business Committee is required to
"divide the Bill into such parts as they may see fit and allot to each part so many days … as they may consider appropriate".
Were the Bill so drafted as to fall into two distinct parts, one relating to Scotland and the other to Wales, it would no doubt be possible for the Committee to go some way towards carrying out the hon. Member's suggestion. But that is not so, since there are passages in the Bill which apply equally to both countries.
The effect of the amendment, therefore, is to require the Business Committee to perform a task of redrafting rather than of mere allocation. That, in my view, puts it outside the scope of its order of reference.
Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am obliged to you for your ruling. I know that you will appreciate that the effect of your ruling means that Members representing Welsh constituencies will be fearful that, in consequence of this guillotine motion, there will be no possibility of Wales being treated other than as a neglected stepchild in the proceedings which are about to take place. The consequences of not being able to divide the Bill are that many of the anxieties felt in Wales will not be allayed in the time available. Therefore, one is bound to find the base upon which you have founded your ruling perplexing.
When the issue of the referendum was raised, it was clearly put that there could be embarrassment because one country could say "No" and the other "Yes". It was unequivocally stated from the Government Front Bench and, indeed,

1235
made clear by the Prime Minister that there would be no subsequent difficulty if that arose because of the possibility of dividing the Bill.
Surely, if it has already been agreed by those piloting the Bill that it could be divided so that there would be no impingement upon Wales if the Welsh said "No" and the Scots said "Yes", it cannot be beyond the wit of the Business Committee to divide the Bill in the manner in which the Government Front Bench anticipated what may have to come about.
If you still insist, Mr. Speaker, that, despite my first representation, your ruling must abide, I trust that it will be clear that, since this would mean that there would be no firm opportunity for hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies to be able categorically to guarantee that Wales should have fair consideration in the miserable proceedings that are now to take place, it will not be out of order if we invite the Government to make certain, in a firm manner, that the Business Committee allocates adequate time to Wales. Clearly, unless such a guarantee were forthcoming in unequivocal terms, there would be no question on my part and on that of many of my hon. Friends of supporting this motion.
Mr. Speaker: I want to say to the hon. Gentleman first of all that it was not essential for me to state a reason when I did not select his amendment. But I thought that I would give a considered reason to him and to the House. Secondly, whatever is said by the Front Bench is the responsibility of the Front Bench. I have to rule according to the procedures of the House, and the Business Committee cannot be required, under Standing Order No. 43, to redraft the clauses of the Bill, and it is on that basis that I have to stand by my judgment.
4.3 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—
Allotted days for Committee, Report and Third Reading
l.—(1) The remaining Proceedings in Committee on the Bill, the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill and the Proceedings on
1236
Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in 20 allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days.
(2) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the remaining Proceedings in Committee on the Bill, and to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, such parts of those days as the resolutions of the Business Committee may determine.
Report of Business Committee
2.—(l) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolution—

(a) as to the remaining Proceedings in Committee on the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill not later than the 23rd day of February 1977;

(b) as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and the Proceedings on Third Reading not later than the seventh day on which the House sits after the day on which the Proceedings in Committee are concluded.

(2) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be further varied by a report so made, whether or not within the time so specified lin the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
Proceedings on going into Committee
3. When the Order of Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.
Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee
4. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Order of Consideration
5. No Motion shall be made to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee or on Consideration but the resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.
Dilatory motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important

1237
matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.
Private Business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.
Conclusion of Proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a Second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion Standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion
1238
at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.
(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The Proceedings of any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any date (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
'the Bill' means the Scotland and Wales Bill;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
In moving the motion for a timetable on the Scotland and Wales Bill perhaps I could begin with a reference to a remark made a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who cited to the House a quotation from a newspaper saying that some allegations had been made outside the House about filibustering tactics or methods of disrupting the procedures of the House. He asked for some comment on the matter.
In moving this motion I am not interested in any accusation of filibustering. I am not making the accusation that hon. Members have exhaustively spoken in such a manner that debate has been made hopeless. I have listened as much as any other hon. Member to the debates on the Bill, and I certainly understand—anyone would be a fool who did not—that hon. Members on both sides, some of whom have spoken at length, have presented their case with considerable passion, energy and strong feelings. I am not making any protest about that. However, I believe that anyone who has sat through these proceedings would come to the conclusion that the Government reached last week—that if we were to proceed upon the basis upon which we have been proceeding, it would be impossible to get the Bill on the statute book in any reasonable amount of time.
I say that, I repeat, not because I am making accusations of any kind against hon. Members in any part of the House, but because I believe that that was the nature of the case. It was partly for that reason that we desired from the beginning some form of informal timetable, if I can describe it as such. Of course I understand that such arrangements are difficult to achieve, and that
1240
even if the Front Benches are in favour of achieving them—and I am not suggesting that the Opposition Front Bench in this particular case were in favour of achieving such arrangements—it is not necessarily so that the House as a whole will accept such provisions.
Moreover, there was the instance on Tuesday of last week—but that is not the only ground for the motion—when there was a very lengthy debate on the important new clause relating to the referendums. That debate continued for many many hours—I am not complaining on that score; I am merely pointing out the facts.
Indeed, an attempt was made to secure a closure of that discussion after a period had elapsed which exceeded that which would normally be allocated to a single day's debate on the Second Reading of a Bill. But the ruling of the Chair on that occasion—I am not making any criticism of the Chair for it—was that the closure would not be accepted in the circumstances. There were many more hon. Members who wished to continue the debate—I am not denying that in any circumstances—and it continued for another few hours.
I believe that anyone who witnessed that occasion—and there had been a large number of other comparable occasions—and that state of affairs, and anyone who recalls the way in which the proceedings of this House operate would come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to get this Bill on the statute book without some form of timetable motion, and it is because of that requirement, that necessity, as the Government believe, that we have made this proposal.
Perhaps I may add, in order to make the matter absolutely clear so that no one can contest the situation, that I should have thought that, in the rest of the proceedings, what the Government are proposing for discussion of the Bill is by any modern test an extremely generous allocation of time for the discussion of such a measure. I think that it is required that the Government should make a generous allocation of time, and that is what we have done.
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised an allocation of about 30 days for all stages of the Bill in this House. What we propose goes significantly beyond that offer,

1241
which was itself already exceptional. So far we have had four days on Second Reading and 10 days in Committee. Today's debate thus brings the total so far to 15 days. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members will wait a moment, they will hear the comparisons.
The motion is for a further 20 days and that, moreover, does not take account of the time for consideration of any suggestions that the House may receive from another place. What that consideration may need cannot be predicted now, but the Government accept that not less than two full days could well be required. In that event, the total for the Bill on tho Floor of this House would amount to 37 days, and we are also proposing to suspend the rule for an hour on each allotted day, which yields in effect the equivalent of three further parliamentary days.
The figures are there for anyone to examine, and I say to the House that, as anyone with experience of the House will recognise, all this amounts to a very considerable allocation of time. To the best of my knowledge, it has been surpassed only once since before the First World War, and that exception—the Government of India Act—was itself over 40 years ago in a parliamentary environment far less heavily burdened than nowadays.
If the House makes a comparison of these figures with any other modern Bill of a character in any way comparable, it will see that we have allocated a very considerable amount of time. For example, much more time has been allocated, both under what we have done so far and what is proposed now, than was allocated to the European Communities Bill. Any comparison shows that much more time is being made available on this occasion. A comparison can also be made with the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Although that was not a constitutional Bill, it was a major measure which certainly gave rise to considerable controversy. But many more days are allocated under these proposals than under that proposal.
I repeat that, leaving aside Finance Bills, there are no other Bills for which so much time has been allocated as is now proposed by the Government, particularly when one considers the number
1242
of days that we have already had and the additional days proposed under the timetable motion.
It is not possible for anyone who attempts to tell the truth of the matter to say that we are truncating debate in a way that is contrary to the traditions of this House, or anything of that sort. We are providing more time for discussion of this Bill than for any Bill since the 1930s. Far more time is being allocated than was allocated to very important constitutional Bills such as the European Communities legislation and others that I have mentioned.
Mr. David Crouch: The Leader of the House has been talking about the generosity that the Government have shown with regard to all this time that they have given us to debate this very big constitutional measure. What I have been waiting for is for the right hon. Gentleman show his generosity by keeping the promise that he made on Second Reading with regard to concessions. So far we have had only one, relating to Orkney and Shetland.
Mr. Foot: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question now, although it is not directly relevant to what I was saying. At the beginning of the discussions both I and the Prime Minister said that the Government would be prepared to listen carefully to what was said in the debate and to make our responses. I can give the hon. Gentleman a whole series of examples of how we have faithfully carried out what we said.
For example, we carried out the pledge—admittedly this was not a major one —on the Orkney and Shetland amendment. We carried out a promise to reconsider the size of the Assemblies. We carried out a major concession and undertaking on the referendum, following a motion signed by some 140 hon. Members in all parts of the House at the time of Second Reading. We took that into account and brought forward the new clause partly because of those representations. We also listened to the representations about the nature of the referendum itself.
No one who listened to our debates can possibly claim that the Government have not sought to be flexible in dealing with these matters. Nor can it be claimed

1243
that we have not taken into account what has been said in the debates. Moreover, important sections of the Bill have yet to be discussed, and I believe that we must also take into account representations made in the House with regard to those. We shall certainly do so, as we have already done.
It is not possible for anyone seriously to say that we have not attempted to listen to what the House has said on a whole series of major matters. I know that some hon. Members do not agree with the decisions at which the House itself arrived on many of these important matters.
For example, there is the question of proportional representation. I understand that the Liberal Party holds strong views on this subject and is entitled to press them in this Bill and in others. But the House itself discussed this at considerable length and came to the conclusion, which may be disagreeable to a minority in the House, that we should not introduce a PR system in this Bill. The Government themselves cannot be accused of not listening to the House or of a lack of responsiveness.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: My right hon. Friend has spoken of flexibility and many of us appreciate the flexibility that he has shown. He has also said that without the timetable motion the Government would not be able to get the Bill through. Can my right hon. Friend say what the Government's reaction would be in the event of their failing to get it through? Would the Government then introduce a separate consultative referendum Bill that would enable us to ascertain the real feelings of the people of Scotland and Wales?
Mr. Foot: I have already discussed that in previous debates when my hon. Friend and other hon. Members put the question to me. I have nothing further to add. For the benefit of any of my hon. Friends who were not present, I shall give the same answer again. I am not saying that it would be an absolute impossibility to conduct a referendum in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes. But there would be very considerable objections to conducting a referendum in those circumstances, because the question which would be put in such a referendum would necessarily be much less precise
1244
than the question, or questions, which could be put in a referendum such as we are proposing.
Hon. Members may take a different view, but these are the very questions that we have discussed during the debates on the referendum. We have not yet concluded our debates on the referendum. On Thursday, when we proceed with the Bill, we shall have further discussions on this aspect and no doubt my hon. Friends can again make representations.
However, I believe there are considerable difficulties—maybe not insurmountable ones—in saying that we should have a referendum before we make any further progress with the Bill. One of the objections to such a procedure is that we should be putting questions to the public which are not necessarily capable of precise answers.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: As the right hon. Gentleman is accentuating the importance of the referendum, would it not be more sensible to allow the electors to hear the debates on all the various aspects which will affect their opinions in the referendum rather than guillotining debate on those aspects?
Mr. Foot: If this motion is carried the electorate will be able to hear the debates over the next 20 parliamentary days when we discuss these matters. That will be a fuller allocation of time than for almost any other Bill in similar circumstances. I therefore do not believe that there is any validity in the hon. Gentleman's interruption.
Another aspect which has arisen is the view that no possibility of a timetable motion should be considered in this instance because this is a constitutional measure. The suggestion is made in some quarters that it is impossible to apply a guillotine to a constitutional measure or, at any rate, that it is extremely inappropriate to do so. That is not in accord with the precedents or the history of this House of Commons.
A number of guillotine motions have been applied to constitutional measures. Indeed, the guillotine in its modern form was introduced into the House in 1887 by a Conservative Government with the assistance of the votes of Liberal Members who did not oppose the introduction of the guillotine at that time. Since 1887 there have been at least 14 Bills which

1245
could be described as full constitutional Bills to which guillotines have been applied.
In two instances the guillotine was applied by Labour Governments and in two instances it was applied by Conservative Governments, but in no fewer than 10 instances the guillotine was applied to these constitutional Bills by Liberal Governments. I am sure that that is one of the reasons why the Liberals have found it so necessary to consider voting for this timetable motion today. Certainly they would be following clearly in the Gladstonian tradition if they voted with us this evening.
Mr. John Pardoe: Do not the statistics which the right hon. Gentleman has given prove that Liberal Governments have been far more active in trying to reform the constitution and our political procedures? It is regrettable that since the Liberals were last in office the institutions of democracy have been allowed to fossilise.
Mr. Foot: I hope that there will be no fossilisation tonight, with the Liberals not voting to carry this motion. I hope that the Liberal tradition will be sustained.
It is true that many of the constitutional Bills that were guillotined related to Ireland, and the precedent is especially apposite. One of the major claims of the Liberal spokesmen who so eloquently defended the guillotines in the days of Gladstone, Asquith, Lloyd George and others was that it would be wrong and dangerous for the country if this British House of Commons denied the legitimate claims of Ireland. The Liberal Party was right in those instances. I believe that it would be dangerous for the country if this House were now to deny the legitimate claims of Wales and of Scotland.
I come to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who has also sought to assist us in these matters. He has come forward with a proposal about how we should deal with the problem which is somewhat different from that which is included in our timetable motion. Last weekend the right hon. Gentleman made a speech on this matter which was properly and widely reported in the Press. He also sent a letter to me
1246
on the subject drawing attention to the remarks which he was to make. He proposed that the Bill should be abandoned and that we should proceed to a constitutional convention.
Mr. Francis Pym indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: I see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I acknowledge that he also said that his proposal would stand whether or not this guillotine motion was carried. I am grateful that he included that statement in his remarks. I am not seeking to misrepresent what he said. I regard it as a proposal that we have to consider most carefully.
Although I rarely see any reason to attach much importance to what The Times has to say, I note that it says —and it shows what an evil-minded lot its editorial staff are—that it is natural that suspicion should remain when a suggestion of this sort is put forward almost on the eve of the crucial vote on the guillotine. If that suspicion could be aroused in the minds of the editorial staff of The Times, it is conceivable that it might flit across the minds of others.
When I first heard of the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire coming at this very late date in our proceedings, I was reminded that Gibbon said of the Emperor Constantine that he left his conversion to Christianity to such a late date so that there should be no temptation or danger of a relapse. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was in a similar condition. He slipped into his statement to the country a reference to devolution. It was not a very bold one, but it was one that we were grateful to have, because it had been noticeable in some of our debates that any enthusiasm for devolution was at any rate muted. In the speeches that we have heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in his new rôle as spokesman for the Conservative Party on devolution, he has tended to lisp his words, which is not his normal, characteristic way of speaking. Some other Opposition Members have not appeared enthusiastic in their underlining of their commitment to devolution. However, the hon. Member for Cathcart will doubtless tell us how firm that commitment is.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: From the long debates that we have had so far, can the right hon. Gentleman give any instance of any enthusiasm for the Government's Bill from their own Benches?
Mr. Foot: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been many instances, because all the Government's proposals in the Bill have been carried in the Division Lobbies by majorities far in excess of the Government's vote. It may be a very oldfashioned view to take that the voting Lobbies are the places which count in the end, but that happens to be our parliamentary tradition dating back to the Witenagemot itself. The Government have won all the votes on all the contested issues. It is true that there have been about 100 speakers against them to our one, but we have managed to win the arguments in spite of that. The hon. Member for Cathcart is on a false point there.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire spoke, in his speech and in his letter to me, as though this Government had hurled the Bill at the head of the House of Commons without any preparation, and that is how this whole matter has proceeded. I have heard the story of how Athene was supposed to have burst fully armed from the brow of Zeus —I have always wondered how that athletic feat was managed. But it seems that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Bill was produced by some similar method. Nothing of the sort is the case.
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there have been the most lengthy discussions on these matters. A commission sat and made its recommendations. The recommendations were considered by the Government. The Government produced their first White Paper and then their second White Paper on the subject. On each occasion that we produced these, back in 1975 and 1976, we made proposals to the Opposition, as we did to others. We sent the documents to the official Conservative Party and said "Would you like to make any proposals about how we should proceed?" We sent them to the Liberals. I think that the Liberals said that they were in favour of federalism, even if no one else was. However, that was not a very constructive
1248
proposition, because the Kilbrandon Commission had itself turned it down.
The Conservative Party had every opportunity to make any proposals that it wished about how we should proceed or criticisms of what we had set out in our White Papers. The main strands of our Bill were set out in the White Papers, and the Conservative Party had every opportunity over a very long period to make its proposals. Many of the matters which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is now saying should be discussed at a newly formed convention are the very matters which could have been raised by him and his party months ago if they had wished. But it appears to be the case that it is this timetable motion that has concentrated their minds so wonderfully and has brought them to make this proposal.
Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury): Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the debate on the European Communities Bill (Allocation of Time) motion he said:
"… in the course of the Committee stages of many Bills that go through this House we discover that the matters that become of greatest interest and moment are not those which were foreseen before the Bill was introduced."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 230.]
Is not that exactly what has happened?
Mr. Foot: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), especially as he quotes my own words. It is true that in a Committee stage the House of Commons changes the character of legislation, produces new arguments and produces a new vision of legislation. It is one of the great virtues of this House which is sometimes denied by observers outside, and it is one of the reasons why I am bitterly opposed to the truncation of Committee stages in this House.
I say in the case of this Bill, as I said at the beginning, that of course we are prepared to listen to such representations, and we have done so. We have done so on one major matter, but there may be others that will develop in the next 20 days. There is no prohibition on such developments as a result of what we are proposing in the timetable motion. There is no doubt that it was as a result of discussion in the House, among other things, that we were prepared to produce a new clause for a

1249
referendum, and we were prepared to shape the referendum in the light of representations made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will be eager to remind me. We have not yet reached any conclusions about the shape of the referendum. So, nothing I am saying now conflicts with what I said on the European Communities Bill in 1972.
Let me deal with what I said about the European Communities Bill. It is always helpful to listen to hon. Members quoting my previous speeches as well enduring the agony of listening to my present one. [Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends may say that they would prefer the earlier speeches. I was invited
by the Leader of the Liberal Party to recall what I said in that speech and I always take into account his helpful remarks. When I looked up that speech I discovered, not to my surprise, that at the beginning—and here I should have thought that the House would be congratulating me on my foresight and wisdom—I said:
"Everyone in Parliament and in the country is agreed that this is a unique Bill".—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 225.]
I was talking about the European Communities Bill. First, let me deal with the meaning of the word "unique". In the Concise Oxford Dictionary—I hope that that will not be regarded as too racialist a remark—"unique" is defined as meaning
"Unmatched, unequalled, having no like or equal or parallel".
On that matter I agree with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), although we had a difference of opinion at the time. I agree not merely that the European Communities Bill was unique then: it remains unique today, because it was a Bill depriving the House of some of its sovereignty in a way that is not proposed in this Bill.
I am afraid that my hon. Friends who make any comparison between the two Bills are not merely misleading themselves, but are in danger of misleading others as well. Of course there is the sharpest possible distinction between what the House proposed in that instance and what is proposed now. This Bill protects the supremacy of Parliament, and it is precisely for that reason that we have rejected, in all of the long discussions
1250
that have taken place since the Kilbrandon Report, so many of the alternative suggestions for dealing with the situation.
Some of the suggested alternatives came from the Liberal Party, and I have no doubt that they make their proposals in a constructive spirit, but their chief proposal, the federal proposal, is destructive to the sovereignty of Parliament and is one of the many reasons why we are even more opposed to the federal solution of our problems than was Kilbrandon.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Ought not my right hon. Friend to exercise some care about praying the Kilbrandon Report in aid of his case? Did not the Kilbrandon Report make it a condition of its proposals that there should be a widespread consensus and agreement about the nature of legislative devolution? If this consensus did not exist, Kilbrandon thought that legislative devolution was not possible.
Secondly, although my right hon. Friend may dislike The Times, did he reflect on the article by Nancy Trenaman, a member of the Kilbrandon Commission, who said that she started off by supporting the Kilbrandon proposal and then went on to give a long and formidable list of reasons why she had completely changed her mind?
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has also changed his mind on this matter, as have a number of others. My answer is to say that the members of the Kilbrandon Commission did not come forward with a full, coherent, recognised set of proposals. There were some matters on which they were agreed—
Mr. Pardoe: On proportional representation.
Mr. Foot: Proportional representation was not a matter that the Commission went into in any detail. The Liberal Party apparently seems more interested in proportional representation, particularly if it can obtain it by the back door, than in devolution itself. The Liberal Party must understand that the Kilbrandon Commission came down fair and square, like a ton of bricks, against a federal solution. This view was supported not only by the overwhelming majority of those on the Kilbrandon Commission but even by the Liberal Members, too.

1251
It is a misrepresentation of the situation to say that the Government did not seek the support of the people in the country for their proposals. We disseminated those proposals throughout the country. Various bodies made their representations, and the trade union movement, the Labour Parties in Scotland and Wales and the rest of Britain were all given an opportunity to make representations. They did so. All the representations supported what we are doing. Therefore my hon. Friends must not talk as though there was no consultation. We also gave plenty of time for any other party that wished to make representations on general or specific matters, and that opportunity existed right up until last weekend. If the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire had made his proposal at the time of Second Reading or earlier, his remarks would have been made in a very different context.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: On the one issue on which the Kilbrandon Commission was unanimous—the issue of proportional representation, on which it considered the experience of Ireland and why PR had been relevant there—the right hon. Gentleman brushed aside what the Commission said by claiming that it did not go into the matter in detail. But Kilbrandon did go into the matter in detail. The Commission took the fullest possible evidence from many people. When I went to give evidence, I was told that there were points upon which the Commission members did not wish to hear from me. They had heard from other witnesses on those matters. The right hon. Gentleman must not try to change what Kilbrandon said. The Commission went into the subject in great detail and it was unanimous.
Mr. Foot: I accept that Kilbrandon was unanimous on the subject, but the right hon. Gentleman must accept that I have not sought in any way to misrepresent the conclusion of Kilbrandon on proportional representation. The House has discussed that matter. What I said was that Kilbrandon had not given to that subject the same consideration that it gave to the subject of federalism. This is proved by the Kilbrandon Report. The whole subject of federalism, to which the Liberal Party has pinned its colours, figures prominently in the report. That
1252
matter is on a different level from those that we are now discussing when considering how to deal with devolution.
Of course we shall consider any proposals that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) or his party make at any time and of course we shall consider any representations made in the next 20 days. We believe that the parliamentary process is the proper one in which we should have these discussions and we do not believe that it is a sensible proposition, particularly when we have proceeded so far, to set aside all the debate of the past 10 days, all the consultative processes that we had previously,. all the discussions on Kilbrandon, all the opportunities for the Opposition and others to have their say, to say that all this must be swept into the dustbin because the Government are prepared to bring discussions to a close not now but after 20 days.
There is still plenty of time for the House to consider any sensible proposals that come from any quarter, and the Government will consider them. I say, however, that the reputation of the House of Commons depends not only on maintaining proper and full opportunities for debate, particularly on matters of high constitutional importance. It depends on how we talk and how we act. The Government's proposal will give the House the power to act on a proposition which has been put fairly to the country for many months, and even years, and for which we had full backing at the last General Election.
4.41 p.m.
Mr. Francis Pym: I am very conscious that many right hon. and hon. Members can command more eloquence than I in opposing this motion. There is no hon. Member, however, who feels more strongly about it than I do. This is no ordinary guillotine. It relates to no ordinary Bill. The Bill has given rise to new and different circumstances, and therefore I do not think that comparisons with past guillotines are really relevant.
If it is any comfort to the Leader of the House, let me tell him that I have not delved into his past speeches when he spoke so eloquently below the Gangway or from this Box against previous guillotine motions. However, if he were

1253
free of the constraints which the Government have imposed upon him and his colleagues and if he were free to express his genuine feelings, he would personally wish to oppose this motion with 10 times the eloquence that even he commanded before.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about conversions and said that the proposition that I had put on behalf of my right hon. Friends on this Bench was a late-hour conversion. I expressed strongly on Second Reading the view that I believed that an all-party convention was a process that should have been gone through. If any conversion has taken place on guillotines it is on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, because we all know his track record.
In spite of what is said in Clause I, the Bill goes to the heart of the governance of Britain. It affects this House and every hon. Member directly. It is a constitutional change of infinite significance. Anyone who has listened in the many hours we have so far spent in Committee can be under no illusion as to the ominous nature of the misgivings and foreboding which have been expressed.
In 10 days and three or four nights we have experienced tense debates. The sheer force of the argument from all sides of the House has been a powerful expression of alarm at the implications of the Bill. Scarcely have we heard a word in support of the Treasury Bench. The doubts and the fears of hon. Members have echoed round the Chamber. The House has been saying loud and clear that the Government must show caution and think again before they proceeed with the Bill. That is the message that has rung out in this Chamber.
This is no ordinary guillotine. The House faces a major constitutional innovation with far-reaching ramifications that are hard to predict and that may take years, and even decades, to develop. Therefore it behoves us to proceed with more care and caution and to take more time before reaching a final conclusion. We in this House are all the trustees for the time being of our constitution, the trustees of the life and liberties of the British people. We have a heavy responsibility for the well being and prosperity of our nation. That well being cannot be expected to exist—many of us think that
1254
it does not exist in adequate degree today —unless Parliament is doing its job. Surely Parliament must take particular care with a Bill of this sort, bearing in mind its implications, and be as certain as it can be, before passing it, that it will benefit the United Kingdom.
Our history shows that this House does not make constitutional changes hastily or ill-advisedly, but only after a very thorough examination and consideration. After such an examination of all that is involved it often does make changes. It has a dynamic all its own, and that is how it has evolved. Any Government who seek to make constitutional changes must make and prove their case overwhelmingly. Demonstrably that has not happened with this Bill.
In my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends there is no genuine majority for this measure in the House of Commons. There is nothing in this House that could be remotely described as conviction in favour of the Bill. I would have said that on a constitutional issue the Government of the day must at the very least carry conviction before taking drastic steps. I do not hear the sounds of Ministers stumping the country advocating the merits of this wonderful Bill which will have such marvellous benefits for the United Kingdom. I find myself deafened by their silence.
Mr. A. J. Beith: What Ministers have been doing—particularly in the case of the Secretary of State for Transport—is stumping the country saying that if the Bill does not get through there will not be another Labour Government in their lifetimes.
Mr. Pym: That sounded to me rather a panicky reaction. I think that the right hon. Gentleman had made a remark about setting up or chairing a particular committee among Labour Members with a point of view that may have offended the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State may have been seeking to redress the balance with a remark of that kind, but of course that is pure speculation on my part.
I want to consider the handling of this whole matter. Parliament almost always has required several attempts to be made at constitutional reform. The most dramatic example concerns the Bills dealing with Ireland. There were at least five

1255
of them, and they were produced over a long period. The guillotine motions to which the Leader of the House referred were related to some of those Bills.
The European Communities Bill was a much more recent example. It is true there was only one Bill, but for 10 years before that Bill appeared—it was not such a long Bill—in almost every Session under every Government there were substantial debates on the question of Britain joining the EEC. The arguments were rehearsed again and again. It takes time for the House to satisfy itself on a constitutional matter that the change proposed is justified, that it will be a genuine improvement, and that it will benefit the country. The House is not so satisfied on this Bill.
The Government's original intention was better than what they have done. The White Paper foreshadowed a dummy Bill. Paragraph 6 of Cmnd. 6348 said:
"Work is in hand on drafting a Bill … It will be published in the spring of 1976"
and continued later to say that it
"will provide the opportunity for debate and for focussing opinion more closely on specific legislative proposals; and the Government will take account of all this in further refining the schemes."
On 14th January 1976 the then Leader of the House, who has now gone to another place, said in the debate:
"we shall publish the Bill as soon as we can in draft form. It will then be debated … there will be further and more definitive discussions with outside bodies. … The next stage will be that a Bill taking into account — the more definite discussions on the Bill will be published at the beginning of next Session."—[Official Report, 14th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 403.]
That process was never gone through.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Has it not occurred to my right hon. Friend that this is the dummy Bill and that no sane person could really expect it to get on to the statute book?
Mr. Pym: I was about to argue that and that we had not heard from the Government at any stage why they did not go through that process. It is quite clear that they thought it was a desirable and a necessary one. But why did they not do it? Was it because they were afraid that if they published a dummy Bill on the lines of the present Bill it would he subjected to the very criticisms
1256
to which the Bill is subjected? At any rate they are not giving us an explanation why the whole of that process as been omitted. It has been a mistake to omit it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that the Bill is a dummy Bill, but unfortunately it is the real one, and it is the first time that the House has been able to debate its implications. Let us consider the arguments we have had in the 10 days in Committee. Even if half those arguments were half right, surely the Bill has already been shown to be so seriously faulty that it should be looked at again. By handling it as they have done, the Government are asking Parliament to do something which I consider to be unreasonable.
In the first case, the Bill is too big. It started off as two Bills rolled into one. Since then a third Bill has been added. We all agree that its implications are extremely wide and yet it is the first time we have considered it. It is not Parliament's fault that it cannot digest so vast a legislative meal all at once. To ask Parliament to do that is to maltreat and abuse Parliament. There is no procedural or other fault with Parliament; it just is not possible to deal with so many big issues in so short a time.
The Leader of the House talked about the reputation of the House. If the reputation of the House were to be damaged by this it would be because Parliament is being asked by the Government to do something which is too big for it to undertake all at once. The Government are at fault for handling the matter in this way.
Mr. Dalyell: Is it not true that Parliament has done its job for the first time because the real nature of what we are doing is getting through to Scotland?
Mr. Pym: I totally agree but the point I am making is that Parliament ought to continue doing the job and not have its time curtailed as is proposed in the motion. If, by some tragedy, the motion were carried, it would create major problems for this House and for another place because the motion refers to 20 further days. That is bound to mean that some clauses, amendments, and new clauses will

1257
never be debated in the House and perhaps not in another place and conceivably, therefore, not at all.
I wonder why the Lord President did not publish the timetable motion details on the Order Paper. He knows perfectly well that they were on the Order Paper for the European Communities Bill. I suspect that the reason why they are not on the Order Paper is that if they were published the enormity of what the motion is asking the House to do would be revealed for all to see. I cannot think of another explanation.
I do not think that the Lord President is right to compare the time allotted for this Bill with that allotted to other Bills in modern times. He is quite right that 30 days is longer than has been spent at any stage on another Bill in recent times, but the background is totally different. The nature of this Bill being what it is, there is no recent parallel. By trying to force the House to get the rest of it through in 20 days the right hon. Gentleman will wrong foot both the House of Commons and another place, and it is not their fault. The implications of that are unacceptable because every hon. Member shares the responsibility for this House, for its wellbeing, its reputation and its future, but most especially that applies to the Government of the day. I regret enormously that the motion has been tabled for the reasons I have given.
It is not an ordinary guillotine. The fact that it is proposed at all fills me with uneasiness. It is incompatible with the undertaking given by the Lord President that he would listen to the arguments and be flexible. He will not hear all the arguments if the motion is carried because there is too much in the Bill and there are too many arguments and issues to be discussed. I acknowledge that he has intended to be flexible on certain matters, not in all cases but in many.
There are alternative courses available to the Government, that is, alternatives to the guillotine motion. I am not opposing it merely on the basis of adversary politics. There are other alternative ways open and one has been canvassed already in an interruption. It is that the Bill should be suspended and a referendum should be held now. I imagine that we shall hear further arguments for that in
1258
the course of the debate and perhaps there is a good case for it. I have my doubts about it because I think that there will be a lack of clarity about what would be on offer to Scotland, Wales or the United Kingdom. There is a danger that this would confuse matters. But I shall certainly listen to anything which is said on this point.
There are some hon. Members who want an independence question now. I suppose that might clear the air to some extent and I understand the argument, but I am not sure that we do not already know the answer and I am not sure that that would dispose of the issue or that it would carry us much further or that the cost would be worthwhile. However, that is an alternative. But there are other possibilities.
I put one to the Government last week on behalf of my right hon. Friends and myself. We should now, even at this late stage, convene an all-party convention to see whether a degree of broad agreement can be achieved. In dealing with the call for devolution and with constitutional change I have always believed that an all-party approach was correct and necessary at some point in the process. I made this point on Second Reading. I know that the Lord President does not like the idea nor does he believe in it. He is against it. I say to him that it is not only a necessary process, but a right one. In the document "Our Changing Democracy—Devolution to Scotland and Wales", the Government state:
"there is a need for the widest possible basis of agreement on the essential features before legislation is enacted".
I totally agree with that, and what I said last week is completely in line with it. I regret that the Leader of the House and the Government have not accepted it.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pym: I wish to finish this part of the argument before I give way.
The Leader of the House said that at any stage it would be open to anyone to tell us his views. But the format of this is extremely important. The circumstances in which this exchange of ideas and discussion can take place is absolutely crucial. The Government are showing no

1259
inclination to sit down with the parties together. It has seemed to us that the Government are pursuing their ideas on devolution on a partisan basis. All the Lord President has said is that the Government were open and ready to listen to any representations. This is not the same thing as I am now proposing—a frank exchange of ideas and views be-between all parties in the context of an all-party convention.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Kilbrandon Commission was this sort of body which tried to get evidence from all the parties and that his party did not give evidence to the Commission? In view of the fact that the Conservative Party is not in favour of any devolution to Wales, how can there be any consensus on that issue?
Mr. Pym: The Kilbrandon Commission Report has never been fully debated or considered in the House. I am quite certain that the convention to which I refer would take into account all the evidence and the conclusions of the Kilbrandon Commission before an agreement could be reached. A resolute effort to reach some degree of accord should take place now at least to identify areas of agreement and to set out the possible options. This scheme of devolution has already been shown to be so defective that I do not believe that it is a sound basis on which to continue.
I am not suggesting that the convention should sit for longer than six months, because so much work has been done in the background already. At the end of the convention's consideration, the House will decide. Naturally, the House must decide at the end of the day. After all that has been said in the Committee stage so far, that must be the right step, because the House is in real difficulty. Hon. Members are in real difficulties, especially Labour Members, some of whom understandably face a most difficult conflict of loyalty. They have a natural wish to support their own party, and I as much as anyone would understand, respect and support that. But on this issue their convictions and instincts are in a contrary sense, and they have an immensely important decision to take today.
The Government have put down this guillotine motion on what I might
1260
describe as an ordinary guillotine basis, but I am not opposing it on that basis. I believe that the House will wish to take a bigger view of it than that, because there are other possibilities open to the Government. I appreciate that it may seem to the Government that I am asking a lot of them to pause now, that there is, as it were, a price tag on the matter. Now that they have reached the present position, whatever the Government do there is a price to be paid, but the way I have suggested is certainly less expensive, and some credit would accrue to them. At any rate, I believe that it is a right and necessary process.
Mr. Dalyell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman fudging the issue? Have we not discovered throughout all our hours of debate that there is a fundamental rock on which such schemes perish and which no convention would remove—namely, that it is not possible to have a legislative Assembly, a subordinate Parliament, part of, but only part of, a unitary State?
Mr. Pym: I still think that as all parties in the House have put forward proposals for changes in the government of the United Kingdom, affecting certain parts of the United Kingdom, it would be at the very least a sensible course to see whether they could not pool their minds and come to any degree of broad consensus.
I disagree with those who predict dire and dangerous consequences if the motion and the Bill are not passed. That is nonsense, provided the Government share with us a desire and determination to see that that is not so. There is no reason why it should be so if we all agree that it should not, because I think that the people of Scotland and Wales, indeed, of Northern Ireland, England and the whole United Kingdom, are worried about and confused by the predicament in which we in this House find ourselves. We should gain more respect if we took a new approach.
I think that there would be a sense of relief, because however much people in Scotland and Wales want to see better government—that is, better government in Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom—it is not the most important issue facing them. It is an important

1261
issue, but it is not the issue that is uppermost in their minds. What is uppermost in their minds is the matter of their jobs, prices and the future. Therefore, there is no vital urgency about devolution. After all, with a few changes, we have continued on the basis on which we are operating today for about 270 years. There is no need to rush this year headlong into the morass of the Bill and the problems of this form of devolution.
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) told the House in January last year when he was Prime Minister:
"if it is agreed that these proposals embody the most fundamental constitutional development in this century … it is our duty as a Parliament to get the proposals right, properly thought through, and to the highest possible extent acceptable by all who will be affected by them".—[Official Report, 13th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 209.]
That was a fair and right thing to say, and I agree with it.
I hope and believe that the House will rise above party differences on this occasion and speak for the United Kingdom. I hope that it will judge the motion in its true context as a big change in our government and Parliament. The House is entitled to more time. If it does not get it, it is bound to arrive at inadequately considered decisions. Indeed, it may not consider some of them at all, and therefore some of those decisions will be wrong. That is a terrible future to contemplate.
In response to the fervently expressed desire throughout the House to pause, to reflect further, to consult before passing the Bill, out of respect for our history, for the sake of the whole kingdom and the British people whom we here represent, and for the sake of Parliament itself and its proper functioning, I hope with my whole being that in its wisdom the House tonight will vote the motion down.
5.6 p.m.
Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) seemed in his last words to combine arrogance and nervousness: arrogance because he said that if only we all stick together the desires of the people of Scotland and Wales could be settled in a cosy club, in a cosy constitutional convention among ourselves;
1262
but nervousness because he said "only if we get together on this matter". The main Opposition party is clearly as nervous as ever about being alone at the barricades.
I support the motion. This debate is not about the guillotine, despite the many minutes spent by the right hon. Gentleman on the question of timetabling. It is about the devolution Bill itself. It is essential for us to recognise that, because it is the objective of most hon. Members who propose to vote against the guillotine, certainly on the Labour Benches, that the Bill shall run into the sands, which will mean the end of devolution. It is disingenuous, to say the least, for Conservative Members to pretend that the motion is merely to give us a little more time to discuss the matter. Even the right hon. Gentleman said that we did not need too long a constitutional convention discussion because we had had so much discussion already. We have indeed had a great deal of discussion already.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill has serious defects. In particular, it does not go far enough on the issue of financial powers, but I hope that as a result of an affirmative vote tonight on the guillotine we shall be able to debate and change those clauses. What I am convinced about is the need for the Bill to proceed.
What is the main argument of those who oppose the Bill in principle and are not interested, as some of us are, in its branches and roots? They are concerned about the future of the Union. They fear that, if the Bill goes through, Scotland and Wales will in due course choose independence and drift away from the United Kingdom. I believe precisely the opposite to be the case.
Of course, if we could start again, if we could go back to before Kilbrandon, to before the SNP and Plaid Cymru entered the House in force—[HORN. MEMBERS: "In force?"] I realise that by the standards of the majority parties the present numbers of the two national parties do not constitute force, but by the standards of what they were before they started entering Parliament, they constitute a considerable advance.
Dr. Colin Phipps: Their effect on the Government has been forceful.
Mr. MacFarquhar: If we could go back to the 1960s, to before the time when both major parties made pledges on devolution—which one of them is now seeking to scuttle away from, in an effort to defeat the Government as much as to defeat devolution—perhaps we could discuss the whole matter in a convention as proposed by the Conservatives. Perhaps we could have an abstract debate, but the fact is that it is no longer possible to set the matter aside from debate in the House itself. There is a desire in all parts of the United Kingdom for people to have a greater say in running their own affairs.
Scrapping the Bill may have been an option in the 1960s, but it is not an option now. What would be the impact in Scotland from a "No" vote tonight? It would be seen as the Government abandoning the Bill—
Mr. Dalyell: Great relief, I should think.
Mr. MacFarquhar: My hon. Friend says "great relief". But he has changed his mind on this issue, and may be his first mind was better than his second.
A "No" vote tonight would be seen in Scotland not just as a defeat for the motion but a defeat for the Bill itself. Scottish people would feel that the House of Commons, with a majority of English-based Members, had decided that the people of Scotland and Wales should not have a say in their own destiny.
Dr. Phipps: Surely, my hon. Friend must appreciate that many English Members believe that it is the desire of English people as well to have a say in these matters.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I shall come to that in a minute.
If there is a "No" vote tonight it will not just mean later defeat for Labour Members of Parliament in Scottish constituences—that will be one impact—and it will not just be to the detriment of Conservatives in Scotland. It will also spur on what devolution, sensibly enacted, could prevent—a demand for independence in Scotland and possibly in Wales.
We have been told to consider the precedents of history, and the Irish Home Rule Bill has been mentioned. There
1264
were many long hours of debates on those Bills and it all ended in bloody disaster. Do we want to take even the risk that that situation might be repeated in the future?
It seems to me that the Government have failed in one important respect—in their attitude to devolution to the English regions, and their scant respect for the desire of people, no less widespread in the South-West and North of England as in Scotland and Wales, to have a say in their local destinies. The Government have laid themselves open to the legitimate charge that the object of this Bill is not to enhance democracy but to appease nationalism. I have no doubt that there is a legitimate reason for English Members of Parliament and local councillors to feel aggrieved because Scotland is getting what they are being denied. I suggest that the Government will help their own cause if they give a pledge that devolution to the English regions will be considered far more seriously than it has been in recent months.
Mr. Kenneth Lomas: Does my hon. Friend not realise the truth of 1938? What he is proposing is simple appeasement, and that is one more step towards being thrown over. We should fight it, and the sooner we get rid of the Bill the better.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I am sure there were those who said precisely the same thing on the Irish Home Rule Bill a century ago.
I ask all hon. Members to consider deeply what they are doing tonight. The arguments are not about the details of the Bill, but about the Bill itself. I can think of no vote more likely to ensure the dissolution of the Union than a vote to ensure that the Bill runs into the sands.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. David Steel: The speech made by the Leader of the House in opening this debate was pretty thin. If there had not been so many interventions to which he had to respond there would have been nothing in his speech. He would have been better advised to contain himself in one familiar sentence. I shall quote from a speech made by the Leader of

1265
the House in May 1972 when he said in opposition:
"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 in any case."— [Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235]
That is a far clearer summing up of the case today. I am reminded of what Mr. Harold Macmillan said about guillotine motions on 22nd February 1954—
Mr. Lomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) quoted this particular point on 2nd May 1972. Surely there is no reason for him to go on repeating it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a point of order. The right hon. Member can make his speech in his own way.
Mr. Steel: I assumed modestly that not all hon. Members would have read my previous speech. But it is a particularly good quotation and I think that it is worthwhile airing it again after a lapse of five years.
Mr. Lomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last Friday the Leader of the Liberal Party drew attention to the fact that there should be a sufficient number of Hansards of 2nd May 1972 available to draw attention to the speech made by the Leader of the House. That is quite right. But people have read it. The right hon. Member should not draw attention to the speech that he made on the same day.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Steel: If I may continue with Mr. Harold Macmillan's excellent quotation:
"What happens is this. The right hon. and hon. Members who find themselves for the moment in opposition are filled with an extraordinary devotion to the principles of constitutional Government, to the free rights of Members, to the long historic struggle of Parliament against the Executive, to the cause for which Hampden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold. But when, with the all-healing flow of time, these same Members find themselves upon the Government benches, they become comparatively immune to these high-flown sentiments."—[Official Report, 22nd February, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 42.]
1266
That is an admirable description of the change that has overcome the Leader of the House between 1972 and now.
I have objections to the form of timetable that the Leader of the House has chosen. The effect of going back to the method of having a Business Committee and not specifying on the Order Paper how the Bill will be divided up almost guarantees that large sections of the Bill —like the Industrial Relations Bill—will not be debated.
When we had the European Communities Bill there was an attempt by the then Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), to put proposals to the Opposition Chief Whips. That timetable was turned down by the Labour Chief Whip who said that his party was not interested, but we were willing to consider it. We negotiated on the timetable and requested, required, demanded and got extra time for the particular section of the Bill which we thought should have more discussion. If one is seeking a timetable, that surely is the proper way to go about it—in other words, by trying to obtain agreement so that we all know what we are being asked to agree to.
On the question of the supremacy of this House over the other place, if a large number of clauses remain undebated and unconsidered in this House, the other place is bound to give those provisions detailed consideration. If that happens and the Lords make amendments, the Leader of the House of Commons will not get away with only two days on Lords amendments when the Bill returns here.
My colleagues and I have never been opposed to the principle of a negotiated timetable at the start of a Bill. I made that clear to Ministers before the Summer Recess, but they chose not to take that course. We have begun our debates and have spent a long time on the opening passages of the Bill, and now at the last minute the Government are attempting to impose a guillotine.
Part of the trouble as to the way in which the Bill has been handled is that Ministers lack political commitment to genuine devolution. That fact shines through the Bill and the debates we have had so far. I knew the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) before either of us was in the House, and I

1267
have known the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) since I came to the House, and I have a high regard for both gentlemen, but I have never considered either to be a passionate advocate of devolution in General Elections, debates in the House, or television discussions.
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to spread false accusations. Following the Kilbrandon Report, discussions took place in the Welsh group of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I presided over those discussions, which were lengthy, and in both elections I spoke on the matter in Wales and elsewhere. Therefore, it is misleading for the right hon. Gentleman to try to suggest that I am not interested in the subject.
Mr. Steel: I did not say that the Leader of the House was not interested in the subject. I said that he was not on record over the years as a passionate advocate of devolution, and I am entitled to make that observation.
I do not only single out the Ministers who are in charge of the Bill because if we examine the speech made by the Secretary of State for Transport the other day to colleagues, he said, in effect "I do not like this rubbish any more than you do, but let us get in there and vote for it". What kind of rallying call is that to people in Scotland and Wales? What kind of political commitment to devolution does it represent?
I am glad to see the Prime Minister present for this debate because he is a distinguished representative in this House of a Welsh constituency. I have with me his election addresses to the people of Cardiff, South-East. One searches in vain through his election address for February 1974 for any mention at all of devolution. When we came to the October 1974 election, there were some frenetic activities following the appearance of nationalists in the previous election. That led to some internal struggles in the Labour Party and, on the eve of the October election, Labour Party members were suddenly converted to devolution. So strongly did the Prime Minister then feel about the matter that he devoted one entire sentence to the subject in his election address, which read as follows:
"There will be an elected Assembly for Wales"
1268
That seems to me to show a total lack of real commitment to the subject. There had not been such a sudden and mass conversion on any subject since a Chinese general baptised his troops with a hosepipe.
Throughout all the discussions with Ministers on this subject there has been a total lack of genuine commitment to what one may call real devolution. It means giving power generally away from this place, decentralisation, and a breaking down of the centralised structure of government. But Government Ministers do not believe in that principle.
Nobody, except Ministers, has attempted, for example, to defend the transfer of substantial powers from this House to Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff while at the same time retaining full powers for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in the Cabinet —and indeed new reserve powers over the Assemblies—and the retention of over-representation of Wales and Scotland in this House. I repeat that nobody, except Ministers in charge of the Bill, has sought to defend that situation. If we are to create effective devolution, we must accept logically that the position occupied by Scotland and Wales in this House necessarily will be affected.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I think that the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in putting forward federal proposals, but I asked the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading whether the Liberal proposal involved England as one unit in the federation or as four or five. He did not give me an answer then. Will he now given an answer to that question?
Mr. Steel: Yes, I shall. I shall be coming to the subject of federalism in a moment. I am now dealing with the question of representation of Scotland and Wales in this place. The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, in the period of consultation within the Labour Party, was quoted in The Scotsman of 19th August 1974 as claiming:
"members of the party who were pressing for devolution to a Scottish Government without the loss of the office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster were being dishonest."
That is what he said as a Back-bench Member in his Lanarkshire constituency.

1269
Now that he is on the Front Bench as a Minister in charge of the Bill, what was dishonest then suddenly becomes honest. This goes to the heart of the way in which the Government are handling the Bill.
On the subject of proportional representation, I do not expect the Government suddenly to become enamoured of that principle. Indeed, there is a good case that can be made out against it. But the only honest view on the Labour Benches was taken by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He is opposed to the Bill and argues that case on the basis that he is interested only in what is best for the Labour Party. He said that in our debates, and he was honest enough to say so.
Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps it is unlike me to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith), but since he and I are members of the same party may I at least say that at the Labour Party Conference on 17th August we were discussing a legislative assembly. The idea put forward in those debates involved some kind of super, allpervasive, local government assembly—a rather different matter from this Bill.
Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him on matters of detail in Labour Party Conferences.
Mr. Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the only honest speech made in our debates was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)? I would remind him that I made such an honest speech that the Liberal News attacked it vigorously but said that it contained the truth of the situation.
Mr. Steel: I did not say that that was the only honest speech that was made, or if I did, I should like to withdraw that statement.
There is a basic contradiction in the Government because they are saying one thing to the country, particularly in Wales and Scotland, and another in this House. Even in the prelude to the question in the referendum, they are saying that "substantial powers" are to be transferred, but at the same time in this
1270
place they seek to say that there will be no changes and that sovereignty will not be affected. Those are contradictory arguments. The one argument is deployed in the country to boost the devolution Bill and the other is put here in the House to persuade hon. Members that the Bill does not mean very much and will not affect the powers of Parliament.
I turn to the difficulties hon. Members now face. During Committee stage we have been receiving memoranda after memoranda about defects in the Bill. A central defect, seized on only this week in memoranda from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, is that the Bill will contain the danger of concurrent and overlapping powers between this House and the Assembly. That is a fatal attribute and will result in endless confusion and bickering.
For that reason, I return to federalism, and now pick up the point mentioned by the Minister of State. We in the Liberal Party do not say that because we have always argued the case for federalism the whole country must be enamoured of this idea in relation to the Bill. The main point on this issue made by Kilbrandon was that the people of our country did not need it and found no evidence of a demand for it. I regret to say that there is no demand for it, but if we are to go for devolution at all, we should operate on a federalist principle with powers that are divided and not overlapping. If we proceed in that way, we shall all know where we stand.
It is instructive to note that many bodies, individuals and organs of opinion have come out in favour of the federalist principle, although not of full federalism in approaching this matter. This is particularly true in relation to taxation. If one is going to have Assemblies, certainly in Scotland, with considerable authority over expenditure, it really is asking for trouble not to give them some responsibility for the actual raising of revenues. I am reinforced in that view by what was said by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North in The Scotsman of 7th November 1973—and I could not put it better myself:
"I also take leave to doubt the effectiveness of an Assembly which did not have any real control over financial policy and trade and

1271
industrial policy in revitalising Scottish life. … I doubt if a voice without power would be heard and I am even more suspicious of representation which does not carry responsibility."
He was just as right on that point as he was on over-representation—
Mr. John Smith: I should like to hear the right hon. Member move away from personal attacks and get down to argument. Which taxation power would he give to the Assembly? The other day the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) suggested a sales tax. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is contrary to EEC directives. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested a share of North Sea oil revenues, and his third suggestion was for a system of simple local taxation. What is that system, and what are the taxation powers that the hon Gentleman proposes?
Mr. Steel: I shall respond to that question without going out of order. I am not making any personal attacks. I am quoting what the hon. Member said and surely that is allowable. What is more, 1 am agreeing with the hon. Member and I hope that he understands that.
I come to the point about taxation. The Government have said to the country that they would like to know of proposals that anybody else could make and that they are open-minded and flexible. They have asked for the great power house of the Liberal Party to tell the Government how to move taxation into Scotland have been looking at the research documents of the Kilbrandon Commission and the Layfield Commission. These documents are all published and deal with federal, regional and local taxation systems in other countries. Is it the Government's case that what is managed competently by Australians, Canadians. Americans, Germans, Swedes, Danes and the Swiss is beyond the capacity of this country to operate? I do not believe that.
It is not up to Back-Bench Members or minority parties with limited facilities to come forward and make the Government's detailed proposals for them. The Government, if they have the political will, can surely adapt one of the many methods that are available. If they are not able to do that they should give the reasons why they reject some of
1272
the proposals that have been put forward in these documents.
I come now to how the Bill has been handled since it came to the Floor of the House. I have been critical of the way in which the Leader of the House has handled the Bill, and an example of that is the clause on the referendum. We all know that it was first introduced to make sure that enough people would support the Second Reading of the Bill and again in the hope that there would be enough people in the Lobby tonight. There has never been any consultation or any kind of cross-party talk of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. When the Leader of the House produced the referendum clause, he did not even consult any of his hon. Friends who had been asking for a referendum. He just put the clause on the Order Paper. He said that his attitude was flexible, and before we had tabled any amendments and while we were still debating the clause, it was changed. We were debating not what was on the Order Paper but some new idea that had struck the Leader of the House. One cannot run the House of Commons in that way. The right way would have been to consult, consult, consult and reach agreement on sensible proposals and then go on to develop them.
The referendum has been the only concession made in the Bill. Mr. Alan Watkins had it right when he wrote in The Observer a few weeks ago:
"However this may be, the fact is that the Government is making the same concession twice over. Like an old music-hall comedian, it is using the same well-tried joke. Or, like one of those tiresome ecological persons who attained prominence in the 1970s, it is recycling used material and allowing nothing to go to waste."
In fact, Mr. Watkins understated the case. The Government have used the same device three times. There has been no concession or change in principle since the Bill was introduced, and none in the direction of those who support the Bill.
It will be interesting when we vote to learn who are left on the Government's side. It will be only those hon. Members who can be dragooned into the Lobbies. Where are those people who supported the principle of devolution on Second Reading? What about those Tories who were prepared to lose Shadow ministerial

1273
posts in order to support devolution? The Government have not carried them. Where is the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh)—one of the few Labour Members who has campaigned for devolution over the years —and my hon. Friends, who have also done that?
The Government have been losing the friends of devolution throughout the progress of the Bill, and that ought to make them stop and think whether they are on the right course. Who do the Government have to support them? They have those who can be cajoled into the Lobbies and the nationalists. The whole exercise started off as a ploy to keep the nationalist wolves from the door, but the Government find that they have ended up in bed with them. The Government have as their non-Labour supporters only those people in the House who know that the Bill will not work and hope that it will not. So the Government must think the whole thing out again.
I do not agree with the proposition that was put forward in an editorial in The Guardian this morning that said:
"everyone who votes tonight will surely be aware that to refuse the timetable is to condemn the Bill to a lingering but certain death."
I do not take that view. The Government have three options. The first is to go ahead with the Bill, chastened by their experience tonight and willing to consult others and to make changes in the form of the Bill so as to recover enough good will and a majority in the House to get the Bill through.
Another possibility is to hold the referendum immediately. If the issue were put to the people we should at least have guidance on the views of the Welsh and Scottish people. I do not rule that out. That would be a perfectly proper way for the Government to go about things, and it is consistent with the proposition that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire has been putting forward. What he said at the weekend is interesting.
As far back as November 1974, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) wrote to the Prime Minister and asked for a conference of all parties to be held to discuss how to proceed with devolution. That was a sensible suggestion, and my right hon.
1274
Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) promoted it in 1975–76.
But time has gone on, and in saying to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that this is still a possibility, we are entitled to ask him or someone else from the Opposition to confirm that the objective of such a conference would be to decide how, and not whether, devolution for Scotland and Wales should take place. The objective would not be to hold up progress, but to lay the foundations for discussions on devolution and to lead on to discussion on other things such as reform of the House of Lords and the electoral system.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: In proposing this convention—which I think would simply be a waste of time—will the right hon. Member say whether representatives at the convention would be solely Scottish Members of Parliament who would have the chance to debate the issue? What guarantees or assurances would there be that anything agreed by the convention would also be agreed in the House, in view of the deplorable way in which the Bill has been treated?
Mr. Steel: My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness suggested that there should be an overall body with subdivisions so that the Scottish and Welsh details could be worked out separately. One of the reasons why the Bill is a mess is that the Government insisted on lumping together the proposals for Scotland and Wales in one Bill.
Mr. Foot: Is not the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) suggesting that in the proposed convention we should discuss, with the Tory Party and other parties, the reform of the House of Lords? Is he suggesting that a convention on all these items would not involve any hold-up in the passage of the Bill?
Mr. Steel: I wish to be clear in answering that point. I am not proposing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I say that this could be the start of a series of consultations and discussions. I accept that devolution cannot wait, but one of the faults in the Government's approach is that they consider devolution in isolation from other constitutional reforms that are just as necessary.

1275
The convention could pave the way for later discussions on changes in the way in which we govern the whole country—and that must include reform of the House of Lords. I am not saying that we must hold up discussion of devolution until we get reform of the House of Lords.
Mr. John Smith: It seems that the Liberals are in favour of a lot of talking about devolution and that they are proposing further talks. When does the right hon. Gentleman think that there might be some time for action and when will the Liberals support something in practice?
Mr. Steel: I do not have to take that sort of remark from the Minister of State. The constitutional convention was not dreamed up by me this weekend. It was put forward by my party in 1974 and met with no response from the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. It was turned down by the then Prime Minister. If people are still willing to sit down and discuss it, I am willing to join in that exercise, though I realise that it is no substitute for proceeding quickly with the devolution proposals.
The guillotine is an attempt to restrict discussion of individual parts of the Bill and, as an opposition party whose objective is to support, amend and improve the Bill, we cannot be expected to go into the Lobby to support an enforced timetable, and we will not.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. Tom Ellis: I support the motion wholeheartedly and I trust that the House will approve it. I support it not only on the quantitative grounds of how many hours have been spent on the first clauses, but on qualitative grounds.
I have attended most of the debates on Second Reading and in Committee and have been disappointed not so much that some hon. Members differ from my views, as they have every right to do, but that the debate has been conducted at a level that has missed the whole point of the Bill. The House has not been at its best, to put it mildly, and it has become increasingly clear that the House is not competent to discuss the Bill, in the sense of its being unable to discuss authoritatively the real issues affecting Scotland and Wales. I speak particularly about Wales, but I think that the situation is similar in Scotland.
1276
The obvious reason for this is that, by the arithmetic of its composition, the House has a greater preponderance of English Members. I do not want to impute any malevolence to them, but even when the Kilbrandon Report was presented to the House it was greeted with overwhelming boredom, great yawns and ribald laughter about home rule for Cornwall or Yorkshire. It was a big joke to most hon. Members. However, to some of us from Scotland and Wales it was a matter of crucial importance. Throughout our debates there has been the enormous problem of trying to express the views of Welsh and Scottish electors as members not of the United Kingdom but of distinct communities in their own right.
Reference has been made to the fact that Ministers have not been pushing the Bill in the country, but who would want to go to Scarborough to talk about devolution to Wales? The people of Scarborough are not interested in that.
The Opposition have tried to suggest that this is an issue on which the whole constitution of the United Kingdom could crumble. That is not so. I accept that if the response of the House is not sufficiently imaginative and sympathetic, and if its understanding of the wishes of the people of Scotland and Wales is not sufficiently deep, those people will insist on a fairer share of the time of the House being devoted to their problems. I agreed with an hon. Friend who said last week that if we go about devolution in a certain way, the people of Scotland might insist on separation. I hope and pray that that will not happen, but if it does, this House will not be able to stop it. We should have to grant separation.
The great danger is adopting the attitude towards devolution that it would be unfair to North-East or South-East England is that one misses the basic point that has concerned the people of Wales for so long. They believe that affairs that are peculiar to Wales have not had the amount of concern and time devoted to them in the House that they should have had. I could give dozens of examples to illustrate the point. It has bred a particular kind of resentment which has become stronger because of the changes in our society. No longer do people believe that at the top of the hierarchy there is a repository of all wisdom and knowledge for the better

1277
government of the people. People are increasingly insisting that they want more of a say.
The Bill ought to be passed. It is because of the luxury and latitude of time in our debates that we have failed to concentrate our minds on the crucial issues. Examples have been given by the Leader of the House, and I could give others. There have been in Committee a number of discussions that have turned into a rehash of the Second Reading debate instead of debates on amendments. A typical example occurred on Clause 1. We had a great metaphysical approach to an amendment defining the precise meaning of the words
"unity of the United Kingdom".
That developed as much as it could without going out of order into another Second Reading debate.
I agree that there has not been filibustering in the sense that people have tried to stop progress, but there has been a failure to get to grips with the real issue of trying to make the Bill as effective and workmanlike a measure as possible.
I am dismayed at the attitude of the Liberal Party. I agree that there are many things wrong with the Bill. I am sure that we all have our own pet ideas on what should go into the Bill and what should be left out.
No one is a more wholehearted devolutionist than I, but I should be content simply to set up elected bodies in Wales and Scotland and let them grow. It is difficult to bring out of thin air a workable full-blown constitution for Scotland and Wales. We should remember our experience with the Industrial Relations Bill, which was a full-blown measure contrived by Ministers. That did not work. I am a fervent supporter of devolution, even of federalism, but I should have been prepared to accept no more than the setting up of elected Assemblies. We could then let them grow naturally.
The Liberals may deny it till they are blue in the face, but when they say that they cannot support the motion they are saying that they will kill the Bill. If the Bill goes under it will not come back for a long time. That is for certain.
I agree that there should be proposals for raising tax. I should like to see a
1278
commitment over a long term towards federal status. Nevertheless, the absence of such proposals will not prevent me from supporting the motion. Without it we shall not get anything for a long time. If that were to happen, the dangers would grow. The people of Scotland and Wales would be bitterly disappointed and frustrated. They would use the phrase, or slogan, that we have heard already, namely, that 10 English votes overrule one Scottish vote. That is a great danger.
If the House were not to support the motion it would show by implication that it does not have the depth of understanding that is needed to restructure the political framework to make it more suitable for the sort of society that we are entering increasingly and ever more rapidly at the tail end of the century.
Whatever they do tonight, I urge Liberal Party Members and my Labour colleagues to go into the Lobby to support the Government so that the motion is accepted and the Bill is enacted.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There is a great shortage this evening in the Palace of Westminster of the bound volume of Hansard that contains the speech made by the Leader of the House on 2nd May 1972. However, I intend to follow the precedent of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) rather than that of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), in not quoting from that speech, though it is natural that the case of the European Communities Bill should be lively in the mind of the House.
When the astonishing announcement was made last Thursday that the Government intended to propose this motion today, in her indignation the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), protested that the Bill
"raises constitutional matters which have not been discussed in this House for 50 years"
and that the right hon. Gentleman was
"attempting in one guillotine to suppress discussion of matters of supreme importance to everyone in the United Kingdom".
That is an extraordinary illustration of the loss of perspective to which it is possible to fall prey. Here are the ghosts, on the Front Bench on both sides of the Gangway of the Administration that forced

1279
through the European Communities Bill by a majority of eight on Second Reading, and by a guillotine motion which the Liberal votes carried with a majority of 11, protesting on behalf of
"constitutional matters which have not been discussed in this House for 50 years."—[Official Report, 17th February 1976; Vol. 926, c. 703.]
Why, it was more than 500 years since the House had been presented with the proposition that there should be any such challenge to the legislative or fiscal powers of the House as the Bill of 1972.
Nevertheless, I believe that the analogy of the guillotine of 1972 with the motion that is before us is not only not perfect but can in some respects be dangerously misleading. The Bill which was before the House in 1972, a short Bill, carried upon the face of it, in the most brutal and explicit form, the full effect of what British membership of the EEC must mean: the renunciation by the House of fiscal and legislative supremacy and the subordination of the law that we make to the law of Brussels was plain for all to read. Indeed, the careful dissection of that Bill line by line in Committee was essentially the method by which those who believed that no such thing could happen or should happen sought to prevent it from occurring. I do not say that on that account the guillotine was justified; but I do say that the circumstances then were very different from those in which the Leader of the House has put forward the motion now before us.
There is no doubt—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will concur with me—that the examination of Clauses 1 and 2 of the European Communities Bill was entirely different in character from the examination of Clauses 1 to 4 of the Scotland and Wales Bill. Neither he nor I would deny that we were then using our powers and our rights as Members of Parliament to prevent, if we humanly could, the European Communities Bill from passing into law, while the Government of the day could say that it was for the House to decide, yea or nay, whether it wanted that legislation, that it was for the House to decide whether it would pursue, and pursue to the bitter end, what had been decided in principle on Second Reading by a majority of only eight votes.
1280
That is not what is happening now. Never, I imagine, has a Leader of the House proposed a guillotine motion with such exquisite care to avoid the slightest suggestion that the House had been wasting any time in Committee. Over and over again the right hon. Gentleman repeated that that was not his accusation. From time to time this or that speech might, he admitted, have been briefer than it had been; but he was not denying that the Committee had been properly using its time, without any suggestion of delay or obstruction, in the consideration that it had given to what, after all, were some of the fundamental clauses.
The right hon. Gentleman went further. He produced a still stronger case for saying that the Committee had not incurred any of the penalties of a guillotine motion by its handling of the Bill; for he reminded the House of the occasion when even after 10 hours of debate—10 hours, admittedly, in the course of which the Government had put forward a new proposition, but still 10 hours of debate—the Chair in its impartial wisdom had still not considered the topic sufficiently exhausted to accept the motion for the closure. So fair has the right hon. Gentleman been in his proposition, that he actually reminded the House of the fact that the longest debate we had was one that the Chair itself did not consider should be terminated—I do not say prematurely, but even after a most generous use of time.
Certainly it would have been impossible for the right hon. Gentleman seriously to rest the case for his motion upon the deliberate use of time in Committee to frustrate the Bill and prevent its passage into law. What has been happening has been something entirely different. I think we find the truest parallel to the Bill in the fortunes of a Bill that will occur to the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the Parliament (No. 2) Bill 1969.
That was a Bill that had the support of both Front Benches. It was a Bill which had featured in the Queen's Speech of that Session. It was a Bill which never received anything less than overwhelming majorities whenever a Question was put

1281
to a Division. If I recall aright, majorities of 70 were the norm in Committee. Yet as day succeeded day in Committee, something very important began to happen. Those who wanted Lords reform as much as those who did not want Lords reform, those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, are uni-cameralists as much as those who, like myself, believe in the necessity of two Chambers based upon different constitutional principles, all recognised that the Bill before the House would not work, that the Bill before the House did not do what they expected of Lords reform and that if it were ever to be put into practice, it would be a constitutional shambles.
Day by day that the Bill was debated, as only this House can debate a Bill in Committee, the inherent absurdities and contradictions, the implications for patronage and all the rest which previously had not been recognised—which indeed had been ridiculed when these matters were raised in earlier stages, in discussion of White Papers, in general debates on Second Reading—became manifest not only to those who took part in the debates but to hon. Members who, during the long proceedings, dropped into the Chamber and stayed a while to listen below the Bar. By April 1969 the whole House knew that it would be an absurdity to proceed with that Bill, Lords reform or no Lords reform. The House in Committee had done its work.
The right hon. Gentleman may attempt to say, "What of it? I have put before you a timetable motion which allows you 20 more days of solid education, 20 more days to carry on the work which I admit has been ably performed in the first 10 days in Committee." That is indeed the only defence that the right hon. Gentleman can put up. But he of all hon. Members knows how hollow such a defence would be; for if this motion is passed, the rest of the Committee stage, the rest of the stages of the Bill, will be different in kind from what they have been before its passage.
It will be as though we passed a motion for the Third Reading of the Bill and then came back and imagined that we could carry on with the Committee stage. From that moment onwards, every hon. Member will assume that the
1282
Bill is going to pass. What is more—I say this without a hint of criticism of the Lord President or of the Government—they know that the Bill, for all that the Government care, will pass in exactly the form which it has received up to this time.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, in my right hon. Friend's evidence to the Procedure Committee the other week on the consequences of passing a timetable motion, that was exactly the one which the Lord President himself drew to our attention as being the inevitable consequence of passing a timetable motion on a Bill?
Mr. Powell: Of course the right hon. Gentleman, who feels—none better—the pulse of this House, who breathes the air of this House as his natural element, understands these things better than anyone else. I am merely putting inadequate words to what is already present in the right hon. Gentleman's comprehension.
He was perfectly justified in claiming that, throughout these days in Committee, the Government have responded to the House, that, as one implication after another of the Bill as it stands has been drawn out, the Government have responded not merely by listening but by actually making proposals and renewed proposals and revised proposals. It has been a remarkable Committee stage; but it is no discredit to the Lord President or to the Government to say that the only reason why they were prepared to listen was that, without this motion, they had to listen. It was the open-ended nature of the debate which not merely has enabled hon. Members to tease out the implications of the Bill and pursue its constitutional consequences but which has secured for their arguments an open ear on the part of the Government.
Once pass this motion, and we may reproduce the arguments again in each sitting—twice perhaps on each allotted day we may demonstrate as irrefutably as on foregoing days the inherent contradictions of the Bill—but we shall be talking into the void, because the Government will know that the Bill is safe. There would be no point—indeed, it would be a mere waste of time—for the

1283
Government to come towards the Committee, to bend to the force of the arguments which are put.
Mr. Buchan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being not merely a little ingenious but also ingenuous? He says that there will be no further concessions and flexibility if the motion goes through. But there can be defeats; I hope that the Government will be defeated on my amendment which is due for debate on Thursday. It is therefore disingenuous to say that nothing more will happen as a result.
Mr. Powell: I would rather be ingenious than ingenuous, but I had not been trying to be either. Of course it is perfectly possible that the Government might suffer a defeat on this or that item; but I repeat—the essence of the Committee stage is totally different once the Government know that time is on their side. As minute after minute ticks by, the moment comes when discussion ceases, when the amendment falls, when, whatever has been the strength of the argument, you, Mr. Speaker, will by our order put the Question from the Chair. Then, to the Government's relief, that will be the end of the matter.
What has been brought out during these 10 days in Committee—it is remarkable how, whatever type of amendment was tackled they were still the same implications, the same lessons, that emerged as we proceeded with the debate—is that this Bill has at its heart an unsolved contradiction, or rather, a series of unsolved contradictions.
The Government themselves do not know the answer to the question, how can one have a devolved legislative assembly inside a unitary State? No one has yet begun to answer, if there be an answer, the question continually posed as to what is to be the rôle, if the Bill is enacted, of Welsh, but particularly of Scottish, Members thereafter in this House. That is one wholly fundamental question for which no approach to an answer has yet emerged.
Then there was the question touched on by the Leader of the Liberal Party—how can we set up a directly-elected assembly with wide legislative and administrative powers and tell it that it is the elected assembly of a nation and
1284
then say that it may not raise a penny piece in taxation? The whole question has not been broached at all.
Thirdly, to go no further, there is the question of concurrent powers. In a constitution such as ours, how, under the aegis of Clause 1, shall we be able to live with the concurrent powers between the Executive and the Assembly in Scotland and the Executive and this assembly in this House? No one has started to explain how that is possible.
So the result of a guillotine will be that we shall pass into law legislation of which we cannot explain the working, legislation of which, so far as anyone in this House can foresee, the consequences must be a constitutional shambles, legislation which, so far as anything goes which has yet been said in Committee, will result in setting the different parts of this Kingdom not into greater unity but at one another's throats and creating areas of conflict which at present do not exist.
This motion, if it is passed, will ensure that we do the work which we are not sent here to do; it will ensure that we pass on to the statute book legislation unworkable and disastrous in its constitutional effects.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the presence of the Financial Secretary, who played such a great part in ditching Lords reform, I would with a certain hesitation take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said that, during the passage of the Bill to reform the House of Lords, both Front Benches were united in advocating the measure. I reflect that I sat on this very Second Bench for hour after hour during the passage of that Bill—some might think fortunately silent—because I was the PPS to the late Dick Crossman.
The truth about that debate is that both Front Benches were not united, that, as the debate went on, Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister peeled off and Dick Crossman, as the Lord President knows very well, was left on his own by a Cabinet which had become increasingly disillusioned, not least the then Home Secretary, and a Shadow Cabinet, led by the late Iain Macleod, which, for reasons of its own, had also become increasingly disillusioned with the workability of the measure. They may have

1285
been right to slope off when it came to votes. It would be indelicate of me to draw too close a comparison between what is happening in this Bill and what happened in the Lords reform Bill. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions. Ministers have shown a deafening silence on the virtues of the Bill.
Perhaps I was fortunate, unlike the right hon. Member for Down, South, because I managed to obtain a copy of Hansard for 2nd May 1972. In that my right hon. Friend the Lord President said that the passage of the European Communities Bill was unique.
Those of us who heard that speech recollect the power and eloquence with which the Lord President denounced the guillotine on that Bill. The speech was unforgettable and is unforgotten. Then, as now, I was not on his side of the argument. But my right hon. Friend laid down some clear generalisations in which he passionately believed. It is fair and honourable to ask him why, if he believed those generalisations to be right then, he does not believe them to be right now. There may be an explanation.
My right hon. Friend is a very honourable man and in his winding-up speech he should explain why it was true then to say:
"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 in any case."— [Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235.]
Mr. FootI shall take courage to intervene from my hon. Friend's own example in previous discussions, as the Minister of State, not I, will be winding up the debate. If my hon. Friend reads the whole speech he will see that that sentence about the full-hearted consent of Parliament refers to the famous statement made by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said that he did not believe that a Bill such as that which took Britain into the Common Market should be passed without the full-hearted consent of the British people. That is the sense, carrying on the argument about the support which is required far beyond any question of a majority in the House.
If was for that reason that I said that the Bill was unique. I repeat that the
1286
word "unique" means that there is nothing else like it. This is not like it. [Interruption.] One cannot have two measures that are unique. That is impossible, according to the English language. I invite my hon. Friend to study not only my speech but the Oxford English Dictionary.
The European Communities Bill was unique in that it was robbing this House of sovereign powers. Nothing like that is proposed in this Bill. This Bill does the opposite: it retains the supremacy of Parliament.
Mr. Dalyell: What bothers me about that courteous and full reply is whether we are sure that the Government will make it clear in the referendum that the package on offer has something which is far from the full-hearted consent of the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend's reply raises questions about the nature of the choice that is put in the referendum.
I do not study only my right hon. Friend's speeches. I have also studied his evidence of 20th December 1976 to the Select Committee on Procedure when he said:
"If you have a timetable it means each section of the Bill is going to be subjected to some scrutiny. On the other hand, you will have removed all the tension and the battle from a particular Bill, and that also removes the incentive to the Government to listen and to concede, and to be courteous to the Opposition."
My right hon. Friend goes on:
"You might make for much greater orderliness and provision for the discussion of each clause, but whether you would put the Government on the spot when they know that the decision in each matter is going to fall at any particular time I am doubtful. That does not mean I do not believe you have got to have timetables sometimes".
Mr. Foot: I am glad that my hon. Friend has quoted the whole passage. The last sentence destroys the argument that he is using to support his case. I do not depart from what I said on that matter, or from that which was quoted by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I have always argued that guillotine motions can have that effect. But I have also argued that guillotines have been introduced in some circumstances so that this House can act as well as argue.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to take too long. I want an explanation for this: given the constitutional nature of the issue before us and the irreversible nature of the decisions which may be made—and it is the irreversibility that worries us—will the Lord President spell out why he thinks he is not, to use one of his own memorable phrases
"showing full-hearted contempt for the democratic processes of this country"?
How does he persuade us that he is not showing, again to borrow from his own vocabulary:
"full-hearted contempt for the normal legislative processes of this House of Commons"?
Does the Lord President wish to intervene again?
Mr. Foot: No.
Mr. Dalyell: The truth is that for too long more and more people have come to think of the House of Commons as performing one primary function—that of providing Bagehot's "pool of talent" from which members of the Cabinet, the Executive, and more recently the Shadow Cabinet and the sub-Shadow Cabinet are drawn. Too little emphasis has been put on another function of the House—that of acting as a check on the Executive.
What has happened in the last ten days, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) discovered during Lords' reform is far from a filibuster. For once the House, as it did in Lords' reform, has performed its classic text-book but seldom practiced rôle of "watchdog with teeth". What has happened is not a filibuster—and I thank my right hon. Friend for saying that that has not happened. The unworkable nature of the Bill has been exposed.
This is one of the purposes for which the House of Commons exists and for which hon. Members are paid. Surely it is no disgrace for a Government to say "We brought forward measures in good faith but, in spite of the help of clever civil servants and the hardworking endeavours of Ministers, we now find that what we propose contains far more insoluble problems than we imagined". It is surely no disgrace for a Government to say that the House of Commons has done its job and has discovered problems and that they will go back and think again.
1288
What will be the reaction in Scotland? Six months ago, frankly I considered that there would be much upset. But three months ago I considered that there would be considerably less upset. Today, although there would be strident screeches from The Scotsman and the Daily Record, BBC Scotland and a number of other angry folk, mostly connected with the media, the main reaction would be a sigh of relief and astonishment that the Assembly kite ever flew so high in the political firmament.
Many electors want an independent Scottish State and will continue to want that. Jolly few people, the more they know about it, want devolution. In my experience, those who want devolution want it for the reasons that the third Bench below the Gangway opposite want it—as a stepping-stone, a launching pad for a separate Scottish State, for purposes which are not those of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They do not want devolution for its own sake or good government.
During the Committee stage I have been very critical. I think that the Bill is based on a colossal misunderstanding. In 1973 and 1974, if the generalised question had been "Do you want more say in your own affairs?", everybody, like the Gadarene herd, would have said "Of course we want more say in our Scottish affairs." Who would answer that question in the negative? But it depends on the question. The real issue now is "Do you want more say in your own affairs even if that means a separate Scottish State?"
What has happened in the last 10 days of debate in Committee has made that particular issue much clearer. I totally refute that those 10 days have been a waste of time. On the contrary, they have been among the most valuable 10 days for clarifying the real issues that this House has ever spent on any matter.
Therefore, I suggest to my right hon. Friends that they should drop this Bill. The people of Scotland will then have to make what has always been the real choice. One possible choice is the Scottish National Party and conceivably my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). The alternative is to choose those of us who voice the views which I and others have attempted to put forward during the last 10 days of debate on the Bill.

1289
In the absence of the possibility of federalism—the federal solution only becomes a realistic option if the English want subordinate legislative assemblies in Norwich, Bristol, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle—the Scottish people will have to choose between those of us who have generally voiced the views which have been put forward almost entirely from the Government Back Benches, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), and the SNP. I sometimes wonder where all the keen devolutionists are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I must not exceed my time.
Finally, I shall vote against the guillotine. This is one of the first substantive occasions on which I shall not have voted with a Labour Government. It gives me no pleasure to do this. It is with sadness that I shall do it. It is not that I shall be voting in the Conservative Lobby. Those who say that we are voting against the Bill in the Conservative Lobby might as well say that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are voting in the Scottish National Party Lobby.
It is not a question of voting in the Tory Lobby. We can argue about that. That is not the level of the debate. I shall vote against the guillotine in the belief that the more unfettered discussion that takes place in the House of Commons, the more the actual nature of the Government's best attempts at a Scottish Assembly will percolate through to the people of Scotland.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: The speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has, I think and hope, agitated all Labour Members who have successfully been masking their enthusiasm for devolution. Only two Labour Members have spoken in favour of devolution this afternoon, but especially the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis). Indeed, the hon. Gentleman—the Robespierre of Wrexham—wanted a much tougher form of guillotine to curtail the debate even more. What a remarkable attitude!
I do not want to quote from the Lord President, who has now left the Chamber—the right hon. Gentleman is nearly always here! I compliment him on his
1290
tremendous attendance. But in one passage of his great speech in May 1972, when I was largely on his side against the Common Market and when he was smashing the wretched Liberals of the day, he drew attention to the great virtue of this House—that, whatever Prime Ministers, top civil servants, or Cabinet committees may decree, there is a sense in this place that smells out when things are wrong and unworkable. As the hon. Member for West Lothian said, it is not a matter of being a Conservative, Labour, Liberal, or whatever; it is the sense of the House, which was demonstrated during proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill when Back Benchers said that it would not go through and it did not go through. The longer this debate continues, the more the difficulties of the Bill are shown up.
Such is the confusion of the Bill as it stands—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for Wrexham—that it is possible to say that the outcome is bound to be the Act Recissory, I think it was called, in 1661 when the Scottish Parliament suddenly re-established itself and declared itself independent from the joint Parliament set up by the Commonwealth. That is one possible interpretation. Another possible interpretation of the Bill as it stands is that it will be nothing more than a bogus grant of some kind of super local government to the Scottish people.
The Bill is unclear. Its unclarity has been explained by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), during the discussion on Clause 1, which states that nothing in the Bill will destroy
"the unity of the United Kingdom"
Immediately the whole charade is exposed for what it is and is to be interpreted for what it will be by the hon. Member for Wrexham or the Scottish National Party.
This is a disaster Bill, and every day that it is debated the more it is shown how absurd its pretensions are. That is why some of us in the past, including the Lord President of the Council, spoke against the absurd Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then spoke like Demosthenes showing up the wickedness of the Front Benches in trying to substitute patronage for privilege. That is what they were trying to do.

1291
When it came to entering the Common Market, the right hon. Gentleman spoke like Pericles defending the Athenians against the real enemies from without.
But tonight the right hon. Gentleman has been talking like Alcibiades, the political adventurer. This Bill is about political adventurism by certain sections not of the whole of the Labour Party, but of the Labour Party machine in London trying to play the tartan card to keep the Scottish vote. That is what this Bill is about. For all his grandness of demeanour and attendance at the House, the Lord President has led the House astray and produced a motion which all right hon. and hon. Members, independent of parties, should defeat.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I have the greatest difficulty in this debate. I do not like speaking in favour of a guillotine motion, but I intend to be in favour of this one.
I have been in this House for a number of years, and, after all the events of the last few months, I cannot help feeling that it is these next four days in Parliament that are going to matter to me. I cannot look beyond those four days.
We are facing the most dangerous issue that this House has faced for a very long time. These events have been the most traumatic experience for me—infinitely worse than when I felt that I must resign from the Government. This issue is much more serious for the country than the issue of entry into the Common Market, which I opposed.
Yet around me I cannot find an understanding of the sense of danger that we are facing. I hear those who say that there is no constituency in Scotland for devolution, that there is no overwhelming demand in Scotland for devolution. They are right. It is true. I am told that the Bill is full of anomalies, and it is true.
I am told that we are putting the cart before the horse because the problem facing the people of Scotland in the 1960s was that of jobs and unemployment and the failure of the Labour Government to deliver the radical goods, and that is true. I am told that they mistake the shadow for the substance, and it is true. I am told that they look for a constitu-
1292
tional form of expression as a means of trading with the truth and genuine social and economic realities, and it is all true. It was an error to establish the constitutional commission—the Kilbrandon Commission—in response to the rise of the separation campaign.
It is true that none of these things should have happened. The question of chauvinism and of separatist philosophies should have been fought. Battle should have been joined. We should have said that the serious matter for concern was the extension of democracy, which means Socialism, industrial democracy and spreading devolution downwards, because only then does devolution make sense.
Now, in 1977, we are in this situation. I for once do not share in the responsibility. I warned of such a situation for long enough. Some of my hon. Friends will remember me in the Parliamentary Labour Party two years ago arguing against the course of action on which the Government were embarked. I said "You cannot bring in devolution in response to a demand for independence. You can only bring in devolution in a period when one can say that it would be good and valuable to decentralise to bring administration under democratic control."
But now we have reached this stage. That battle line is overrun; that trench is occupied. Some people here are playing in the bunker while the situation rages around them. They have to understand what they are doing.
I hope that the Liberals understand what they are doing. They say that there are dangers in the Bill, that they would like federalism. That is not an objection to the Bill that could be resolved by 40, or 60, or 80 days of discussion of amendments. It is a fundamental, root and branch opposition. It has nothing to do with supporting or opposing a guillotine.
The Conservative Party has an objection to the Bill root and branch. That is nothing to do with saying that, with an extended timetable, we would have amendments brought in. The Conservatives are opposed basically to the concept of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has been right all the time—he has argued the dangers. I accept the dangers. What I

1293
am saying is that we are facing an even greater danger if we do not face the situation we are in.
There was an extremely interesting situation in Scotland last night. Fifty people were brought into a television studio, including people from the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Scottish Labour Party—its two Members here seem rarely to be present—and also business men and trade unionists. Most of them criticised aspects of the Bill, but all, with one exception, said that the Bill must go through. Even those who were opposed to aspects of the Bill said that it must be got through the House.
The reason is that it has gone out of your hands, gentlemen. The situation can no longer be solved in this House. The House can make the situation worse, but it cannot now make it better. The way in which the House can make it worse is by preventing this motion from going through, and therefore by preventing the Bill from going through the House and being submitted to the people of Scotland.
There is a story of James VI and I—I wish that Members of the Scottish National Party knew their history—as a child being brought to the very primitive, crude and corrupt Scottish Parliament. As he played on the green cloth on top of the Table, he put his finger through a hole and said:
"This Parliament has ain a hole in it."
The hole in this Parliament is the total failure to understand that this issue has passed from here and can now be decided only by the people of Scotland.
As far as I am concerned, we are way beyond the point where I am afraid of independence; we are way beyond the point of my deciding whether I wish for devolution. As far as I am concerned, it is now for the Scottish people to decide. Every person in that television programme last night said the same thing.
Mr. Alec Ferrie, who supported the recall conference of the Labour Party to bring in devolution, has said "I was wrong". He believed that we could do this and not surrender to separatism. He admits that he was in error. He can now see the dangers. But the process cannot
1294
be stopped here now because if it is it will precipitate the very thing that it is designed to prevent.
It is all very well saying that 30 per cent. of the Scottish people are opposed to devolution. I think that that is true. But I no longer care if the figure rises to 60 per cent. or drops to 10. per cent., because it is no longer important. But if those 30 per cent. see that the Bill is defeated or is dragged down in the sands and gets lost that way, the day after tomorrow they will all be devolutionists.
Mr. Lomas Mr. Lomas rose—
Mr. Buchan: I would prefer not to give way. I find this a difficult speech to make, and I do not think that any people can help me in making it.
The point is that this Bill's being lost in the sands will be the final proof of the ineptitude of Westminster government. It will not merely be a question of failure to deliver a pledge, important though that is. It is not only because there is demand for devolution—there is no major demand for devolution. There is a demand for independence, but we do not know how big. There is no major demand for devolution. One reason for that is that the Scottish people think that devolution has come. What they cannot understand is the long-drawn-out apparatus of Parliament. That is why they are not demanding it.
There are those who say that there are other problems that we should be dealing with. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and others point out that we have 1½ million unemployed and that we should be dealing with that. But that is not the option. We cannot say to the Scottish people "Drop this Bill and we will halve the unemployment rate tomorrow", because it could not happen. That problem would remain. Unemployment would not be halved tomorrow, but the problem of devolution would be added to it.
I hope that the Conservative Party realises what it is doing. I am told "You play the referendum card at the last moment". What nonsense! One could not say to the Scottish people, "Now that you have elected a majority of the SNP, let us have a referendum on it." They would be right to cry "Foul". I agree with Professor MacCormick, who

1295
says that the mandate should come from the people.
In the television programme last night there was also total understanding of the necessity for the second question in the referendum to deal with the issue of independence. I say to those hon. Members who are opposed to devolution and to those who are in favour of it that this Bill must go through. Let the will of the people decide. I believe that if the Assembly is to be created, it must have the approval of the people for it.
I do not think that approval of a single question is sufficient. That can only be of assistance to the separatist voters. That is why I have argued for the second question. I am absolutely sure that if the Bill is lost in this House, we shall see the rise of nationalism and we shall have an extremely ugly manifestation of it.
There were many people from all sections of public life on the programme last night. They included Chris Grieve, Hugh McDiarmid and Alec Scott, a great authority on Scottish literature and poetry. I was astonished when Alec said that violence will arise if the Bill does not go through the House and is put to the Scottish people.
There is an expectation in Scotland that the Bill will go through. There is an expectation and a willingness to deal with it there, including an expectation by those who are opposed to devolution. That is what I am stressing. The people who do not want devolution are saying the same thing.
Let us fight this battle up there. Let us deal with these people as we should have dealt with them. There is evil in a lot of what has been said under the separatist umbrella. If, because of the final ineptitude of this House, the guillotine motion fails to go through, I for one will shortly finish my political life in this House.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is clear that the Bill is running into a quagmire. This was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) only last week. In those circumstances it is necessary that the House should pass this guillotine motion. No hon. Member, particularly on the Opposition side, likes guillotines, but I am sure that everyone would sigh with relief
1296
if it did go through, especially after the tremendous and long debates that we have had.
Time is fundamentally a parliamentary weapon. Therefore, when the guillotine is used, it is the ultimate weapon in the hands of the Government. But all hon. Members in different parties at different times have recognised that there are occasions when the timetable motion proves necessary. My submission is that in this instance that situation has arisen.
We have now got to a crunch position with the Bill and only the guillotine motion can save it. The Labour Government's reputation is on the block. In the October 1974 election, having already become a minority Government in Scotland in February of that year, they deliberately promoted the concept of the Scottish Assembly. During the election campaign they represented it as a powerhouse for Scotland and as a solution for Scotland's economic ills. In advertisements throughout the country they promised that they would seek to introduce a Bill in the coming Parliament and that there would be a Scottish Assembly with powers to deal with substantial aspects of Scotland's affairs. At the end of their major advertisement they put the statement:
"Labour keeps its promises."
Labour Members must therefore be asked whether they are now prepared to keep that promise. Otherwise, they may be represented in Scotland, as indeed we shall represent them, as having put a fraudulent prospectus before the Scottish people in the October 1974 election. If that is their wish, they should vote against the guillotine motion. But if they wish to preserve the reputation of their party in Scotland, they should go into the Lobby on their own side and make sure that the motion goes through.
The first promise, which has already been broken, was that the Scottish Assembly would be powerful. It was said that the Assembly would be able to deal with more aspects of Scottish affairs than have been given to it under the present Bill. But the second promise, if broken now, will prove fatal to the Labour Party's cause in any General Election. I should make clear that we in the SNP will go up and down the country pointing out that the Labour Government and their supporters have broken their word. We

1297
would certainly not prevent ourselves from saying also that it was the votes of English Members of Parliament that were responsible for the killing of the Bill. Any hon. Member from an English or other constituency throughout the United Kingdom who takes the view that by voting against the Bill we shall kill the idea of Scottish self government is completely wrong.
It is perfectly fair to say that the majority of Scottish Members of this House are likely to vote for the guillotine motion. If it is defeated by a majority of English, Welsh or Northern Ireland Members, the blame will rest upon every hon. Member of this House, as well as on the Labour and Conservative Parties in Scotland.
The Conservative Party suggested a convention. I would condemn that at the outset as being a time-wasting exercise. It will be time-wasting because for 10 years we went through the various mechanisms of discussion, which resulted in a promise of self-government in a limited form being put before the Scottish people.
Mr. Raison: Does the hon. Gentleman think that this is a good Bill?
Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall make some remarks about the Bill itself. But we are talking primarily about the guillotine motion.
If the Conservative Party votes against the guillotine and, as a result, the Bill runs into the sand and particularly if there is no replacement for it, the Conservatives will suffer the political consequences in Scotland as well. They have already seen their standing in the political polls decline as a result of their opposition to the Bill on Second Reading. They, too, will have to decide what their view in Scotland will be.
It is perfectly clear that the majority opinion in Scotland regards the Bill as inadequate and full of loopholes and restrictions that will unnecessarily tie down the operations of the Scottish Assembly. I certainly do not maintain that it is a good Bill. But if we continue with a long and extended Committee stage, what guarantee is there that the Bill will be strengthened to include additional powers such as tax-raising
1298
powers and oil revenues that the Scottish people should have?
My experience has been that, apart from the amendment on Orkney and Shetland, which was rightly accepted, the Government have been backtracking all along the line. I believe that if the Committee stage is extended, we can expect the powers of the Scottish Assembly to be reduced rather than extended. We may end up with a Bill that is even more unsatisfactory.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I attended a meeting at the weekend at which there was criticism of Members of Parliament. It was suggested that if we knew that things were wrong, we should stand up and say so and vote accordingly. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this Bill is wrong and full of anomalies, and if he knows that things are not likely to be put right, how does he expect other hon. Members to stand up and vote for it?
Mr. Wilson: I shall put it to the hon. Gentleman fairly clearly. The one essential prime element in the Bill is that it restores, even to a limited degree, the right of the Scottish people to control a certain area of their own affairs. It is that element of democracy which is badly needed in Scotland and which makes this Bill, bad though it is, acceptable to those of us on the Scottish National Party Bench.
I want to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). If this Bill fails, we can be sure that in Scotland the action of this House will give rise to anger and revulsion, and I am certain that at the next General Election Scotland will be represented by a majority of SNP Members demanding independence.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: This is not a conventional type of guillotine debate, as the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) suggested in a quotation which he made. I do not think that there has been any question even of the legitimate use of time as a parliamentary weapon, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) suggested. What has happened is that, as the Bill has been discussed, it has come to be realised more and more in different parts of the House that it is un-

1299
workable. Even those who came to it without the prejudice to which I admit, soon began to see that it could not be made to work properly.
Opposition to the Bill has developed on many different grounds, largely from Back Benchers in different parts of the House, and they include hon. Members who are still united in wanting the ends which the Bill ostensibly sets out to achieve, but who have found that there are no means contained in the Bill by which they can reach those ends, no matter how it is altered.
The time in the Lord President's proposed timetable is just not enough to go on revealing these new difficulties and problems which detailed discussion has thrown up. Every time that hon. Members have thought that they have found some way out of a difficulty, that way out in itself has been found to contain fresh problems, because the Bill itself is a nonsense. That is why the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was so right to emphasise the importance of the detailed debates which have taken place so far.
The amendments and the speeches made about them were serious attempts to deal with the deficiencies in the Bill. They were argued at length, there was very little repetition, and they continued to be argued simply because of the new difficulties which were found, and they went on exposing the lack of clarity in the Bill's proposals.
As other right hon. and hon. Members have said today, it all came back to the main point—the Government's refusal to recognise the basic criticism underlying what has been said from every part of the House, including that implied by the Scottish National Party, that a separate Scottish Assembly of this kind could not work without friction.
There is the division of responsibilities in the different devolved aspects of government. There are the residual powers of the Secretary of State. There is no judicial supervision of Westminster intervention. There are no changes in the regions. It will take a long time to try to right those wrongs. But I suspect that, as we go on, it will take just as long to identify new matters of difficulty which will arise in our detailed discussion of the Bill. The timetable proposed clearly will not leave us the time that we need.
1300
Various arguments have been put forward about what would be the consequences of voting down this motion. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that there would be sighs of relief all over Scotland. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) implied that there would almost be an instant revolution. If the arguments contained in his speech were correct, we might as well not have had this debate or the Bill at all. He was saying that the people of Scotland would decide by force and that the whole matter had been already taken out of the hands of Parliament.
But I think he is wrong and that there is mounting evidence to support the argument, perhaps more in Scotland than in Wales, that, whatever it is that people want, it is not this Bill. For that reason I do not believe that the dire consequences of destroying the guillotine motion will flow in the way that has been suggested.
I do not care very much for some of the compromise ideas which have been put forward. In my view, the hon. Member for West Lothian is right. There comes a point of choice: the Scottish people have to choose between separation or unity. This Bill contains inexorably and inevitably the seeds of separation. It is the start down that road, and the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East showed clearly that this is so. He does not approve of the Bill. He does not think that it goes far enough. He does not think that it will work.
Mr. Powell: But he wants it.
Mr. Macmillan: Yes, and he is voting for the guillotine motion and he supports the Bill for one reason only. It is that it gives him a base on which to build a separate Scotland.
It is time that we in this House accepted our responsibility and showed clearly that we believe in the unity of the United Kingdom. It will not be a Tory lobby that votes against the guillotine. It will not be a Northern Irish lobby, a Liberal lobby, or a Labour lobby; it will be a Unionist lobby, and that is what it should be. That is why I hope that Members of this House who have at heart the true interests of the unity of the United Kingdom will be in that Unionist lobby tonight.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that there was a conflict of loyalty, especially among Labour Members, about this Bill, and we have heard some very emotional speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) spoke completely from the heart, and I feel that his were arguments of which those of us who sit for English constituencies must take note.
There is this conflict of loyalty in many ways. I shall not now argue about how this commitment got into the Labour Party manifesto, although there is a story there. Suffice it to say that it got into the manifesto. It was also carried by the last annual conference of the Labour Party. I shall not go into how that was done, but it was done.
There were these decisions, but, at the same time, Members of this House, regardless of their party, frequently deal with matters about which they feel so passionately, so deeply and so concerned that, even if the proposals are in their party's manifesto or carried by an annual conference, or even if the Members understand fully the basic political reasons why the decisions have been taken, nevertheless they feel that they must act according to what they believe to be in the interests of the nation which they represent in this House of Commons.
In the past I have argued in the House what I see as the Socialist case against the devolution proposals, and certainly against all forms of nationalism, so there is a conflict of loyalty. There is an additional conflict for me in that my trade union was one of the few, probably the only union, which actually debated the devolution proposals at our annual conference and which came out against them. That is why in Scotland, for example, my trade union is part and parcel of the campaign against devolution. It is anti-devolution and certainly anti-nationalist. Therefore, there are conflicts for me.
The Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing)The Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing) rose—
Mr. Heller: I do not want to give way to my hon. Friend. Like everyone else in the House, I feel that we should all make our own speeches in our own way,
1302
explaining briefly how we feel on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West referred to Scottish trade unionists and mentioned in particular Mr. Alec Ferrie, who helped to get the proposal through the Labour Party conference in Scotland and who now says he thinks that he was wrong. This is a matter on which there are deep feelings and deep concern. What, therefore, are we to do?
I have the deepest and greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We have been friends since before I came to the House, and I am sure that we shall continue as friends until the day I die, but that does not mean that I see eye to eye with him on every issue. On the issue of the European Community, for example, he was right and I was wrong for a long time, but he convinced me. If I am open to conviction, I hope that my right hon. Friend is also, particularly on such a fundamental matter as this.
My right hon. Friend rightly and honestly said that the European Communities Bill was unique. Of course it was unique. but the present Bill is also unique in its own way. It is true that the supremacy of this Parliament will remain, but it will be a sort of one-armed, one-legged Parliament, blind in one eye. Part of the decision-making will be taken away from it. The reason I do not like this is not that I am a unionist in the sense that the Tory Party is unionist, although I understand its argument. To me there is a fundamental question here. I appreciate that the Scots and the Welsh have their own culture and their own nations, but over past generations, for hundreds of years, we in Great Britain have become a mixed up nation.
I do not know whether I have Scottish or Welsh blood in my veins, but I probably have. I married a girl whose grandparents on both sides came from Dublin. Where I used to live my next-door neighbour came from Wales and was married to a girl from Glasgow. The kids were Scousers. That is our nation. I fear that there will be great danger if we draw ourselves into separate compartments.
It is no good saying that the present situation is like the Irish situation. The fact is that we went into Ireland and

1303
trampled on the Irish. But Scotland joined us on a voluntary basis, although there was a lot of jiggery-pokery at the time. We have not oppressed the Scottish people and we are not oppressing them now. In fact, sometimes when I hear complaints in the House that the Scots never have the right to be heard, I wonder who are the oppressed. More is said about Scotland and Wales than is ever said about Merseyside. If we establish Assemblies and then move towards independence, it will be terribly bad for our country.
How, then, am I to vote? I am in a dilemma. I shall not vote for the Government. I make that absolutely clear. On the other hand, I am a member of the national executive of my party and I was defeated in that national executive on this issue, so I shall either abstain or vote against the Government.
I am listening carefully to the debate, and the more I listen, the more I become convinced that we shall be making a grave mistake. I feel just as deeply, although from the opposite point of view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West. I understand his position, but I also ask our Scottish and Welsh colleagues who take different points of view to understand how we feel.
7.7 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Everyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will agree that the decision facing us has major importance for the future of our country. I congratulate the Leader of the House on allowing an extension of time for the debate. There were widespread demands for an extension and the large number of hon. Members waiting to speak shows how right his decision was.
For some hon. Members tonight's decision on which way to vote will be easy. Those who are totally hostile to devolution or any form of Scottish and Welsh Assembly will have no difficulty in making up their minds. Clearly, they will have another opportunity to try to prevent any form of devolution taking place. Equally, those who passionately believe that the Bill is just what is required—there seem to be very few of them, and I shall not name them—will
1304
also have no difficulty. The nationalist Members will have no difficulty because it does not matter to them whether the Bill is workable. Perhaps it would even help them if the Bill were not workable. At any rate, they will give the guillotine their support.
There are some of us in the middle of these groups who believe in devolution and who want to see a Scottish Assembly and who voted for Second Reading to achieve that end. I accept entirely what the Lord President said earlier—that if the Government are defeated tonight and the guillotine is not obtained, whatever we might say and whatever proposals we add to the proceedings, it is extremely unlikely that the Bill will get on the statute book in any form. I do not think that anyone would argue seriously that a revised Bill or a reformed Bill would get on the statute book. Virtually everyone in the House agrees that there are serious defects in the Bill, and we have to consider whether we should put the Bill on the statute book in spite of that, on the basis that this Bill would be better than no Bill at all.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is one of those who believe that devolution is so necessary that the House should accept a Bill which has serious defects and which he believes may be unworkable. He has argued that the provision of a Scottish Assembly under this Bill is better than no Bill and no proposals at all. That view can be put forward, but it does not impress me very much.
The Lord President said that he accepted that there had been no filibustering during the 10 days of the Committee stage. That was an important admission. One has to ask, therefore, for the reason for the guillotine. If the Government accept that the vast majority of speeches so far have been relevant, constructive and desirable in revealing defects in the Bill and in suggesting possible improvements, the logical consequence of a timetable motion is that it will not be possible for speeches to do that on the rest of the Bill.
We have dealt with only four clauses so far, and that leaves 111 to do. Therefore, the Government are saying that, for reasons which may be appropriate, it is preferable to reduce relevant, constructive

1305
and helpful debate in order to ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book.
Since we believe that there are serious defects in the Bill, we can be seriously asked to remove from ourselves the power to deal with it by all the traditional parliamentary methods only if it is reasonable to expect that the Government will accept the need for major changes to the Bill in the 20 days that they have allocated to it. We would want to be assured that they will not merely listen to the points made, not merely offer to give every consideration to them, but that they will accept major amendments. Only if we can believe that can there be an argument for agreeing to what the Government seek.
We cannot look into the future or examine the minds of Ministers, but we can consider how the Government have behaved over the previous 10 days in Committee. I have been grievously disappointed and depressed by their attitude. They have made one or two concessions. They have allowed Orkney and Shetland each to have their own seats in the Assembly. They have agreed to the referendum. They have agreed to consider the size of the Assembly. But it is perhaps significant that the only concession so far squeezed out of the Government relating to the Assembly and the way in which it will operate concerns representation for Orkney and Shetland.
The referendum may be important, but it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I do not expect the Government to agree to major changes such as I or other hon. Members might want simply in the course of debate. There have been a number of areas, however, which have revealed the Government's attitude in putting forward their proposals. I shall name three of them. Each of these is an area where the Government could have made a major concession without destroying the type of devolution they are seeking.
First, there was the question of whether there should be two Bills, one each for Scotland and Wales. There have been major demands to this effect from both sides of the House. On any logical basis there would be a case for having two Bills. But we know why the Government refused to agree to that. For politi-
1306
cal reasons they are anxious, if not desperate, to get the Assemblies established in time for the next General Election. They came to the view—doubtless they were right—that there would be no time to get both Bills on to the statute book if they gave way on this point. That reason cannot be expected to impress those of us who have doubts about the whole set of proposals.
There was then the question of proportional representation. This is a major issue and, as the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) pointed out, it was the one unanimous recommendation of the Kilbrandon Commission. I do not expect the Government simply to accept PR, but if they are being constructive and are not treating the matter in a partisan way, they should have done what my right hon. Friends did, and that was to allow a free vote so that each hon. Member could come to his own decision free of pressure from the Whips or the Front Bench about how they should vote.
If they had allowed a free vote, it would have been a gesture demonstrating their approach to the Bill. I do not know whether the outcome would have been different—that would not have mattered. It would at least have shown that the Government were not being partisan or political and were concerned not only with retaining seats at General Elections but with producing a system of devolution which worked and which was accepted by the bulk of the people in Scotland.
I come finally to the question of the rights of Scottish and Welsh Members in this House after devolution. This is a major area on which our debates have shown the Bill to be defective. By proposing substantial devolution in Scotland and Wales the Government have not proposed any alternative or similar proposals for England. In addition, they have refused to accept that the scheme has any consequences for the workings of this Parliament after devolution. I do not expect the Government to put down major amendments, but it was proposed that the matter should be referred to a Speaker's Conference to consider whether changes might have to be made either in the numbers of Scottish and Welsh

1307
Members, or in their right to participate in domestic Bills in this House after devolution.
I recall with depressing clarity that the Leader of the House not merely refused the suggestion of the matter going to a Speaker's Conference, but refused to accept that there was a problem which would have to be dealt with by this House at some time in the future. The Leader of the House and his right hon. and hon. Friends appeared to pretend that this was simply an invention put forward by those seeking to delay the Bill and seeking to be difficult. This was a matter which did not go to the heart of whether the type of devolution proposed by the Government for Scotland was desirable or undesirable, and it illustrated the Government's unwillingness to make any changes, improvements or concessions on their proposals.
On that basis the decision about tonight's vote is not as difficult as one might expect. It has been made easier by the Government's attitude. The Government are anxious that the motion should be carried. They have argued that the whole survival of the Bill and of a major plank of their manifesto depends on that motion. But why have we not heard from the Government a clear statement that this is a matter of confidence? If they believe that this is a fundamental matter which the House has to resolve o the Government will not be able to continue with their business, they clearly should have put it forward on that basis. If Ministers wish to intervene to explain why they have not chosen to make this a matter of confidence, I shall give way to them, but clearly they do not wish to do that.
Over the last three or four weeks members of the Government have not been touring the country arguing the case that the Government have put forward. The least that we could have expected was for Ministers other than the Leader of the House, the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary to make major speeches on this matter. All the other members of the Cabinet could have made one major speech each explaining why the Government believe this Bill to be vital and right in its present form. The only other Cabinet Minister to have spoken is the Secretary of State for Transport, who has made clear his own distaste
1308
for the proposals and who is reverting to a party political basis for urging their adoption by this House.
Therefore I hope that if or when this motion is defeated by the House, hon. Members on both sides will not simply assume that the whole subject of devolution will now disappear. On that point, if on nothing else, I agree with the Minister of State. This subject will be a major constitutional issue for many years to come. It may be that the only form of devolution that will be practicable will be a form that applies throughout the United Kingdom on a federal or quasi-federal basis. That is another matter.
It is quite clear to me that the Bill in its present form is defective and unlikely to work, if it is not unworkable. I am sad to say that the Government have not made any clear indication of their desire to remove these fundamental defects which have been acknowledged by both sides of the House. On that basis I shall vote "No".
7.20 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I am grateful to be able to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). I appreciate his point of view, but he spoiled his speech by introducing political motives. We are concerned with constitutional issues.
I refer hon. Members to Edmund Burke, not to the great speech he made at Bristol, which every hon. Member will know, but to another made in 1789 when he said:
"An event has happened, upon which it is difficult to speak, and impossible to be silent."
That is the way I feel about the Bill. I have taken no part in the proceedings on it, and I have no intention of taking part, because the Bill is ill-conceived, wrong and diabolical. The sooner the Government have another look at it the better.
In the debate on the European Communities Bill guillotine, the present Leader of the Liberal Party the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) quoted what Mr. Harold Macmillan had said on a similar occasion, as follows:
"They are influenced by the urgent necessity which every Government feel to carry through their Parliamentary business with some relation to the calendar and to the march

1309
of events."—[Official Report, 22nd February 1954; Vol. 524, c. 42.]
I have been in the House for twelve and a half years, and I have seen guillotine motions moved by both sides. How true was my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) when he said:
"I have sat through a good many guillotine debates and escaped from more as if they were the plague, principally because they are so incredibly ritualistic, terribly boring, and predictably impregnated with synthetic fury, depending upon which side of the House one is sitting."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 301.]
Let us decide either to say at the beginning of a Bill's passage that there shall be a timetable motion or that we shall continue debating it through the nights and keep people up, which would be nonsense. The party Whips know what happens. Their Members play cowboys and Indians, disappearing and reappearing at 2 o'clock in the morning. That is a nonsense, and the sooner we get down to the argument the better.
I have evidence that devolution is a threat to Yorkshire and Humberside. The Huddersfield Examiner, a paper worth reading by all hon. Members, has said:
"Devolution for Scotland and Wales could hit the interests of Yorkshire and Humberside today. This is made clear in a report of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, which has looked at this problem."
The report says that Yorkshire will suffer as a direct result of this devolution. What we have embarked upon is something more than joining the European Community. We are deciding whether we want to dismember the United Kingdom. I do not want to.
I am a Lancastrian. I represent a Yorkshire seat, I lived in Cheshire for 25 years, I have a flat in London, but I am English. More than that, I am British. That is the point. I stand for the unity of the United Kingdom. If this Bill in any way takes away the authority of the United Kingdom and says that we should feed it out to the Scottish, the Welsh and the Irish, I do not give a damn. We are part of the United Kingdom.
My concept of Socialism may differ from that of many of my hon. Friends. I take the view that the object of Socialism is to get rid of the barriers which divide nations and to get rid of the boundaries
1310
which divide countries from countries. Here we have a great opportunity, yet all we are doing is running on the little castles of Stormont, the little castles of Scotland, and the little isolated villages in Wales. Is this Socialism? Of course it is not.
I tell the Whips—I do not quite know who they are, bcause they vary from time to time—that I shall not vote for the Government tonight. I shall vote against them on my own terms. I refer to no better authority than—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for interrupting him, but he did tell me that he wanted to speak for just five minutes. It must have been a Welsh five minutes.
Mr. Lomas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I have one minute to go—an Irish minute.
I should like to quote from a book which I hope all hon. Members have read, written by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The subject is Aneurin Bevan. Describing how Nye Bevan addressed the Labour Party Conference, my right hon. Friend wrote:
"And he talked, too, of making the Labour Party effective in action, and of the importance of our new-found unity, and yet he could add in the next breath, and no one could challenge him: 'I do not regard loyalty to parties as the first of all loyalties. There are other supreme loyalties.'"
My loyalty is to Britain, to the United Kingdom, and I will not see us seek to dismember the House of Commons. I shall vote accordingly tonight.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) has sat through most of the speeches this afternoon, as I have. I left the Chamber for a short time earlier and was interested to find a discussion going on of the serious suggestion that this might be a Hybrid Bill. The argument is that it discriminates between British subjects of the same category, particularly between Scots and Welsh of the same category. I am not an expert in these matters, and I do not propose to devote my remarks to the subject, beyond saying that, whatever the technicalities of hybridity, I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that the Bill is divisive, or potentially divisive, of the

1311
people of this country. Because so many hon. Members in all parts of the House have made it so clear that it is potentially divisive, the Bill cannot reasonably be subjected to a timetable motion.
That has been in the minds of many of us, but I do not think that this has been the supreme consideration. I think that the greatest consideration has been the impact of the Bill on the authority—I will not even say the sovereignty—of Parliament. We have seen the authority of Parliament diminished in many fields over the past generation. We have seen defence increasingly transferred to the control of NATO and have seen our foreign policy and trade policy transferred to the European Community. In these matters I have been a consenting party; and the House has had many opportunities to debate them.
The great issue that faces the country today is our economic and social problem. Although the newspapers this morning were full of the Prime Minister's decision to maintain the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his post, we all know that control of our economic and financial policy no longer rests in the Treasury. So long as we are dependent on the IMF loan, the safety net and all the rest that goes with it, it rests in Washington. We are in a corset where economic policy is concerned and, therefore, where social policy is concerned.
Now this Bill restricts the authority of Parliament over a large part of the United Kingdom. The anxiety of hon. Members in all parts of the House is that this is dangerous, that it could lead to separation—I shall not rehearse the arguments about that; they have been repeated often enough—but if it is not to lead to separation it must be examined minutely, through the microscope of parliamentary discussion. The timetable motion before us makes that impossible. The Bill will not be subjected to the minute scrutiny that it requires.
That is perhaps the main reason why I think that the Government are wrong in going against the sense of the House, and, I may add, for what it is worth the sense of the Press, not only the Rightwing Press but The Guardian and many other expressions of opinion. When I talk about the sense of the House I should like to say this: I have been in the ser-
1312
vice of the House for some years and very often, perhaps most often, I have seen our debates dominated by sectional interests, by people speaking for business—trusts, trade unions or unions or a particulary industry—agriculture or whatever it may be. Very often we have seen people animated or influenced by personal ambition. But I think that our debates on the Bill have been the most disinterested I have had the opportunity to observe since I entered the House in 1950.
I pay tribute to those Scottish Members on the Opposition Benches who have been absolutely firm—not all of them, but those who feel that way—in saying that they are against devolution. I also pay tribute to those Labour Members who have come out against their own Government. Perhaps it has been the most difficult task for them, but they have denounced the Bill because of their deep conviction that it offends the unity of the Kingdom.
Here we have had in a sense a curious playback of the Irish Home Rule Bill, over which the extremes of the Liberal Party, the Whigs and the Radicals, found it impossible to reconcile Mr. Gladstone's proposals with their own deep conviction that the unity of the Kingdom must be preserved. Although it was contrary to their personal interests and their party interests, both the right wing and the left wing of the Liberal Party determined to stop that measure going through. With that history behind our debate, the Government would have been well advised not to press on regardless, not to think that they could use this House as a rubber stamp for a measure which is clearly unacceptable not only to the Opposition but probably to a majority of their own supporters; certainly the majority of those who have attended the debates upon the Bill.
After all, this is not a party issue. If the matter was dealt with in the Labour Party manifesto, it was in pretty small print. What we are concerned with is the unity of the United Kingdom, whther we look at the question as Tories, thinking of the importance of the defence and the economic influence of Britain, or from a Left-wing point of view, bearing in mind the importance of central planning and all that goes with it. The unity of the Kingdom is what is at stake. The

1313
vote tonight will in all probability decide whether that unity will be broken. I pray that on this issue all of us on both sides of the House will stand up and be counted.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. Eric Moonman: If the debate has been eccentric over the past few days, and even today, the Government must bear a heavy responsibility. I agree with the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that we have been given an impossible burden. We have today heard some moving speeches, some that showed the deepest sincerity. I believe that the Government have lost the sense of the House. One hon. Member said earlier that when there is a general reaction against a Bill from all sides of the House, and not only from one side, it has to mean that a Government should take care and show considerable sensitivity. To me it means that the Government have lost their touch in handling the House. That is a serious charge.
However, the Government have had sufficient warning during the Bill's progress so far. I am not impressed by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that we must take serious account of the way in which they had succeeded in all the votes thus far. We well know that the job of the Government party, through its Whips and its Ministers, is to ensure that they do just that. I do not believe that an analysis of the voting would reflect particularly well on that type of argument.
The Government have not only created a situation in which there is a division between the parties, which may be understandable. Much more fundamental, it has resulted in serious speeches day after day reflecting the genuine concern of Labour Members. The fact that one or two Members have used this occasion to say that with all the good intentions and respect they have for the Government policies, they are unable to vote for this motion tonight—and that is my position—must mean that, whatever the outcome of the vote tonight the Government must learn from it.
It is saddening that even after many days of debate and at this late stage, the
1314
suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) about some form of constitutional conference or discussion should be rejected by the Leader of the House. The right hon. Member's suggestion is an attempt to deal with some of the difficulties that we face. The idea and concept of all-party discussion is a serious one. The right hon. Member is trying to look beyond the vote at 10 o'clock and see what will happen tomorrow morning.
In debating this Bill and offering new and substantial changes, the Government shifted course in a drunken manner from day to day. I got no clue at all from the speech of the Leader of the House—and I do not expect to get it from the wind-up—that has enabled me to obtain an insight into what will happen when the Government are defeated, as they surely will be, this evening. I would like to know. It is possible that there has been no discussion even in the highest places about what will happen tomorrow and on Thursday. Thursday is another scheduled day on the Bill. If my right hon. Friend wants to add a little seriousness and constructiveness to the extraordinary attitude the Government have displayed so far, he should take on board rather more seriously the suggestions that have been made. These would help the Government, and help to place the subject on to a different level, enabling us some time to consider this important issue of devolution as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
Certainly most hon. Members are anxious to see order and purpose in our debates and most have reflected at some time or other on the worth of the guillotine. It is a perfectly legitimate device to enable a Government to assert their majority in the face of delaying tactics. It has been used on many occasions in this House by governments of all parties, and I believe that it was first used as long ago as 1881. Usually when the guillotine is used, reference is made by those wishing to see it introduced to the fact that there has been some form of filibustering going on. But my right hon. Friend did not say that delaying tactics or filibustering had been used on this Bill, and he has attended all the discussions. In fact he said that there had been no extended speeches and no filibustering.

1315
The present case differs from previous Bills that have been subjected to the guillotine. This is not a normal Bill on which a guillotine should be used. It is a major constitutional change and it is appropriate that there should be prolonged examination and discussion of the issues involved.
Although it is a Government Bill, neither the Government nor the Opposition are united in having the full support of their Members, either in favour of the Bill or in opposing it. This reflects the arguments and the uncertainty throughout the United Kingdom about the merits of devolution. This uncertainty extends not just to English, who have not been consulted at all about this subject
We have had some extraordinary references to the discussions in the election campaigns of 1974. It was not only in small print, the subject hardly existed at all in the manifestos or campaign speeches of most English Members. The uncertainties about devolution are reflected in recent public opinion polls in Scotland which suggest that the idea of opposition to devolution is growing as more people become more informed about the implications. It is a slow process. Some politicians may feel that the devolution debate has gone on too long. But among the people we represent, discussion and information began to circulate only with the introduction of the Bill last November. It would be quite wrong to hurry it through and to present the electorate with a fait accompli before the matter has been thoroughly discussed and the public debates have run their course.
Having given time for discussion, the Government should hold the referendum in Scotland, England and Wales before the Bill becomes law, instead of pushing it through Parliament without allowing time for proper scrutiny. This is insupportable. What is the hurry? What would a delay mean, except to ensure that the matter was thoroughly discussed and the legislation properly drafted?
If the reason for the urgency is the legislation that is being kept out of the House by the devolution Bill then the way to deal with this is not to cut short discussion but to defer the Bill until we can discuss it properly.
Certainly there are more urgent matters that this House should be debating, but
1316
not at the expense of a full and free discussion on the serious constitutional issues involved in the Bill. The Government have not only got it wrong, but they have misjudged the whole mood of the political scene in the House and in the constituencies. There is no clamour, case or argument for hurrying the Bill through except from a small group which has been extremely successful. But only when this small group added its voice to the debates in this House did we get to grips with the whole reality of how it sees devolution. Devolution in the sense of extending democracy is not its aim. We have heard Members of the Scottish National Party refer to the squalid way in which they demand a share of oil revenues, and this raises the whole concept of a new economic infrastructure in an Assembly.
It is to the shame of this Government that they were so impressed with these arguments that they lost the way, the insight and the sense of Members of this House, and in particular Members of their own party. That must be put right later tonight.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Iain Sproat: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) and to link the essence of his speech with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who pointed out how gratifying it was to have Members who feel deeply and strongly about the issue to see how other hon. Members in all parts of the House can rise above party issues.
One could ask why our English colleagues are not happy to get rid of the Scots. They could at least be certain of a permanent English majority, perhaps for ever. But they are sticking up not just for what is best for England, but what is best for the United Kingdom as a whole.
One of the great pleasures for me in taking part in these debates is the feeling that one is speaking above and beyond party issues. We are all here to serve this country as a whole, not just Scotland, England, Wales, or Ulster, and I count it as a great privilege to do this.
The Leader of the House started by saying that there had been no filibustering

1317
on this Bill. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) pointed out that when the Leader of the House was a lowly Labour Back Bencher, speeches of one-and-a-half hours on the House of Lords (No. 2) Bill were as nothing. In fact they were scattered like confetti through the pages of Hansard. Nobody, apart from Front Bench spokesmen, has spoken for more than 20 minutes at any stage in this Bill. There has been no filibustering.
I say this not to convince the House, because the House knows it, but I say this to the newspapers of Scotland which in recent days have spoken about filibusters. Leaders have spoken of wreckers and of attempts to talk out the Bill. I do not know whether that displays ignorance among the media, but what do they think democracy is? Are they saying that those who are opposed to the Bill should not be allowed to speak against it for 15 or 20 minutes simply because some leader writers do not like the idea? It is horrifying that those who occupy important positions in the media should be so ignorant of the methods of this House and the principles of democracy.
The whole subject of the introduction of a guillotine is vexed. Although one is more or less in favour of guillotines, depending on which side of the House one occupies, one tries to rise above such considerations. There is a general feeling in the House that we have not got our procedures quite right and that some way should be found to avoid sitting through the night on certain issues. However, I look with scepticism at those arguments. I agree that at 4 o'clock in the morning the prospect of avoiding a further two hours' debate is somewhat appealing, but the House should beware of anybody taking it for granted that it is wrong for us to go through the night if hon. Members have something to say. That is what freedom of speech is all about. Is freedom of speech to be judged by how tired people are the next day? I do not think that there is a satisfactory way of reconciling those two options.
If a Government attempt to timetable a Bill halfway through or a tenth of the way through, as on this Bill, it is self-evident that this must be wrong, if only
1318
for the reason that one cannot know in advance how much time to allocate to certain parts of the Bill. Nobody is so prescient as to know that. We all remember the recent discussion involving whether the number of Scottish Members of Parliament should be cut from 71 to 56, or whatever the figure might have been. That began as a somewhat run-of-the-mill amendment and yet the Government could not obtain the closure and discussion ran on and on.
We then ran into all the irreconcilable options involving 71 Scottish Members talking about English education, which was considered to be unfair to Members in England, and on the other hand, the consideration that if fewer than 71 Scottish Members spoke about taxation in this House it was regarded as unfair to Scotland. Those irreconcilable elements became apparent only as the night wore on. We are not all so brilliant that we pick up points of argument immediately, but the moment the situation became clear, we realised that the Government were wrong. This was an element in the Bill that they had not properly considered and they were not prepared to give a proper answer.
I do not think I have ever heard a worse speech than that delivered on that occasion by the Leader of the House in trying to reconcile the arguments. His performance was abominable because it was borne in on the right hon. Gentleman that he was seeking to maintain an indefensible position. Hammer blow after hammer blow struck home.
If we had agreed to the closure after only three hours of debate, that would not have happened and a false result would have been reached. So often in our debates the force of an argument has become clear not only because of the brilliance of the speaker, but because of the fact that many hon. Members have had the time to deploy their brilliance or their pedestrian common sense.
I am against a timetable motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill because if any bill requires microscopic scrutiny, it is this. It is equally clear that it will not get that scrutiny if the measure is subject to a timetable motion. Clearly, many amendments and clauses may hardly be scrutinised at all if the guillotine motion is agreed. The Government

1319
have no idea what important amendments may be tabled in future on this important measure, and there would be no time to debate those matters.
There can be no doubt that this guillotine is wrong. I very much hope that the prophecies made by the hon. Member for Basildon prove to be correct and that the Government will be defeated tonight. There is no doubt that the country is against this guillotine motion. I do not think that there is anybody in this House, not even a Member of the SNP, who takes the view that if a referendum were conducted throughout the country as a whole, it would prove to be in favour of the Bill. Therefore, the Government are trying to guillotine a measure that is against the wishes of the people of this country.
Mr. Eric Odgen: They could not care less.
Mr. Sproat: Who could not care less?
Mr. Ogden: I speak only for the people on Merseyside and those whom I know in England, and I do not speak for the majority of the country, but so far as my information goes I believe that the majority of English constituents could not care less whether Scotland or Wales stays or goes. Those people have no interest at all in this Bill.
Mr. Sproat: I do not believe that. I think that what is true is that the people of England have not thought about the matter with the same force and intensity as have the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland—if I may use a phrase with which I do not agree—have thought about these matters more than have the people of England. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) said that he was an Englishman but above all British. If this matter were put to the English people, they would take a similar attitude.
It is interesting to note that people in England would be against the Bill on grounds of local interest. I have received a minute of the recent conference in Tyne and Wear at which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke. It was said at that meeting that the Bill was a load of rubbish and that people wanted to chuck it out. No doubt different parts of England would wish to chuck out the Bill. No doubt if I lived
1320
in Cornwall I would take the view that because Cornwall is further from London than are certain parts of Scotland, as a Cornishman I would require something to be done about that situation. I believe that the people of Scotland are beginning to go against the Bill as well.
Reference has been made to opinion polls. Whatever else those polls show in Scotland, they certainly show a massive continuing swing against the concept of devolution. I do not doubt that the country as a whole is against the Bill, and therefore it would be wrong to pass this guillotine motion. There is no doubt what would happen if there were a free vote in the House.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I suggest that a swing that went one way in the last six months, which may cheer the hon. Gentleman, may well go another way if this motion goes against the Government tonight.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Let us not go too deeply into opinion polls. Let us stick to the guillotine motion.
Mr. Sproat: I apologise for being led down that fascinating track.
The country is against the Bill and so are the majority of hon. Members. I do not think that any hon. Member seriously contends that if there were a free vote, with no Whips, the whole Bill would not be massively thrown out. The Government have lost the sense of the House —that was a good phrase of the hon. Member for Basildon. That is exactly what has happened. The Government are out of touch with the people and with the House.
Because of false reasons and calculations that they will benefit electorally, the Government are trying to push the Bill through, but they will find that they cannot do it. At the end of the day, the Government cannot defy both the House of Commons and the people of the country. That is why they are having such problems with their own Members tonight.
It is not just a question of people causing trouble or of local interests or of the Whips being too strong or not strong enough. The House of Commons knows that if it does not defeat the Bill

1321
it will not be reflecting what the country wants.
The guillotine is inappropriate. This is a constitutional issue of such magnitude that it is totally wrong to impose a guillotine in this way. I shall not be tempted into the Common Market issue at length except to say that the Bill on that matter had only 15 clauses and the matter had been discussed for 10 years. This Bill has 115 clauses and this is the first time that we have had a chance to discuss it.
This is a major constitutional issue. We are talking about a proposal that may lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Those of us who have fought the measure since it was first mooted have done so because we believe that it may lead to a break-up. All the other reasons of cost, fresh bureacracy and an added layer of government also concern me, but what particularly worries me is the fact that we shall be dismembering our own country.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West made a patriotic speech and that is what it comes down to. Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that that which concerns their patriotic instincts is being eroded, and that is why there will be a resounding vote against the Government tonight from Welsh, Scottish, Ulster and English Members.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rested his argument upon the contribution made by the Leader of the House to the Select Committee, emphasising that once a guillotine motion fell, there would be a qualitative change in the nature of the debate that would follow. When such a point of view is put forward it is bound to have resonance from all of us, whether we have been in the House for a long or a short time. If the guillotine fell on this occasion it would mean that there would be not only this qualitative change, but that from then on, there would be an entrenched position. It would follow that the Government would no longer feel any necessity or need to yield in any way to whatever opportuning came from any quarter. On this occasion there would be another qualitative change because it has been decided that there will be a referendum
1322
and once that was known the temptation would be to talk so much not to each other but to those outside who would be participating in the referendum. Up to the present time, curiously and substantially, that temptation has been resisted because we have become involved in the debate.
The debate has been real and not artificial. We have found ourselves focusing, as parliamentarians, upon the serious contradictions within the Bill. Because we knew that and thought that the highlighting of those contradictions should take a higher place than merely involving ourselves in what could become important—the barnstorming of a referendum—we did not yield to temptation. We spoke clause by clause in a way that, as the Leader of the House rightly said, never amounted to filibustering.
But, of course, if the Government now have their way and get the guillotine, the nature of the debate will change. For the people of Wales the fall of the guillotine will mean that there will be no real possibility for any genuine debate to take place on the many issues that are arousing anxiety within the Principality. The Government's failure to fulfil their promise, made in the autumn of 1975, that in the spring of 1976 a draft Bill would be presented to the House—a Bill that would have been discussed and that would have had the attention that this is now receiving—means that this Bill has not had that attention. Had the Government fulfilled that promise, the contradictions in the Bill that are apparent to the House now would have become apparent then.
We have received no explanation at all from the Government about why—as has been pointed out—that important intermediate stage was not given as promised. We could, perhaps, have avoided some of the problems that we now face.
Nor has any adequate explanation been given and no convincing argument has ever been presented about why there are two Bills within the one Bill. The Scottish and Welsh provisions are so inextricably enmeshed within the Bill that when we made a belated attempt by way of amendment to divide the Bill, the Chair ruled that that could not be done because it was impossible to extricate the content relating to Wales from that relating to Scotland. Because of that

1323
we are now being asked to pass the guillotine motion. That will inevitably mean that most of the time that will be allocated for the Bill will legitimately be taken up with consideration of the Scottish provisions. Welsh matters are bound to become an afterthought.
If there were a consensus in Wales to accept the Bill, one would perhaps say that not very much more time was required and that the House was being generous. It could be said that if the Leader of the House devised, with the help of the Business Committee, amendments in such a form that there would be some time for Wales, that would be sufficient. But as the debate has proceeded and as interest has grown in Wales about the Bill, so there has been a rising tide of opinion against the Bill.
There have been alarms from the National Union of Teachers and there are amendments down to deal with that matter. Will those amendments be dealt with? Rightly or wrongly—but in my view legitimately—Welsh teachers feel that if the Bill goes through in its present form, their mobility will be destroyed and their salaries and superannuation will be dealt with by a body that they do not wish to deal with such matters. The responsibility for dealing with professional misconduct could fall into the hands of Welsh Assembly men who will be untried, untested, and unsuited for this task. The teachers' case will go unheard.
NALGO in Wales is now organising a lobby to the House because it knows quite well that although a spurious attempt was made to sell the Bill to Wales affecting that there was nothing within the Bill that would directly affect local government, it is clear from the references that have already been made, and those that the Secretary of State for Wales has announced that he intends to make to the Assembly, that the future of NALGO members is indeterminate and in a state of flux. It is natural that they are organising lobbies.
As the debate proceeds in Wales, the implications are understood and there is an increasing clamour for more consideration to be given to all these individual rights. Far beyond the sectional interests, there will be no time under a guillotine to deal with those matters
1324
about which Wales is so anxious. The Welsh language is an important subject but is it believed that there will be time to discuss amendments designed to provide that there will be no unfair action barring people in Wales who do not speak Welsh from promotion or reaching the elite of the new bureaucracy that is to be established?
Some people suggest that it is extravagant to claim that this could happen, but many believe that there will be no question of parity between Welsh and English but rather a claim, which already exists in some quarters, for the superiority of Welsh. Those who dispute that this might happen, base their argument on the fact that the majority of Assembly men will be able to speak only English, but that is no argument. Anxiety pervades Wales because people know the belligerent attitude adopted by so many in Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Language Society and they fear that the aggressiveness of that campaign will be pursued when the Assembly is established.
Unless the amendments to which I refer are discussed—and I do not believe that they will be—if there is a guillotine the Assembly will be bilingual and there will inevitably be a need for bilingual civil servants and bilingual staff to service the committees. It would flow through the body politic of Wales. The Leader of the House does not believe me, but many people in Wales do.
Mr. Foot: A few people in Wales might believe it because they might attach some importance to the rigmarole of rubbish which my hon. Friend has recited to the House. Of course matters can be discussed before the Bill goes through. There will be more time to discuss this Bill than there has been for almost any other Bill. For my hon. Friend to spread false alarms and fears and anxieties is a shocking misuse of his time.
Mr. Abse: The Leader of the House is losing his temper. I understand that because I understand that he is under great pressure. However, can he give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to consider the issues that I have been categorising, including teachers, NALGO and the Welsh language? Of course he cannot. There will be no adequate discussion of these

1325
major matters and a whole host of other topics that are causing concern.
For example, shall we be able to discuss the fact that, after a firm pledge that the Welsh Development Agency would be under the control of Parliament, it is apparently going to be transferred to the Assembly? This is a serious step and it means that the Agency will have—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman legitimately mentioned certain fields of government that may not be discussed because of the guillotine, but he cannot argue in detail about those matters.
Mr. Abse: The Leader of the House was suggesting that we had so much time available, and I was adumbrating some of the issues—and I had hardly begun—that everyone knows need to be discussed. Is it suggested that we shall be able to discuss the fact that, contrary to what was in the original White Paper, the Welsh Development Agency, which affects so much of the future employment in Wales, is to be transferred to the Assembly? Can the Leader of the House assure us that time is available for all these issues to be discussed? Of course he cannot.
The purpose of a guillotine is to gag and the purpose of this guillotine is to stifle the voices of those of us, particularly those from Wales, who have brought before the House issues that are being discussed in Wales.
Mr. Foot: Rubbish.
Mr. Abse: I understand the Leader of the House's problems, especially in the light of the fact that the Gwent County Council, within whose area both our constituencies fall, has unequivocally declared in the past week that it wants nothing to do with the Bill. I understand that the Leader of the House is under great pressure.
The purpose of a debate such as this is to make clear to the people of Wales that we shall not have an opportunity to reshape the Bill which the majority of people believe to be so replete with contradictions that it is unacceptable. If the Bill went through in its present form, it would be offensive to all those
1326
who believe that in these days, as perhaps never before, there should be no emphasis upon national distinctions because when we look at our children and realise that they are in danger of becoming the last generation in an atom bomb age, boundaries should be blurred and not emphasised.
The Bill is contrary to the views of those who are inspired and moved by a belief that, however difficult it may be, people have to rub out old national identities and reach out to become citizens of one world. When we see a Bill of this kind, that is fundamentally sick in its nature, we are concerned that there should be any attempt to curtail discussion. It is not a decentralisation Bill; it institutionalises ethnocentric views and they always bring the corollary of xenophobia.
If we allow the Bill to go through in its present form we shall divide the Kingdom and divide the workers of Great Britain. Wales has always made a great contribution, reaching out beyond parish pump politics and parochial views. Its people want to see these issues fully debated because, as yet, they have not begun to be debated. The Leader of the House cannot expect me and many other hon. Members from Wales to support his motion.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Godber: In view of what the spokesman for the SNP said about oil revenues, I declare my interest as chairman of one of the smaller oil companies operating in the North Sea. It has no bearing on what I wish to say, but I should not want the House to be misled.
I seldom speak in the House nowadays and when I came into the Chamber I had no intention of seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I was so totally dissatisfied with the speech of the Leader of the House and I found some of his arguments so repugnant that I have found it necessary to seek to catch your eye.
We are involved in a serious debate on an issue of the most major importance that it is impossible to exaggerate. I have participated in, and even defended from the Government Front Bench, guillotine motions on more than one occasion. I know that guillotine motions have to

1327
take place if the business of the House is to continue. Although Oppositions always denounce them and Governments always defend them, that is something that I think we all understand and accept. However, I find it difficult to consider this guillotine motion in the same way as the majority of those that have come before us. This is an issue of such tremendous importance that we cannot judge it in that way.
As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have made clear, there is a genuine fear— the Government may not share it—that the Bill could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. If that view is honestly held, as it is, by many hon. Members, they are fully entitled to use every device of the House to seek to prevent the Bill from becoming law. That is a tradition of the House and I think that the Leader of the House should bear that in mind.
It is not for me to come between the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends when he talks about a farrago of nonsense and wasting the time of the House. That seems strange from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman when I recall what he has said on many occasions in the past. In the past I always admired the present Leader of the House for the way in which he stood up for the traditions of the House, but I am now finding it more and more difficult to do so.
When the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech this afternoon that he sought to invoke the honour of the House, that was one step too far for me. I do not see how this Government, and certainly not this Leader of the House, can invoke the honour of the House in the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon. I denounce that attempt because I treat it as being contemptible.
It seems that the Government have let their wishes run away with them in this regard. I do not wish to take a long time as I know that there are many who wish to speak, but I place on record my feeling of revulsion on hearing the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. My determination to vote against the motion has been reinforced rather than lessened.
1328
I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am opposed to the motion. I am opposed to the Bill because I believe passionately in the unity of the United Kingdom. I believe that that unity is being put at risk. There are those who may disagree with me, but I believe that there are many in the House who feel as I do and who are entitled to express their view and to continue expressing it.
If one is to seek to invoke the honour of the House, I suggest that such honour rests truly and honestly in the minds and hearts of those who are willing dispassionately to consider an issue of this sort and to come to their own decision and their own judgment. That is the way that I believe that the honour of the House really lies and can be tested. I believe passionately in that concept. That is why I entered the Chamber to say what I have just said. I do not often intervene in debates nowadays but I could not let remarks pass such as the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon without refuting them as I do now.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Several hon. Members have referred to the Bill as being divisive. I imagine that they mean divisive not necessarily purely in the House but having a divisive impact in Scotland and Wales as well. What we must consider is whether the rejection of the attempt to bring the main issue to a decision would not be far more divisive. That is the anxiety that many of us sincerely hold.
Like other hon. Members, I have had experience of guillotine measures over many years. I know full well from experience that the determined and implacable opposition of a relatively small group of Members can at any time prevent any Government from getting their business if they are not prepared to use the guillotine procedure. We have had experience of that on many occasions. In some cases my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has taken part and in some cases he has not. The small group concerned will always arrogate to itself the authority of speaking on behalf of the whole House. Indeed, in more expansive moments it will very often say that it is speaking for the whole country, although it is a bit difficult sometimes to discover how it achieves that understanding.

1329
It is true that there have been some majestic occasions when a small and determined minority has expressed, as time has gone on, the real, wider feeling in the country. I do not deny that, but it would be arrogant for any minority group to suggest that that is inevitably so. I suggest that it is arrogant for some of my hon. Friends and for some Opposition Members to make such a claim on this occasion.
Dr. Phipps: To suggest that it is a small minority of Labour Members that is trying to prevent the passage of the Bill is surely to mislead on the basis of all the evidence that we have had during the past two years. Is my hon. Friend prepared to speculate on what would have happened had the Government Front Bench been prepared to give Government Members a free vote?
Mr. Blenkinsop: Hon. Members can take their own view of the matter in their own way. The Government are entitled to use the guillotine procedure to ensure in this case that the issue is brought to a decision. The danger is that if a guillotine procedure were not used the whole issue would drift into the sands as on previous occasions and no decision would be reached. In all probability unless special action is taken almost certainly the views of those in Scotland and Wales who are especially concerned will not be taken into account, or at least that is a considerable possibility.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) rose—
Mr. Blenkinsop: I have no intention of delaying the House unduly, and, therefore, I shall not give way any further.
Naturally Members in the North of England are particularly concerned and affected by the present position. I am not surprised that some of my hon. Friends take a strong and implacable view about the Bill. Indeed, other Members have expressed such a view. What should be made clear is that many of them who take that sort of view have taken it perfectly honourably and properly against the whole procedure of the Bill. But some are giving the impression that their objection is to the amount of time available for the Bill. In my view
1330
that is not the real background of feeling of most of those who have expressed an opposition attitude during the debate. Their real opposition is to the proposals in the Bill.
It is right that North of England Members especially should feel particularly affected by possible changes in Scotland. I suggest to my hon. Friends who take that view that while there are clear dangers in the proposals contained in the Bill there are also clear dangers if these measures are not carried through in some such form as we have them before us today.
We shall not escape our problems in the North of England by rejecting this motion. One of my anxieties is lest this issue should be used as an excuse for our not tackling adequately ourselves the major economic and other problems that we face. We should be very unwise to use this issue as that kind of excuse.
Of course we need to fight for vigorous action. For long enough I have wanted an elected regional body in the North of England. I see that inevitably as a longterm issue for the future, but there are many immediate issues for which we can rightly fight now, including perhaps a development agency or some regional development of the National Enterprise Board. They are important matters for us in view of the industrial, economic and financial issues that face us in the North.
However, we shall be facing those problems whether the Bill goes through or not. Anyone who imagines that voting against this motion will be a brave stroke for the North is in for a real disappointment. Some of my hon. Friends may be deluded into a vote against the guillotine with that impression. I fear that they will find that they are mistaken.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: It is hardly for me to speak for the North of England—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."]— I am happy to speak for the whole of Britain: that is what this whole story is about—but I would just say to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that the consequence of the Government's measure will be that when the arguments take place about the national cake or the block grant or whatever it is called, Scotland will have a Secretary of

1331
State, an Assembly, an Executive and 71 Members of Parliament to press its arguments. They will form a powerful phalanx and the North of England will be liable to come out very badly as a consequence.
I make no bones about wanting the guillotine to fail because I want the Bill to fail. Throughout this long Committee stage—and there is much more to come—now procedure has worked. Parliament has given the Bill a scrutiny and an analysis that have not been given to it by anyone else. It is a fairly common experience that what the Press says one week Parliament says the next. This time, it has been the other way around. It is we who have carried out the analysis and shown the great weaknesses of the Bill.
I do not propose to go through those weaknesses in detail—we have done so before and shall be doing so again—but it is significant that the Liberal Party, which started with enthusiasm for the Bill, has changed its position as a result of this analysis and that some of my hon. Friends, like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who were ardent devolutionists have come to see the weaknesses of this structure.
It has become apparent that the Bill is not capable of remedy by amendment. Its structure is too profoundly wrong. We know the reasons—above all, the attempt to graft the Executive and the Assembly in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales on to a unitary structure. Another is the attempt inherent in the Bill to split social and economic policy which just cannot be done.
We know, too, of the effect of the Bill on the unity of the United Kingdom, which was dealt with in one of our longer and most important debates. The Govverment themselves have recognised in their White Paper "Our Changing Democracy "that these proposals concern the whole United Kingdom. That is an important point to remember.
Also we have established that the Bill is a vehicle for unremitting friction. The block grant is the most obvious example, but one thinks also of the strong formal position that Scotland will be in. That is bound to generate friction that has never existed before. We have in the past taken a reasonable view of the problems of each of the member countries of
1332
the United Kingdom. We have been content to assess their needs and to accept that if Scotland has great needs, judged objectively, it should receive a large share of the resources. But from now on we are bound to look at these matters in a more nationalistic and competitive way.
I shall not go into the whole imbroglio of Scottish and Welsh representation, but I have stressed before the parallel, point about the extraordinary difficulty of trying to operate under concurrent powers. This was interestly illustrated during discussions on a Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on Friday when Scottish Members supported his view that that Bill should contain provisions for how Scotland should deal with homelessness. Even a Scottish hon. Member who is in favour of devolution thought it right that that Bill should contain provisions for Scotland. If the Government scheme goes through, every Scottish hon. Member of Parliament will have the right to introduce Private Member's Bills concerning devolved matters in Scotland. Can anyone say that that is not a recipe for chaos?
There are many arguments that one could make—bureaucracy, the failure to have one Bill for Scotland and another for Wales, and whether the Bill is really wanted. My view is that we should defeat the guillotine with a view to defeating the Bill.
However I recognise that if we defeat the guillotine, that does not bring an end to the question. I recognise that there is a problem that has existed for some time and that will not go away simply because we score a victory in the Lobbies tonight. Expectations have been aroused. There will be some anger if the guillotine is defeated. But it is better to face that anger now than to allow ourselves to enter into the damaging friction that is inevitable if the Bill is passed.
I reject the blackmailing tones of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who tried to frighten us out of our own views, just as I reject the arguments of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), although I have more respect for his argument. He said that Parliament is no longer capable of deciding what the debate is about, that

1333
the argument has gone too far in Scotland and that he wants this cockeyed referendum. This matter is not appropriate for a referendum because of the complexity of the issues.
I accept that if we chuck out the Bill that will not be the end of the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) had force in his argument that the Bill should be taken away and examined carefully. I do not entirely go along with him because it would not be possible to carry out that exercise as quickly as he indicated.
We can see that there are many difficulties. We cannot achieve answers to them in a few months. In a way, the mechanism of debating the Bill in Parliament has proved to be perhaps as effective a way of looking at the implications as would be the setting up of a constitutional conference. I am not too depressed—although I waver on that view—that we should carry on the debate on the issue by one means or another, even if it is by continuing the passage of the Bill.
We have shown that we are capable of carrying on this debate. We are debating these matters with a true responsibility, because at the end of the day we are answerable to our electors, and perhaps even to history, in a way that cannot be said of the Kilbrandon Commission, for instance. There are all kinds of issues. I shall not list them all. First, there is bound to be the question whether anything can be salvaged from the Government's structure. There is the question of tax raising and economic powers generally.
There is the federalist argument. I do not believe in it. I disagree with the Liberals. But it is right that that suggestion should be aired and argued to see whether there is anything in it. There is the Conservative Assembly-only approach. That idea will perhaps come up in subsequent debates, because it has a real chance of overcoming some of the difficulties in the Government's scheme.
There is the question of what the separatist parties want. I am not unprepared to listen to their views. It is right that Parliament should hear what they have to say. There is, of course, the
1334
fundamental question whether we need any devolution at all, and there are other questions which we should take seriously.
I have long believed that from time to time we are insensitive towards Scotland and Wales. One example which is often put to me is that ITN shows English First Division football results but not Scottish First Division football results. There may be something in that.
There are other more serious points. I believe that this Parliament could with great benefit sit in Edinburgh a couple of times every year. If we were to broadcast our proceedings on television as well as on radio, that would show that Parliament is not such a remote body as is sometimes argued. The power of television is capable of bringing the Government closer in reality to people in their homes than by picking up part of the apparatus of Government and plonking it down in Edinburgh. However, I cannot refrain from saying that the bureaucracy is in Edinburgh already. There are only 60 Scottish Office civil servants in London.
The case for chucking out the guillotine motion tonight is incontrovertible. The whole debate today has only served to reinforce that proposal. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who care for the future of the United Kingdom and for sensible government will take their opportunity in the Lobbies this evening.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. Fred Evans: It would be trite of me, in the heat and pressure of creative informative events and issues —this debate contains all those elements —to say that we do not sometimes overlook the obvious.
We should remind ourselves that the institution of Parliament rests on the consent of people to accept a social democracy as a form of government. Underpinning that faith is the use that the Government make of their opportunities to convince the people that they are trying to elevate their living standards in some degree or other.
The people of Wales will be watching this guillotine motion debate very carefully. Anything which erodes the consent of the people to this institution erodes social democracy. What erodes the

1335
credibility of the Government is not necessarily the same as that which erodes a fundamental belief in social democracy as a form of government. That is where my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House misses the point completely.
I should like to illustrate one of the confusions into which my right hon. Friend has entered. What has almost become an argument with him is the question: who has captured the mind and imagination of the ordinary person—the grass roots of the movement? My right hon. Friend claims that, because the Bill has gone through certain established conventions of consultation, it has that necessary fundamental grass roots support. It has not. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) outlined some sections—the teachers, the law societies, NALGO, many farmers in Wales, the Church in Wales and others—who have turned their faces against this exercise. That feeling is growing—so much so that, since this debate began—which was last week because of the threat of the guillotine—the two Swansea constituency Labour parties have met in a joint management committee to consider their attitude.
If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not know the feeling inside his own party, I cannot trust his judgment when he tries to arrive at an evaluation of the feelings of all the people of Wales. The two Swansea parties overwhelmingly rejected the Governments proposals. I have had a letter from the joint secretary-agent telling me that the "Vote No'" campaign initiated in my constituency will receive the complete support of the two Swansea constituency parties, and that they will refuse to give any help in any campaign run by the Welsh Council of Labour.
The city of Swansea is a sizeable area. Add to it Pontypool, Caerphilly, Bedwellty and Aberdare constituencies and the thing is only beginning to grow now under the force of this Bill and the threat of the guillotine. That that campaign will grow until it becomes irresistible in Wales is self-evident.
Let us look back on the history of how this situation came about. The people in Wales, watching the application of the guillotine, will say "They promise us something and then they do not give it
1336
to us. They invent reasons for not granting us what they said they would give. After taking a hammering, they said that they would give us a referendum, and then they began to talk about something called a consultative or a mandatory referendum." Try to explain to the man in the street the difference between a consultative and a mandatory referendum: all he will say is "The so-and-so's promised me something and they are not going to give it to me." That state of affairs and now the application of the guillotine are arousing great wrath already —wrath which will sweep away a great deal of what my right hon. Friend has been trying to do.
The latest move is the use of the guillotine because the Government have been forced to shift ground, to move from one strategem of placation to another—granting a referendum, for example, and then moving away from it—trying this avenue and that, simply because they began with the Kilbrandon Commission, the worst advisory committee ever appointed by a Government. Out of the thinking of that ill-conceived report was inherited the thinking and structure of this Bill. Then the Bill got into the hands of the parliamentary draftsmen, who are not concerned with humanising its structure.
We end up with a Bill which, from the first, could not possibly escape the fate of the guillotine. But even with the guillotine, it will have very little chance of getting through. Welsh Labour Members asked my right hon. Friend's predecessor as Leader of the House for separate Bills, but we got a stoney answer. We have been to my right hon. Friend asking him to send for us when he wanted consultation. We said that we would do all that we could to try to solve the problem. But it was not until very lately that these avenues were granted to us.
When in all honesty we tried to get our own Government off the hook, they ran, panicked and conceded, as a placatory move, some kind of devolution to Scotland and Wales and wriggled more snugly back on to the hook. Nothing we could do could persuade them to leave the hook, which they had learned to live with as their blood brother, because it was letting their own blood. We arrived at the present situation where we are now

1337
to bring down a guillotine to try to end what in the eyes of the people of this country, and many hon. Members, has become a farce.
If we took a consensus inside this House there is hardly anyone who does not believe in devolution of a kind. We want the right kind of devolution. We want more power and nearer power so that the ordinary person can recognise power for what it is and the part that it has to play in the creative formation of the society in which he lives. It should be power that will give him a voice, for my part a dominant voice, in the shaping of his community affairs. That is true devolution.
That is what many hon. Members in this House would like. But a guillotine will once more bring fears such as the break-up of the United Kingdom to the forefront. As someone who is truly Welsh I cannot find it in my heart to do to the people of Wales what this Bill would do if the guillotine motion were passed tonight.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. George Gardiner: We are coming to the end of this debate and I shall do my utmost to keep my remarks brief. Like the Lord President and the Minister of State I have sat through most of the hours of the Committee stage discussion. I shall try to be fair to both of them. We have often heard the history, and the commitments which were made, that led to this measure. Looking back, I believe that many of us would agree that these commitments were rather too easily made. In the past I have been critical about my own Front Bench as well. I think that we made commitments rather too easily as well. But whoever has made these commitments there was no proper United Kingdom discussion of them at the time.
The achievement of this Committee stage is that it has brought the details of a devolution plan into open discussion, involving all parts of the United Kingdom. As we have proceeded —and as other speakers have pointed out—the difficulties have been exposed ever larger—difficulties involving and calling into question the relations between the different parts of our United Kingdom. There were difficulties over representa-
1338
tion in this House when we have devolved Assemblies. There were difficulties about the voting rights of Scottish and Welsh Members in this House in those circumstances. There were difficulties over the rôle of the referendum and there was the difficulty of those eligible to be consulted in a referendum which affects the whole of this Kingdom.
All these were big issues which were never properly examined before. But in the 10 days of our Committee Stage they have been discussed. More difficulties are yet to come. There are difficulties on which we have not yet touched, such as the difficulty over relations between the Assemblies, particularly the Scottish Assembly, and legislation passed by this Parliament. There is the difficulty of relations between the proposed Assemblies and other United Kingdom bodies.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) listed some of the matters which the Welsh are worried will not get proper debate and discussion if the Bill is guillotined in this way. There are English matters as well. There are some matters which deserve Bills of their own, like the reconstitution of the British Tourist Board. What guarantee have we that they will have adequate time for discussion, either? There are the difficulties to which other hon. Members have alluded of the financial arrangements regarding the block grant, accountability, and bringing in, too, the regions of the country.
All our debates so far have brought out the very deep issues which are involved here, and they have exposed the inadequacy of and the very danger that lies in these proposals. Surely the Government should now recognise this. But a guillotine motion is the very reverse of recognition. I put it to Ministers that, by curbing debate, they will increase the dangers implicit in the Bill. They will increase the resentments which have been aroused by their proposals. By imposing a guillotine, they will turn a Bill which began as a deformed creature into a monster.
There is another course which is now opening. In all generosity, let us remember that most Ministers looking back on their careers will remember occasions when some almighty mistakes were made.

1339
I think that it is the test of great men in politicsi—indeed, it is the test of a great Minister—if they can recognise when a mistake has been made and find a way to retract and rectify it.
Such an opportunity is presented now by the constitutional convention which has been suggested from the Liberal Bench, advocated from the Opposition Front Bench today and echoed in other parts of the House. I am the last to claim that a constitutional convention will be easy and that it is some magic wand solution to all the problems which have been brought out in our debates. I do not believe that for one moment. The problems will still be there, and the basic problem will not run away.
But at least such a conference offers us the chance to see whether we can reach some broad agreement which meets the needs of all parts of the United Kingdom and which gets us away from the structure put before us by the Government which was worked out solely within a Scottish and a Welsh context without any proper regard for the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is in that spirit that I appeal to the Lord President not to press on as though the past four weeks of debates had never happened.
I believe that this Bill has opened up the possibility of very dangerous moves against the body politic. A Labour Member said that this Bill was making nationalists of us all. If this motion is passed, I fear that this wound will get bigger and that it will bleed for longer. That is an impossibly high price for us to pay for obstinacy.
By its vote tonight, the House of Commons must proclaim its desire to find a different way out of these problems. It has been said by other hon. Members, and I say again, that tonight's vote cannot be regarded as a party issue. If the guillotine Motion is defeated, I shall not as a Conservative Member, have any cause to crow over the Government. But I shall be very proud to have been a Member of a House of Commons which asserted the unity which binds many of us together, that being our belief in the unity of our Kingdom and, above all, in the need to protect it.
The "No" Lobby tonight as other hon. Members have pointed out, will be not a Conservative lobby, a Liveral
1340
lobby, or an Ulster Unionist lobby, but a United Kingdom Lobby. It will be a United Kingdom vote. I put it to the House that, if it can be a decisive United Kingdom vote, that alone will undo a great deal of the damage which has been inflicted on our body politic over recent weeks.
9.0 p.m.
Dr. Colin Phipps: My hon. Friends the Members for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) both pointed out that today's debate and today's vote are not really about the guillotine. They are about the passage of the Bill. I accept that entirely. That is the view that most opponents of the Bill on the Government side of the House would take, but it does not follow that those who will be voting against the motion tonight are necessarily utter and complete opponents of devolution.
For two years, both in the Labour Party and in the House, we have been trying to get across to the Government that if there is to be devolution, it has to be devolution on a United Kingdom scale which takes into account not just the legitimate aspirations of the Scottish and Welsh people but the legitimate aspirations of all British people. It is for this reason that Members like myself have been saying to the Government, since long before the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) suggested a constitutional conference, that the Government should withdraw the Bill and look at it again in the light of the full, detailed and excellent debate that we have had during the past 10 days.
The Government have no excuse now for saying that they do not know the views of the House. They have sufficient information to take the Bill away and come back with something that is much more acceptable to all shades of opinion. This is not a new suggestion. I have made it before, as have others of my hon. Friends. If the Government held such a conference or convention, the views of Labour Members who oppose the Bill, views which have been so strongly expressed, would be taken into account. I hope that a place would be found in that convention for my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse).

1341
I am not opposed to the Government of the day having a guillotine. The timetable motion is the sort of weapon to which all Governments will have recourse from time to time, but, surely, whether the guillotine motion succeeds or fails depends on whether Governments have the full-hearted consent of the House of Commons on particular measures. The House has not given its full-hearted consent to this measure, and it has not done so from the word go.
The real reason for not supporting the guillotine tonight is that not only are large numbers of Back Bench Members opposed to the Bill, but we know that a large number of members of the Government are opposed to it. It is not for me to bring out a list of these people, but I assure the House that a list exists. Most of us have been talking to friends and colleagues in the Government who are known to be opposed to the Bill.
If the Bill had been brought to the House on a free vote, and if this evening we were having a free vote—it is all very well to say that every vote is a free vote, but it is not a free vote for members of the Government—there would not be the remotest possibility of the Bill and guillotine getting through, and everyone knows it. I would be extremely surprised if the Government could get 120 Members in the Aye Lobby tonight on a free vote. If for no other reason, we must reject the guillotine because it does not have the full-hearted consent of the House.
I do not believe that rejection of the guillotine would necessarily be a defeat for the Labour Party. It would certainly be a defeat for the Executive. I believe that in the Lobbies tonight we shall have a victory for Parliament.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: The main points of principle have already been made in the debate, but on a point of detail I think it useful to refer to one point made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President early in the debate which has not yet been taken up. He said that he would not make a case about delay or filibustering, and he said that in general both sides of the House would accept that there had not been any undue delay.
But he then quoted one example on which he felt, although he did not make
1342
much of the point, that the debate had been prolonged. I should like to put on record that that occasion was one on which the Government themselves changed the wording of the main proposal on the referendum, and therefore this objective circumstance of considerable constitional importance had a great deal to do with why so much more time was spent on that debate. There is, therefore, a shared responsibility between the Government and many hon. Members for that occasion.
While it is obviously true that the Bill and the background to it form much of the substance of our debate, we should not forget that the Division tonight will take place on the timetable motion, a motion upon which the Government, on their own initiative, are asking the House to pass judgment. They are asking for a judgment not on the Bill, but on the motion, and they did not have to do that.
I should like to refer now to the function of the House of Commons as a great national debating forum. Debate is going on in Scotland and Wales, but also in England, and the House of Commons provides the opportunity for giving more information for this informed debate. In a very moving contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred to the debate which was televised from Glasgow last night. I saw that broadcast. The remarkable thing was that of 60 participants in that programme my hon. Friend and perhaps two others were the only ones who supported the Bill. Many of them said that the House of Commons should not refuse to pass the motion tonight, but very few of them had anything good to say about the Bill. Many of them were severely critical of it.
Glasgow is a major city in one of the two parts of the United Kingdom involved in this Bill. In view of the state of the debate, is it right for the Government to ask the House of Commons to impose a timetable on the debate? It is obviously wrong at this time.
Mr. Buchan: Is it not also true that every one of those 50 participants said that the timetable motion should go through tonight and that the Bill should be submitted to the Scottish people for decision? That was the key feature to emerge from last night's debate.
Mr. Mendelson: Not everyone said that. A number said it, and others said other things. However, 57 of the 60 present were severely critical of the Bill. The representative of the AUEW said that he was completely opposed to the legislation because it would split the British working class at a time when it most needed to be united. The General Secretary of the TUC said that he was in favour of the Bill, although he had reservations about economic policy.
The state of the debate is such that our debates here have alerted people in every part of the United Kingdom to the real implications of the legislation. This is no time to curtail the debate with a timetable motion. Let the debate continue.
Finally, if ever there were a House of Commons matter—in the light of what hon. Members have said—this is it. Let there be no narrow view about hon. Members' duties to this House. As far as I am concerned, the Lord President defines "unique" by arrogating the power of definition. To him the Common Market Bill was unique, and so it was. To many of us this Bill, equally, is unique. It depends upon who happens to have an Oxford dictionary under his arm when he produces the definition.
I submit that when the debate is over and people look back upon it they will argue that these occasions equally were unique. Let hon. Members act accordingly when they decide how to vote to-night. I am opposed to this timetable motion on constitutional and political grounds, and on those grounds I shall vote against it tonight.
9.11 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It has been a remarkable debate. I cannot remember a guilotine debate quite like it. Normally, such debates are partisan and violent, but tonight's has been thoughtful, anxious and understanding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) emphasised its non-party nature and spoke of the deep convictions that had been exposed. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) drew attention to the deeply serious speeches.
A feature of this debate has been the number of references to the guillotine on the European Communities Bill, and, in particular, to the speech made on that
1344
occasion by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), now Lord President of the Council. I start from the basis that timetable motions have a regrettable but necessary place in the proceedings of Parliament. I therefore have no intention of being as intemperate tonight as the right hon. Gentleman was.
At a time when many hon. Members from both sides of the House are giving anxious thought to the decision that they will take when the debate ends, I welcome the fact that on the whole we have avoided the usual exchange of ritual insults. But the words of the Leader of the House stand on the record and some of the things he said on that last occasion have an enduring ring of truth about them.
AS has been pointed out, the Lord President cannot claim that he has the full-hearted consent of Parliament. There are few who would wholly disagree with his statement then 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 in any case."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235.]
The Lord President, to his credit, has never pretended that he could obtain full-hearted consent from Parliament. He has never offered the special measure of tolerance, the special measure of acceptance, and wider unity that one should have for a measure of this constitutional importance, as he said in the EEC debate. From the start he has sought to fight his Bill through, largely on the basis that this was a measure promised in a manifesto. That, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, is one difference from the approach urged upon us by the Kilbrandon Commission.
We may feel that in doing so the right hon. Gentleman has made a profound mistake. Many will regret that he has not sought a consensus in the House. But none of us can charge him justly with dissembling. However unwise, he is entitled to pursue the matter in this way. I therefore make no charge of the kind he made against my right hon. Friends in 1972.
But though I do not wish to follow too closely the precedents then set by the right hon. Gentleman, that debate on the European Communities Bill seems to be the best

1345
precedent we have. Like the Bill before us, the European Communities Bill was a measure of immense constitutional importance, fundamentally affecting the rights of this Parliament and the future of the United Kingdom. Like this Bill, it was a measure about which opinions crossed party lines. As on this occasion, there was no suggestion by the Government that there had been a filibuster or unreasonable behaviour by the Opposition. I welcome the categorical statement by the Lord President that he made no accusation of filibustering. He went out of his way to emphasise that.
But if there are similarities in the nature of the two Bills, they end when we turn to the motion. I could hardly believe my ears when the Lord President compared the two motions to his own advantage. When I look at what was on the Order Paper on 2nd May 1972 I cannot help but be struck by its generosity, at least compared with the meanness of what is now proposed, though there were some, the right hon. Gentleman among them, who thought that it was not generous enough.
Tonight, after 14 days of Second Reading and Committee, we have a motion which allocates 20 days to the remainder of our proceedings. That is 34 days in all on a Bill of 115 clauses and 16 schedules, to which has been added a whole new Bill on a referendum, and to which about 40 new clauses and more than 900 amendments have already been tabled.
On the previous occasion we had a 12-clause Bill with four schedules, and 12 days were allocated, making 26 in all, with 22 in Committee. There had previously been a whole series of debates on the principle, and by the end of the proceedings the House had devoted more than 300 hours to discussions of the Community, over 200 of them on the Bill. But it was then argued, as it was argued by the Lord President again tonight, that that was a unique Bill affecting the whole constitutional position of the House and the country. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale then thundered that
"statistical comparisons with other Bills do not have any application".—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 225.]
History has a curious way of repeating itself. Now we have another Bill affect-
1346
ing the whole constitutional position of the House and the country, and statistical comparisons have an application. I accept the Lord President's definition of "unique", but what was then unique is no longer unique. My fountain pen is unique until someone makes another like it.
In 1972 the critics said that they had to take account of all the Acts affected by but not listed in the Bill and that time must be found to consider them all. The right hon. Gentleman spoke then of the 50 or 60 Acts, hundreds of treaties and thousands of regulations incorporated in Clause 2. Tonight we can equally justly refer to the 131 Acts specifically referred to in Schedule 6 and the 181 mentioned in Schedule 7, not to speak of many more in Schedules 4 and 5. Today we may not be concerned with more than one treaty, but we can speak with accuracy of hundreds of Acts and thousands of regulations referred to in the schedules.
All will have to be considered or debated in not more than three or four days—or so I am forced to estimate, for one of the other regrettable features that distinguish this occasion from the last is that we have no choice but to estimate. The Government have elected to stand by the procedure laid down in Standing Order No. 43 rather than to spell out the allocation of time. I would not have criticised them for that if they had indicated the kind of allocation they will propose to the Business Committee, if they had given some guidance to the House on how they thought it possible adequately to debate such an immensely complex and important Bill in so short a time.
The truth is that they have not done so because they dare not. They know that if they were to put before the House a paper setting out the allocation, the motion would be lost, because the absurdity, the monstrous injustice of what they propose, would be revealed.
This brings us to the central point of our discussions. The sole practical and moral justification for the timetable motion is that it ensures that all aspects of the Bill are adequately debated and all clauses discussed. That was the principal justification for the timetable motion on the European Communities Bill. That was the reason why the Liberal Party gave its support to it, as its Leader said

1347
this afternoon, and lack of adequate discussion is the reason why the Liberal Party is refusing its support tonight.
It is no good saying that this matter will be left to the Business Committee. That Committee is not capable of miracles. The Government know what they intend to recommend, and as soon as this debate is over no doubt the Leader of the House will produce a piece of paper and give it to the Business Committee. So far, he has kept this information from the House. He could still give it to us tonight, he could put it on the board in the Lobby so that hon. Members could see it. But he will not, because that is the paper that alone would sink this motion, and we are entitled to be angry that we are being denied it.
On this side we have given a good deal of thought to what is possible, and it is fairly certain that our guess would be just about right because the parameters are pretty limited. We have already spent 10 days in Committee on this Bill, examining three and a half clauses. I forecast that a day or so will take us up to Clause 17. Then we shall have about six or seven days to debate the vital block of clauses from 18 to 25, with the crucial associated
schedules. Therefore, in six or seven days we shall have to deal with the powers to be given to the Scottish Assembly, the legislative competence of that Assembly, the problem of concurrent powers and Clause 20 with the power of scrutiny and the scope that that provides for conflict. In that time, we shall also have to deal with the establishment of the Scottish Assembly, the executive functions of the Welsh Assembly and the powers relating to subordinate instruments as well as the definitions of devolved matters with the hundreds of Acts of Parliament to which I have already referred.
Having flashed our eyes over such great constitutional matters on which a Committee upstairs could spend weeks, we shall hurry on and have perhaps three days on the next 25 clauses, including the vital Clause 30 on the committee structure of the Welsh Assembly. Then we shall have two or three days for the last 57 clauses with all the associated schedules. Perhaps we shall have a couple of days for the 40 or so new clauses. I hope the House realises that
1348
we shall have to debate more than 50 clauses in no more than three days. I hope that the country realises that not more than one-third of this Bill will be debated at all if the Government get their way tonight.
It is a peculiar thing that if this motion is passed, the House of Commons will be surrendering the job of scrutiny to another place which the Leader of the House believes should be abolished. The fact that he can propose this indecent scramble suggests to the casual observer the incredible proposition that he does not understand this place. That is not so. I quote from his enduring words about these matters in May 1972:
"What has happened with this Bill—and it has been an extremely interesting education in the way the House of Commons works, as many hon. Members who have studied the affairs of the House of Commons will recognise —is what happens on many Bills: in the course of the Committee stages of many Bills that go through this House we discover that the matters that become of greatest interest and moment are not those which were foreseen before the Bill was introduced."
He went on:
"The collective wisdom of the House of Commons—whether shown in party argument and debate, and there is nothing wrong with this, or in any other way—is a different kind of wisdom from that which exists in the Government, in the Cabinet or in the Civil Service."
The right hon. Gentleman then stated that at Committee stage the Bill:
"is subjected to the individual scrutiny of the Members of the House of Commons, and that changes the way in which the Bill is regarded.
This Bill is a classic example. … "— [Official Report, 2nd May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 229-231.]
So is the Bill we are considering tonight. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) cited another classic example that he preferred to use as a precedent. He drew a parallel with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, and reminded the House how examinations in committee had revealed that the Bill simply would not work.
The crucial point was made that if this motion passes the essence of the Committee stage will he totally different, for the Government who previously had an open ear, an ear which they could not close, from that moment on would no longer have to listen. The hon. Member for West Lothian reinforced that argument by quoting the evidence given

1349
by the Lord President on 20th December last year to the Select Committee on Procedure when speaking of a guillotine motion. He then said:
"If you have a timetable it means each section of the Bill is going to be subjected to some scrutiny. On the other hand, you will have removed all the tension and the battle from a particular Bill, and that also removes the incentive to the Government to listen and to concede, and to be courteous to the Opposition."
Exactly.
Up to now the Government have been made to listen to the arguments advanced on this Bill. Day after day the House of Commons has insisted on discussions, and those discussions have revealed the instability of this Bill, its potential for conflict and its contradictions. On the opening clauses great constitutional debates have been held on the number and rôle of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament, on proportional representation, and on the principle of referendums. But, from now on, all that will be denied to us.
This measure, which is supposed in the cause of democracy to control bureaucracy, will remain as drafted by the bureaucrats, largely unamended, by the democratic House of Commons. In a way, that is almost the final irony. From now on, if the House find something to dwell upon, it will do so at the expense of leaving much else unconsidered. Is there any reason to think that the Government, in the course of the debate on the 112 remaining clauses, will be forced to make fewer changes than during the passage of the first four, where they have performed a series of somersaults?
First, the Government were against a referendum; then they were for it. First, they said that it must be mandatory; they then said that it should be consultative. They then put forward their own wording for the ballot paper; they then conceded that it must be rewritten. The truth is that if a timetable motion had been introduced from the outset, it would already have been a shambles, because the Government have had to re-write the Bill as it went along. I forecast that hundreds of Back Bench amendments will be crowded out because the Government will be busy tabling their own amendments.
1350
It has been argued outside the House—and this was also implicit in the argument, of the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan)—that we must pass the motion because to do otherwise would be to deny the people a referendum. It is said that a vote against the motion might endanger the Bill and deny the people their vote. Not for the first time in our debates it is being argued that the House of Commons, in being confronted with a referendum, should abandon its responsibilities. But the referendum argument, far from strengthening the case, reduces it. The public will be asked to vote on a Bill which not one in a hundred thousand people will have read but which they will believe that Parliament has examined and approved.
If we are to leave the final choice to others, it in no way militates against our duty to do the job that only we can do—namely, to examine, probe, expose, amend and improve the Bill. We shall be putting into people's hands a vehicle of great power. If we put it on the road ill-prepared, its potential for damage will be incalculable. We as a House have a clear duty to see that the vehicle is sound and roadworthy. If it cannot he placed in that condition, it will never reach the road at all. The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) is disregarding the proper functions of Parliament by saying that the argument is not about the detail of the Bill but about the Bill itself.
The fact that there is to be a referendum in no way reduces our responsibilities. The people will vote largely on the principle that we have to deal with a Bill. As the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) also pointed out, there is an important function for the House of Commons to perform during the course of its debates in presenting the arguments to the people, and that cannot be done in any other manner.
I conclude on the matter of responsibility. We are not voting tonight on a mere procedural motion. We are voting to decide whether the House can exercise its constitutional functions. This must, above all, be a time for personal responsibility, a time for courage and for each one of us to do his duty. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke with deep sensitivity about

1351
his divided loyalties and his loyalty to a united Britain and a united people.
There are some hon. Members who fear for the future of the Government if they do not win the vote. They will have to weigh what the long-term price will be for seeking to buy off the nationalist parties. They must judge for themselves, but they cannot doubt that there will be a price, that further demands will be made on them and that if they let an ill-judged and ill-prepared Bill go through without proper debate, they will create a situation that will be ripe for nationalist exploitation. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made clear that there would be a price and that he was eagerly waiting to get his hands on the oil revenues.
There are those who believe passionately in the principle of devolution and who say that if the Government fail to get this motion, the Bill will be lost and with it any possibility of progress to devolution. To say that if the motion fails that would end the matter is to deny the very nature of the House of Commons. Of course the issue will not go away. The opportunity for further debate on the Bill will remain. There could be another Bill or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) pointed out, the Government once proposed a dummy Bill and they could return to their original proposal. The Government could take up my right hon. Friend's proposals for all-party discussions. A number of hon. Members in all parts of the House regretted the abrupt way in which the Leader of the House turned down that suggestion.
If the motion falls, nothing irrevocable will have happened, but if we put the Bill on the statute book inadequate, insufficiently debated, uninformed and with all its potential for conflict—whatever constitutional theory may hold about the powers of Parliament— the matter will pass largely and for ever out of our control, and the evil that we do will live after us.
9.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): From what the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), has just said—particularly about the awful fate
1352
that befalls a Committee when a guillotine comes into operation and about how the Government then no longer listen to what is said in the House—one would have thought that he had voted against the timetable motion on the European Communities Bill. Of course he did not. The hon. Gentleman voted for that motion on a Bill that received a majority of only eight votes and upon which the Government of the day did not accept any amendment in either House. That Bill proceeded to the statute book without any amendment at all.
The situation with this Bill is quite different. First, I should like to deal with the suggestion that has been made in some parts of the House—I think it was made towards the end of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson)—that there was some novelty and perhaps even a touch of impropriety in introducing a timetable motion on an important constitutional Bill, as this Bill clearly is. I hope that the House will accept that there is no novelty and certainly no impropriety. There are ample precedents, notably the timetable motion on the European Communities Bill when the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (My Pym)—who is a leading spokesman for the Opposition on this Bill—was Chief Whip in the Conservative Government. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath) reminded us during business questions last Thursday that the Government were entitled to ask the House to consider such a motion. Not only are there ample precedents for such a motion, but it would be wrong in principle for the House to take the view that there should not be a timetable motion on a constitutional Bill.
By convention, most constitutional Bills are taken in Committee of the whole House. Given the opportunities for wide ranging and lengthy discussion which a Committee of the whole House provides, to abjure the use of a timetable motion would mean that the Committee—or a determined group of Members serving on it—could, in effect, veto any constitutional Bill. Such a situation could condemn us to perpetual constitutional ossification. I do not believe that can be right.
Mr. Amery: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while a Government with a

1353
substantial majority have every right to guillotine a Bill, there is something rather improper about a Government producing a Bill to prevent, allegedly, the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom doing so when they can only rely for getting the Bill through on a Scottish National Party that is dedicated to separation?
Mr. Smith: I have thought for some time that hon. Members, particularly on the other side, but including some on this side, pay far too much attention to the SNP. [Interruption.] I have said that in the House before, though without attracting quite so much comment. I believe that hon. Members pay far too much attention to the pretensions of the SNP to speak for the people of Scotland. They have no such right, and the intemperate talk of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) earlier was no assistance to the motion.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was seeking to draw a distinction between a Government with a large majority and a Government with a small majority. The House gave the Bill a Second Reading by a majority of 45—more than five times larger than the majority on the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill. If we are to take that Bill as an example, as did the hon. Member for Pembroke, I can say that at almost every stage of that example we have as much right, if not more right, to introduce this timetable motion.
Turning to the case for the motion on this Bill in particular, perhaps I could remind the House of two excellent principles adumbrated by Lord Carr, when he was Leader of the House and moving the timetable motion on the European Communities Bill. He put two basic propositions to the House at that time. The first was that the Government had a duty to make sure that all aspects of the Bill were adequately discussed and that the House did not spend too much time on the early parts so that, in the end, it became impossible to consider later clauses.
The second proposition that the right hon. Gentleman put forward was that the Government had a duty, not merely a right, to get their business through with
1354
reasonable despatch. The right hon. Gentleman said that the then Government were putting into effect a policy that had been endorsed by a large majority in the House. If that proposition were true on that occasion—I accept the proposition put forward by the then Conservative Government —surely it meets the circumstances of the Scotland and Wales Bill.
Perhaps it is wise to remind the House that on this occasion we are discussing a timetable motion, although understandably a great deal of the debate this afternoon and evening has concerned itself with the principles of the Bill. That is unavoidable in a debate such as this. However, the decision that the Government are asking the House to take concerns the allocation of time. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised about 30 days in the House for all stages of the Bill. It is true that since then we have introduced the referendum concept. What we are now proposing goes beyond what my right hon. Friend promised even taking into account the introduction of the referendum clause.
We have had four days on Second Reading and 10 days in Committee. I remind the House that there was a four-day debate after the White Paper was introduced in November 1975. The motion provides for a further 20 days. It does not take into account the time that will be needed to provide for the consideration of any suggestions that the House may receive from another place. That would obviously involve further time. The total amount of time on the Floor of the House, leaving aside Lords amendments, amounts to 34 days already. We are proposing to suspend the rule for an hour on each allotted day. That will add to the time available for discussion.
As every Member must recognise it they consider this proposition objectively, the motion provides for a remarkable allocation of time—indeed, a remarkably generous allocation of time. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reminded us this afternoon, it has been surpassed on only one occasion since before the First World War. That exception was the Government of India Act, which was over 40 years ago. It was considered in a parliamentary environment perhaps a

1355
little less heavily burdened than the present environment. If we are producing the most generous allocation of time that the House has seen in recent debates, I cannot see how the Government can be accused of unreasonable truncation of debate.
As again my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reminded us when he opened the debate, the duty of the House of Commons is to act as well as to argue. I have no doubt that many hon. Members could argue endlessly on the provisions of the Bill. Admittedly, it is a long Bill. It is admittedly a complex Bill. The Government have not done as the Conservative Government did in the case of the European Communities Bill when they deliberately designed a short Bill. It is a complex Bill.
The hon. Member for Pembroke said that we have got through only three and a half clauses in the 10 days in Committee. However, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said when speaking at the beginning of the debate, we have covered quite a number of important topics. For example, we have discussed proportional representation and Westminster representation. Many other matters have been thoroughly discussed, including the principle of the referendum.
Now that we have reached a stage when we have passed many of the wide-ranging discussions that were concerned with the Bill but did not, perhaps, go to the heart of its proposals, the motion can secure—this is the nub of the Government's case tonight—an orderly plan for debate so that this important Bill has its principal features adequately discussed by the Committee and by the House of Commons. It does not, and it cannot, prejudge the decision of the Committee or the House of Commons on any of the fundamental matters that remain to be considered.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: If this is the nub of the Government's case, will the hon. Gentleman give some indication of what he thinks would be a reasonable time for debating the nub of the Bill, which is Clauses 18 to 25? How many days does the hon. Gentleman think would be reasonable for us to debate those clauses?
Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, our proposal in the timetable
1356
motion is that the allocation of days should be considered by the Business Committee. Governments of all parties have a choice in these circumstances—to put down a timetable motion with a specified number of days to deal with each part of a Bill, as was done with the European Communities Bill, or to use the device of a Business Committee. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Pembroke is uncomfortable when I keep reminding him about the European Communities Bill and I shall try not to mention it again if that will put him out of his misery.
The proposal of a Business Committee has the important merit, which I do not think the hon. Member for Pembroke took into account, that it permits flexibility. He said, rightly, that as we consider a Bill, some features appear to the House more important than others, justifying more time. The Business Committee will have the flexibility to decide, in the circumstances prevailing, what is the best way for the House to allocate its time.
Passing the motion will not prejudge the decisions which the House will take. Indeed, it would still be open to the House to reject the whole Bill on Third Reading if it were so minded. I therefore say to hon. Members in all parts of the House who voted for the Bill on Second Reading, and even to some of those who did not—with the intention of seeking to make amendments to the Bill —that there remains ample opportunity to propose and to seek to carry such amendments in Committee during the 20 days which this motion allows for further discussion. If hon. Members feel that a failure to carry an amendment alters their view of the Bill, they may express that changed view on Third Reading or at an even later stage.
Sir David Renton: Will the Government be putting to the Business Committee, if the motion is carried, proposals as to how the 20 days can best be used? If so, will the Minister tell us now what those proposals are, so that they may be seen in all their nakedness?
Mr. Smith: If the motion is passed tonight, the Government will put proposals to the Business Committee. It will then be for the Committee to decide. That is the appropriate stage to put those

1357
matters forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may complain, but on many previous occasions Government of all parties have put forward a timetable motion including this same proposal for a Business Committee but have not told the House before the Committee was appointed how they would allocate the time.
What I have found a little hard to understand in this matter is the attitude adopted by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I had understood—I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke will forgive a fleeting reference—from reading the debates on the European Communities Bill that the Liberal Party approved of timetable motions in principle. The Leader of the Liberal Party in those debates quoted a Select Committee Report which said that there should be regular timetabling, and went on:
"That ought to be the case and that is the view which I and my colleagues have always taken on the timetabling of this and other Bills."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 260.]
Therefore, the Liberal Party voted for the Second Reading of the Bill and are in favour of timetable motions in principle. Yet apparently, the majority of them at least are to vote against this motion. I find that hard to believe.
The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt say that we have not made concessions to the Liberal point of view. We discussed fully their proposition that there should be proportional representation in the Assembly elections, but it is a sad fact that the House decisively declined to adopt that Liberal proposal. The Government have tried to be flexible, but there is a limit to the flexibility that a Government can show, particularly when the House of Commons shows so decisively what its view is on proportional representation.
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have from time to time said that they would like taxation powers introduced into the Bill. We as a Government have made it clear that we are not opposed to that in principle but have pointed out how difficult it is within a unitary concept and with a tax collection system for the whole United Kingdom to create one which is sensible, fair and economic.
1358
The right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) made a speech in Edinburgh at the weekend, I think, when he said that the problem was simple and that the answer was to have a sales tax. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a general sales tax of that kind on a regional variation basis is specifically excluded by the first and second directives on VAT issued by the EEC. That is a non-starter.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) then proposed some allocation of the oil revenues. That possibility has not been developed far but there would be widespread opposition in the Committee and in the House to the proposal that oil revenues which derived from United Kingdom assets should go to one part of the United Kingdom. If he thinks that complaints come from the North East and other parts, he may be sure that they would be six times louder if such proposals from the Liberal Party or the Scottish National Party were adopted.
The third proposal of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North was that a simple little local tax should be implemented. Thinking up a simple little local tax has been bothering local and central Government for a long time. It must be wonderful to live in the happy Liberal world thinking up happy little solutions. The trouble is that he and his party, who claim to be committed devolutionists—now that we have for the first time in many years a constitutional reform on the political agenda of the United Kingdom—are seeking ways to wriggle out of their commitment to a devolved form of government.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that if he really meant what he says about his belief in devolution, the best body to devise a tax for Scotland would be the Scottish Assembly? If he really believed in devolution he would hand that power to the Scottish Assembly.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Member must understand that the House will want to be careful about precisely what is handed to the Assembly. Given that the sovereignty of Parliament is here, we must be sure about what power is to be given. People will have to continue to pay United Kingdom tax as well.

1359
But we know that the Liberal Party has not worked out any proposals in a precise form. It has tabled amendments but it uses the Northern Ireland system, which broke down and in practice developed into a block grant. So much for the inventiveness of the Liberal Party which wishes to have a federal system but when Members of that party were asked today whether they meant one English federal unit or four or five they said that the English had not decided. The Leader of the Party should explain what is meant.
Mr. David Steel: I shall do that, but not in the middle of the Minister's speech. I want to return to the taxation point. Nine different proposals emerged in various research documents. Have the Government examined all those nine? Are they saying that they have examined them all and their feasibility or are they rejecting them?
Mr. Smith: There is a difference in a federal system, where sovereignty is shared and where it is possible to have shared taxation powers. We must try to fit the proposals in a system which is not federal because the hon. Member has said that he did not wish to put forward a proposal for a federal system. One of the common methods of taxation in federal systems such as those in Canada, the United States and Australia is a sales tax but that is precluded in this case by the rules of the European Community. It is unfair for the Liberals to say that the Government are inflexible.
The Government will produce a document during the later stages of the Committee showing all the taxes that have been examined and the reasons why there are difficulties in implementing them. I hope that that will be a useful working paper for the Committee and the House and that it will demonstrate the difficulties.
If the Liberals say that they cannot support the motion because there are no taxation powers, before we come to the part of the Bill that considers taxation powers, I believe that that is a feeble excuse. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to strike, but is not willing to be seen as the hand that wields the knife. That was part of his trouble this afternoon.
1360
Throughout the debate today, and indeed in the proceedings in the Committee, many hon. Members on both sides have expressed their fear that the United Kingdom might break up. The Government have made it clear in speech after speech not only in Committee, but in the country and elsewhere—indeed, I made a particular point of stressing this on Second Reading —how much they value and are utterly determined to retain the unity of the United Kingdom.
I remind the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that I spent some time fighting Scottish nationalists in the country, in my constituency and in Scotland, which is more than can be said for many Opposition Members.
The Opposition suggest that somehow these proposals attack the integrity of the United Kingdom. I do not believe it. That is an exercise of tremendous constitutional conservatism. As a Parliament and country, we ought to be willing to make changes in our constitution. We ought to be willing to examine again the features of our Government to see whether they are not too highly centralised and too highly uniform in trying to enforce conformist policies from the centre.
I believe that the unity of the United Kingdom can far better be secured not by containing Scotland and Wales within the same constitutional framework as they have always been in, but by offering constitutional change and allowing a Scottish and a Welsh dimension within the context of the United Kingdom to emerge in our constitutional structure. That is the whole point and purpose of the Bill. Its purpose is to change Government, to give the people of Scotland and Wales a bigger say in those decisions which most directly affect them, and to give them the opportunity through new institutions to frame a new future for themselves.
We do not need opinion polls to tell us, because those who live in Scotland and Wales know, how deep and abiding is the desire of the people of Scotland and of Wales to remain members of the United Kingdom. But some hon. Members on both sides, who have been opposing the Bill vociferously, do not take into account the fact that there is a serious challenge to the unity of the United

1361
Kingdom. It comes not from the Bill, but from the nationalists who, from their own point of view, want to break it up.
I believe that it is much wiser to make the constitutional change which we propose to allow people to have that greater say in their own affairs. That will mean that the unity of the United Kingdom is founded not on a tradition of government which has survived in the past by treating everybody in the same way or not allowing people to make certain decisions which affect them most directly, but on the recognition of the diversity of the United Kingdom. There are separate nations within the United Kingdom. They do not need to become nation States. But the people of Scotland have a right to ask that, through their Assembly, they should decide their own educational policy, which does not need to be the same as the educational policy of England, but that they want to be together for the
economic and political framework of the state.
I repudiate utterly the misguided suggestion by the critics of the Bill that somehow it endangers the unity of the United Kingdom. I do not think that they understand or give sufficient credit to the views of people in Scotland and Wales.
We have this twin theme of the United Kingdom and of a reform of our government in a constitutional change which can be got through this House. I think that the House ought to pass this motion so that we can proceed to an orderly discussion of this important Bill which will be adequately and fully discussed. If the House does that, it will treat the Bill, and the great changes which it proposes, with the respect to which it is entitled.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 312.

Division No. 79.]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Golding, John

Archer, Peter

Crawford, Douglas

Gould, Bryan

Armstrong, Ernest

Cronin, John

Gourlay, Harry

Ashley, Jack

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Graham, Ted

Ashton, Joe

Cryer, Bob

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Atkinson, Norman

Davidson, Arthur

Grocott, Bruce

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hardy, Peter

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Harper, Joseph

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bates, Alf

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Bean, R. E.

Deakins, Eric

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Bidwell, Sydney

Dempsey, James

Henderson, Douglas

Bishop, E. S.

Doig, Peter

Hooley, Frank

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dormand, J. D.

Hooson, Emlyn

Boardman, H.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Horam, John

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dunn, James A.

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

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dunnett, Jack

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Eadie, Alex

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Bradley, Tom

Edge, Geoff

Huckfield, Les

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

English, Michael

Hunter, Adam

Buchan, Norman

Ennals, David

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Campbell, Ian

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Canavan, Dennis

Faulds, Andrew

Janner, Greville

Cant, R. B.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Carmichael, Neil

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Carter, Ray

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Flannery, Martin

John, Brynmor

Cartwright, John

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Clemitson, Ivor

Ford, Ben

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Forrester, John

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Cohen, Stanley

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

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

Judd, Frank

Concannon, J. D.

Freeson, Reginald

Kaufman, Gerald

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Kelley, Richard

Corbett, Robin

George, Bruce

Kerr, Russell

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gilbert, Dr John

Kilfedder, James

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Ginsburg, David

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Lambie, David

O'Halloran, Michael

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Lamborn, Harry

Orbach, Maurice

Swain, Thomas

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Padley, Walter

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Palmer, Arthur

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Lipton, Marcus

Park, George

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Litterick, Tom

Parry, Robert

Thompson, George

Loyden, Eddie

Pavitt, Laurie

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Luard, Evan

Pendry, Tom

Tierney, Sydney

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Perry, Ernest

Tinn, James

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Prescott, John

Tomlinson, John

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Tomney, Frank

McCartney, Hugh

Price, William (Rugby)

Torney, Tom

MacCormick, Iain

Radice, Giles

Tuck, Raphael

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

McElhone, Frank

Reid, George

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Richardson, Miss Jo

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

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mackintosh, John P.

Robinson, Geoffrey

Ward, Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Roderick, Caerwyn

Watkinson, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Watt, Hamish

McNamara, Kevin

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Weetch, Ken

Madden, Max

Roper, John

Weitzman, David

Magee, Bryan

Rose, Paul B.

Wellbeloved, James

Mahon, Simon

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Welsh, Andrew

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Sandelson, Neville

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Marks, Kenneth

Sedgemore, Brian

White, James (Pollok)

Marquand, David

Selby, Harry

Whitehead, Phillip

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Wigley, Dafydd

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Meacher, Michael

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Mikardo, Ian

Sillars, James

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Silverman, Julius

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Small, William

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Snape, Peter

Woodall, Alec

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Spriggs, Leslie

Woof, Robert

Moyle, Roland

Stallard, A. W.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

Young, David (Bolton E)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Newens, Stanley

Stoddart, David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Noble, Mike

Stott, Roger

Mr. James Hamilton and

Oakes, Gordon

Strang, Gavin

Mr. Donald Coleman.

Ogden, Eric

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Adley, Robert

Buck, Antony

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Aitken, Jonathan

Budgen, Nick

Drayson, Burnaby

Alison, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

du Cann,Rt Hon Edward

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Burden, F. A.

Dunlop, John

Arnold, Tom

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Carlisle, Mark

Durant, Tony

Awdry, Daniel

Carson, John

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Kenneth

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Banks, Robert

Channon, Faul

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Beith, A. J.

Churchill, W. S.

Elliott, Sir William

Bell, Ronald

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Emery, Peter

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Eyre, Reginald

Benyon, W.

Clegg, Walter

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cockcroft, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

Biffen, John

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Farr, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Cope, John

Fell, Anthony

Blaker, Peter

Cordle, John H.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Body, Richard

Cormack, Patrick

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Corrie, John

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Bottomley, Peter

Costain, A. P.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Cowans, Harry

Fookes, Miss Janet

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Critchley, Julian

Forman, Nigel

Bradford, Rev Robert

Crouch, David

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Crowder, F. P.

Fox, Marcus

Brittan, Leon

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Dalyell, Tam

Freud, Clement

Brotherton, Michael

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Fry, Peter

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)

1364

1365

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Luce, Richard

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

McCrindle, Robert

Ridsdale, Julian

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

McCusker, H.

Rifkind, Malcolm

Glyn, Dr Alan

Macfarlane, Neil

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

MacGregor, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Goodhart, Philip

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Goodhew, Victor

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Goodlad, Alastair

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Gorst, John

Madel, David

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Marten, Neil

Royle, Sir Anthony

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mates, Michael

Sainsbury, Tim

Gray, Hamish

Mather, Carol

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Grieve, Percy

Maude, Angus

Scott, Nicholas

Griffiths, Eldon

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Scott-Hopkins, James

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mawby, Ray

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Grist, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Grylls, Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hall, Sir John

Mendelson, John

Shepherd, Colin

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shersby, Michael

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Silvester, Fred

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Mills, Peter

Sims, Roger

Hampson, Dr Keith

Miscampbell, Norman

Sinclair, Sir George

Hannam, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Moate, Roger

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Molyneaux, James

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Hastings, Stephen

Monro, Hector

Speed, Keith

Havers, Sir Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Spence, John

Hawkins, Paul

Moonman, Eric

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Hayhoe, Barney

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Sproat, Iain

Heseltine, Michael

Morgan, Geraint

Stainton, Keith

Hicks, Robert

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Stanbrook, Ivor

Higgins, Terence L.

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Stanley, John

Hodgson, Robin

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Holland, Philip

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Hordern, Peter

Mudd, David

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Neave, Airey

Stokes, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Nelson, Anthony

Stradling Thomas, J.

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Neubert, Michael

Tapsell, Peter

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Newton, Tony

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Normanton, Tom

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Hurd, Douglas

Nott, John

Tebbit, Norman

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Onslow, Cranley

Temple-Morris, Peter

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

James, David

Osborn, John

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

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

Ovenden, John

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Jessel, Toby

Page, John (Harrow West)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Trotter, Neville

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Urwin, T. W.

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Pardoe, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Jopling, Michael

Parker, John

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Parkinson, Cecil

Viggers, Peter

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pattie, Geoffrey

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Penhaligon, David

Wakeham, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Percival, Ian

Welder, David (Clitheroe)

Kimball, Marcus

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pink, R. Bonner

Wall, Patrick

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Walters, Dennis

Knight, Mrs Jill

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Warren, Kenneth

Knox, David

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Weatherill, Bernard

Lamond, James

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wells, John

Lamont, Norman

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Raison, Timothy

Wiggin, Jerry

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rathbone, Tim

Winterton, Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Lawson, Nigel

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Leadbitter, Ted

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Younger, Hon George

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Lloyd, Ian

Rhodes James, R.

Mr. Jim Lester and

Lomas, Kenneth

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Mr. Michael Roberts.

Loveridge, John

Question accordingly negatived.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has just come to a highly significant, exceptionally unusual and immensely important decision. It was, I venture to suggest, a House of
1366
Commons decision, and what was so exceptionally unusual about it was that the motion which it defeated related to the Government's principal legislative measure in this Session.
Nevertheless, it was a House of Commons opinion about this motion and I

1367
think that it is reasonable to ask the Government, through you Mr. Speaker, whether they will say, either tonight or, perhaps more reasonably and sensibly, tomorrow, what is their intention for this Bill in the light of this important decision?
Mr. Foot: May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kindly way in which he has raised the matter. Of course the Government will give full and proper consideration to the vote which the House has cast here tonight. Immediately we shall be continuing with the Bill on Thursday, but not with the assistance of the timetable for which we asked the House today.
Any further communications will be given to the House in due course, but I certainly invite all those hon. Members who have been so eager to participate in the vote tonight to come along to the debate on Thursday.
Mr. Donald Stewart Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. My predecessor on these occasions allowed only two bites at the cherry. I see the Leader of the Scottish National Party on his feet. I propose to call him, and then such questions will come to an end.
Mr. Donald Stewart: May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of that result, whether the Government have not a moral obligation to bring in a motion for a vote of confidence since a large number of Labour Members are in the House today because of the Government's election pledges but have voted against devolution for Scotland?

MR. AGEE AND MR. HOSENBALL
Mr. Arthur Latham: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on a quite different matter, but one which is quite important constitutionally? Will you inform the House of the information that I understand you have received concerning legal proceedings relating to one of the two men whose cases we were to have discussed tonight? May I ask whether you will allow my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or my right hon. Friend the
1368
Home Secretary to make a brief statement to dispose of two points? The first is to make it clear that if it is not possible to proceed with the debate tonight there is a definite undertaking that there will be a proper debate in the House in the near future. Secondly, will my right hon. Friends give some undertaking that there will be no question of deporting Mr. Hosenball or Mr. Agee until this House has had an opportunity to debate the matter?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether anyone is trying to catch my eye on this point, but I understand that a writ has been issued today and that proceedings will take place tomorrow. The matter concerning Mr. Agee is therefore sub judice.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was the Government's intention to have a debate today. It is still the Government's intention to have a debate. I feel strongly about the matter because it is my responsibility. I am prepared to justify my actions to the House of Commons but the fact that the matter is sub judice prevents this from happening.
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister—Business motion.
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Not moved.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Price Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West) rose—
Mr. Phillip Whitehead Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North) rose—
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York) rose—
Mr. Paul B. Rose Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley) rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I indicate that the Government have not moved the Business motion but have moved the ordinary Adjournment motion, and that from now on any points of order will come out of the time allotted to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Christopher Price: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry), who has the Adjournment debate, but important matters are raised by the position in which we find ourselves. The distinct possibility exists that while the sub judice element for one of these two people may be disposed of, the other may continue for some time. It might be that the case which is sub judice will continue during a period in which the other man is deported. We ought not to leave the matter until we get some firmer assurances from the Government on this point.
May I put one further point about your discretion, Mr. Speaker, on sub judice, which you will remember I have raised in the House before? Under a resolution of this House in 1972 we altered the rules under which you could use your discretion to allow a debate, even though a matter was technically sub judice. If in the future one of these gentlemen was about to be deported but the other was, for one reason or another, technically sub judice, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider being prepared to use that discretion which the House invested in you. under certain instructions in the 1972 resolution, then to allow a debate on this important matter. This would ensure that one or other of the two men was not deported without the debate which the Leader of the House had already advised the House of.
Mr. Speaker: The Government did not move the Business motion and I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) to open the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Whitehead: Shame.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Robert Parry Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange) rose—
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite unheard of—
Mr. Parry Mr. Parry rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite unheard of for hon. Members to take a Private Member's Adjournment time on points of order when obviously they can consume the half hour, after which I shall leave the Chair because the time will have run out. I must make it quite clear that the Government have not moved the Business motion.
Mr. Whitehead: Shame.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: With respect—
Mr. Speaker: I am on my feet. The Government have not moved the motion.
Mr. Parry Mr. Parry rose—
Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry), but this is a matter which involves the civil liberty of a person who is to be deported and perhaps should take precedence. In the Business motion the proposed subjects for debate are Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball. As far as Mr. Hosenball is concerned the matter is not sub judice, and it is quite proper that a debate should take place about him.
Equally, the procedure adopted in this case is not sub judice. Therefore, there seems to be no justification for the sudden decision, against all promises, not to hold this debate, and no reason, on the basis of the sub judice rule, to prevent a debate on Mr. Hosenball.
If this were an indictment, it would be severed, because these are two distinct cases and they could be debated distinctly. In any court of law they would be dealt with separately, and I ask that they be dealt with separately now, with a debate on Mr. Hosenball.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I suggest that the Government move their Business motion, in order that we may at any rate discuss the sub judice issue without taking time from the Adjournment debate? Then if it is decided that the matter is sub judice and that we cannot continue with the debate, we should not take any of the half hour allotted for the Adjournment debate. I am sure that the Government would be willing to do that and that the matter could be resolved thereafter.
Mr. Speaker: I am bound by the rules of order, and it is not possible for the Government, when we have started the next debate, to come back to a previous one for which the motion to begin it was not moved. We are on the half-hour Adjournment.
On the sub judice question, I can only say that my advice to the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) was given on advice.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can speak only for myself, but I think that if the Government will give a clear undertaking to provide time for debate of both cases, and further undertake that neither Mr. Hosenball nor Mr. Agee will be deported before any such debate many hon. Members who are deeply concerned about the matter will feel at least some feeling of contentment. Unfortunately, that is not now clear and is not on the record. You decided last week, Mr. Speaker, that this was not a
1372
matter suitable to be raised under Standing Order No. 9. Many hon. Members who are deeply concerned about it want some assurance of the kind I have suggested. If both those commitments can be given I think that they will go some way towards meeting the concern of some hon. Members.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in his earlier intervention that he had favoured a discussion and that he was to open the discussion had it not been for the ruling on the sub judice position and the action that led to that ruling. But we shall provide time at some future date for a debate on the subject in exactly the same kind of circumstances as we had envisaged. We shall of course take into account the representations that that debate should be held before any deportation takes place.

MATERNITY HOSPITAL (LIVERPOOL)
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry).
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Robert Parry: The proposed closure—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better wait a moment. It is hard for him to be heard because of hon. Members leaving the Chamber.
Mr. Parry: The proposed closure of the Mill Road Maternity Hospital, which was announced in a consultative document issued by the Liverpool Area Health Authority in September 1973 has met with a hostile reception. An action committee was set up by the workers, and although they are small in number they have presented me with a petition bearing nearly 9,000 names, protesting at the hospital's closure. The petition also includes the names of hundreds of people who live near the hospital and who have been confined there or have received ante-natal treatment there.
Also, a petition has been sent to me, which was signed by more than 200 general practitioners, protesting at the closure. Doctors are not normally to the forefront in signing petitions. Other names on the petition include 40 city councillors, and Merseyside county councillors, as well as the leader of the Merseyside County Council, Councillor Bill Sefton.
A written reply last Thursday stated that among the hon. Members who have made representations to the Secretary of State are my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), and my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has also made representations to the Secretary of State along the same lines. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine) did not see fit to
1374
support the representations as the hospital is on the other side of West Derby Road from his constituency, and many of his constituents will be affected by any closure.
The Royal College of Midwives, Liverpool branch, and the National Union of Public Employees have written to the area health authority objecting to the proposed closure. Yesterday I received a letter from the NUPE East District Nurses Branch, enclosing an emergency resolution.
The letter says:
"Dear Mr. Parry, I refer to the enclosed emergency resolution from the staff of Mill Road Hospital. I would appreciate your intervening in the current position. The closure of the hospital will be highly detrimental, in view of the first-class facilities offered at this hospital."
The emergency resolution reads:
"The staff of Mill Road Maternity Hospital, Liverpool, deplore the Area Health authority's decision to run down services for patients as from 1st July, 1977. This decision clearly will lead to the closure of this first-class gynaecological hospital serving a considerable number of people in Liverpool. We therefore request our M.P. to intervene and investigate this deplorable state of affairs, and bring pressure to bear on the Secretary of State for Social Services."
The quality as well as the quantity of the objections should be considered seriously by the Secretary of State. He should immediately halt any further run down of the facilities until all the factors have been investigated. I understand from the community health council that a further consultative document has been prepared which speeds up the closure proposals. I urge the Secretary of State to reject any indecent haste on this important issue.
Mill Road is the largest maternity hospital in the United Kingdom. It has first-class facilities, including a premature baby unit. The oxygen bank was extended recently, and a new teaching unit has been built in the last few years for the university. There are rooms for visiting medical staff and student lecture rooms. The staff dining rooms were recently carpeted at a cost of £1,000, and the wards were fitted with extra baths and showers, a fitted kitchen and tiled floors. The A1 ward has been fully fitted with new carpets, dining chairs and tables and the premature baby unit has been fitted with a

1375
fire escape and double glazing. There is an expensive new incubator, a deep freeze for baby milk, new air conditioning and new wall oxygen cylinders. A new Gregory box and resuscitation equipment has been fitted. Every piece of equipment in the X-ray department has been changed in the last eight years. The pharmaceutical department is fairly new and has been designed and purpose-built as a pharmacy. A stores area has been built, as well as a quarantine area and a component washing room, and also expensive equipment has been purchased, including washing and mixing machines. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say how much this equipment has cost in recent years for the operation of the hospital?
The hospital includes a modern maternity theatre, with lifts to all floors. The hospital is centrally situated in Liverpool and is well served by public transport to all parts of Liverpool, and there is a large car park for visitors in the grounds of the hospital.
Six large new housing estates have been built in the adjacent area in recent years housing hundreds of young families. Also attached to the hospital is an artificial limb and appliance centre which serves patients from a wide area, including North Wales and the Isle of Man. Is there any money available to move the centre elsewhere, and has this point been fully considered by the area health authority?
The recent cost of upgrading the Mill Road Hospital and of providing maternity services at Broadgreen Hospital is economic madness in the present climate of financial stringency and public expediture cuts. I quote from page 4 of the Consultative Document:
"The Area Health Authority recognises that there will have to be significant capital investment at Broadgreen Hospital before the whole of Mill Road Hospital, including the outpatient department, can be closed, and it is, therefore, proposed to effect hospital's closure in two stages."
I understand that the estimate for the provision of maternity facilities at Broad-green is, at the lowest £600,000. At present inflation rates, that figure will probably be greatly exceeded. Broadgreen is situated about five miles from Liverpool city centre and many patients from the inner areas will have to use at least two buses. Also, if extra travel becomes
1376
necessary, this will mean that many patients will not be able to book early in pregnancy or to attend the ante-natal clinics regularly. We must remember that the number of clinic visits paid by pregnant women is ten.
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Construction have made major public speeches outlining changes in Government policies on renewal of the inner areas of large cities. I was born and bred in the inner areas of Liverpool, and I still live there. I warmly welcome the change of heart and minds of the Government, because it is long overdue. The people of the inner areas over the years have seen their communities torn apart and suffer as a result of fly-overs and under-passes, the construction of the second Mersey Tunnel and the building of major roadworks.
Recently the Archbishop of Liverpool, the Right Reverend Derek Worlock, at a civic service, said of the inner area and the new housing estates,
"It is no use the limbs thriving if the body has a hole in the heart".
I fully agree with his Grace, and I feel that is a telling and appropriate point to make in this debate.
In the near future we shall see the closure of the Liverpool Royal Infirmary, the Royal Southern Hospital and the David Lewis Northern Hospital. All are in my constituency and all are situated in the inner areas of Liverpool. I am sick and tired of the urban vandalism which has taken place over the years in Liverpool and the planned urban rape of the facilities. I served as a councillor for 11 years and raised this matter on a number of occasions in the Liverpool City Council as applying to inner areas. I shall continue to oppose the planners and bureaucrats who do not consider the general public.
I have not supported the Government in cutting public expenditure and I have no intention of supporting them in any other cuts, bearing in mind that in the constituency that I represent there are areas containing deprived and underprivileged people.
The Minister has received representations from other organisations, and other right hon. and hon. Members have also raised the matter. Let us hope that in future we shall not have to say that the

1377
myopic vision of the Liverpool Area Health Authority in closing Mill Road Maternity Hospital has led to the spending of hundreds of thousands of pounds more of public money and has also resulted in the removal of that important service from the city centre.
In conclusion, I congratulate Mrs. Beattie and Mrs. Davies and their small number of co-workers on the sincere way in which they have gone about the work of organising opposition to the proposed closure. I also congratulate West Everton Community Council and other organisations that have written to me on the matter. Let us hope that their efforts will not have been in vain.
10.47 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) on the ability with which he has presented his case. The views that he has expressed are, I know, widely held because staff, patients and the public as a whole develop very strong feelings of affection for their local hospitals. Indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy with the feelings of my hon. Friend since I am probably the first Member of Parliament to have been faced with a hospital closure in his own constituency. May I also say how much I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend has often shown for the health services in Merseyside generally and about this proposed closure in particular.
The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the staff of the hospital and many of his constituents are also concerned and opposed to the possible closure of the Mill Road Maternity Hospital, with its 72 obstetric and 25 gynaecology beds. My hon. Friend has also referred to two petitions signed by nearly 10,000 members of the public, general practitioners, midwives and local community leaders that was put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week.
If we are to ensure that standards of patient care within the National Health Service can continue to rise—an aim to which my right hon. Friend and myself are committed— and if we are to take a more objective view of priorities in terms of health care and the distribution of
1378
scarce resources, then there are bound to be changes. This is particularly so as the limitation on new resources makes new developments dependent on savings made elsewhere. To this end the reorganisation of the National Health Service in 1974 was aimed, among other things, at the creation of a structure more suitable for the planning of future services and the development of a comprehensive and integrated health service. Health authorities established in 1974 are now in the process of reviewing in detail the inherited pattern of services that they now provide with a view to rationalisation. We are positively encouraging health authorities to reduce wastage of any kind. At the same time we are proposing measures aimed at securing a fairer distribution of the limited financial resources available to the NHS.
Liverpool Area Health Authority (Teaching) has been concerned for some time about the low bed occupancy in maternity hospitals and units in the City. This has become more marked in recent years due to the falling birth rate. For example, in 1975 the bed occupancy at Mill Road Maternity Hospital was as low as 40·5 per cent. The authority has been considering ways of matching maternity services more closely to need.
As I understand it, the Liverpool Area Health Authority (Teaching) originally conceived its proposal to close the Mill Road Maternity Hospital as part of a phased rationalisation of maternity services in the area in response to the fall in the birth rate, compounded by a declining population in Liverpool itself, the sharply rising cost of providing obstetric services, and the competing needs of other services in the area at a time of financial stringency.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deakins: I have only five minutes left in which to reply to my hon. Friend's points. It would be unfair not to press on. I apologise.
The continued retention of existing obstetric facilities is thus felt by the Area Health Authority (Teaching) to be unjustifiable. Indeed, in-patient services were concentrated in August last year with the closure of two wards containing 44 obstetric beds. The decision of the Area Health Authority (Teaching) to

1379
rationalise its maternity services follows tentative national guidelines issued by this Department. These are based upon the recommendations in the consultative document "Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England". This document concluded that in general the hospital maternity services have attracted too large a share of resources and that the minimum aim should be to lower the cost of this service by about 7 per cent. by 1979–80 or an average annual decrease of somewhat under 2 per cent.
We are, of course, well aware of the difficulties which those responsible for the management of the service have to face—the pressure of cash limits, the task of running-in the reorganised structure of the service and its consultative arrangements and the problems of developing a planning process adequate to cope with change and uncertainty.
The Government's commitment to a more equitable redistribution of Health Service provision remains and can be promoted only by the rationalisation of currently under-used facilities, thereby releasing funds for other more urgently needed services. The Liverpool Area Health Authority (Teaching) has estimated that, based on November 1976 pay and prices, its rationalisation proposals for obstetric and gynaecology services will amount to a saving of £1,150,000, of which the closure of the Mill Road Maternity Hospital will account for £1 million.
These savings are all the more important when it is considered that the Mersey Regional Health Authority has stated that its top priority over the next 10 years is to reduce the marked disparities in Health Service provision available to the general public within the region. Since the per capita expenditure in Liverpool on general and acute services in 1972–73, for instance, was the highest in the region, Liverpool AHA(T) will be unlikely to benefit from any future sub-regional redistributions. The savings become more important still when one considers that area health authorities have also had to face some unexpected new developments without additional money, in the knowledge that the discipline of cash limits means that any overspending which they have been exhorted to avoid becomes a first charge on next year's
1380
allocations. Liverpool AHA(T)'s overspending on cash limits to January 1977 stood at £287,000.
I have drawn hon. Members' attention to the consultation procedure on proposed hospital closures during previous Adjournment debates, but I feel that its importance cannot be overstressed. This procedure requires an area health authority to prepare a consultative document covering such matters as the reasons for its proposal, an evaluation of the possibilities of using the facilities for other purposes or the disposal of the site, implications for staff, the relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments and plans, and, of course, the effect on patients who might be affected by the proposal, particularly in relation to transport facilities.
Comments on the proposals in the consultative document are invited within three months from such bodies as the local community health council, the associated local authorities, joint staff consultative committees and other staff organisations, family practitioner committees and local advisory committees. Hon. Members whose constituents would be affected would also be informed of the proposals and there is nothing to prevent hon. Members or the community health council at that stage from asking the area health authority for such cost figures as are available.
If the community health council, which is given the opportunity to study the comments of the other bodies consulted and the area health authority's views on those comments, objects to the proposals, it is entitled to submit to the authority a constructive and detailed counterproposal, paying full regard to the factors, including restraints on resources, which led the authority to make its original proposal. If the authority is unable to accept the counter-proposal the matter is referred to the regional health authority. If it, too, is unable to agree with the community health council and wishes the closure or change of use to proceed, it falls to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to act as arbiter. It is not his function to intervene during the consultative process in the way that my hon. Friend suggested.
Nothing I say today should be construed as prejudging this issue in any particular case, least of all the situation

1381
with regard to the Mill Road Maternity Hospital where the Liverpool Area Health Authority (Teaching) is expecting comments on the proposals set out in its consultative document by 23rd February.
Mr. Parry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the new consultative document has not been circulated?
Mr. Deakins: If there is to be a further consultative document, that will delay the process. I am going on the basis of the original consultative document.
Until the comments are received and the views of the community health councils for Liverpool and Sefton and other interested organisations are known, it will be impossible to indicate the likely outcome of this proposal.
The procedures governing the closure or change of use of health buildings may appear complex, ponderous, even overelaborate and a deterrent to the optimum deployment of health care resources with maximum speed. Indeed in a period of economic stringency, a premium is placed on the cost-effective use of resources. However, the NHS must be responsive to the local views of patients, staff and
1382
hon. Members if it is to work at all. Thus the system seeks to balance the need for local —and exceptionally national—consultation with that for speed in rationalising services.
Another aspect of all closures with which I know my hon. Friend is particularly concerned is the implications for the staff employed at the particular hospital or other units concerned. In the case of the Mill Road Maternity Hospital, the Area Health Authority (Teaching) is well aware that any discontinuation of in-patient or out-patient services would have a considerable effect on the authority's manpower requirements. Indeed, a policy for the redeployment of staff surplus to requirements as a result of the closure of two wards during August 1976 was agreed with staff side organisations and arrangements were made for all the staff displaced—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT (SPEECH)
  CHICHESTER
  CHICHESTER
  HONOURS LISTS
  HONOURS LISTS
  CABINET DOCUMENTS (SECURITY)
  CABINET DOCUMENTS (SECURITY)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  DEPARTMENTAL COMPUTERS
  DEPARTMENTAL COMPUTERS
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  USSR (AERO ENGINE COMPONENTS)
  USSR (AERO ENGINE COMPONENTS)
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  CIVIL DEFENCE
  CIVIL DEFENCE
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
  LEYLAND
  LEYLAND
  QUEEN'S SPEECH (IMPLEMENTATION)
  QUEEN'S SPEECH (IMPLEMENTATION)
  HELSINKI AGREEMENT (BELGRADE REVIEW CONFERENCE)
  HELSINKI AGREEMENT (BELGRADE REVIEW CONFERENCE)
  INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (VISITS)
  INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (VISITS)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Coroners
  Coroners
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Terrorism Prevention
  Terrorism Prevention
  Exclusive Brethren
  Exclusive Brethren
  Firearm Certificates
  Firearm Certificates
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 (Review)
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 (Review)
TRANSPORT
  Broughton Bypass
  Broughton Bypass
  Bingham (Bypass)
  Bingham (Bypass)
  Driving Test Fee (Personal Case)
  Driving Test Fee (Personal Case)
  MESSRS. BERRY AND HARDY, BIRMINGHAM
  MESSRS. BERRY AND HARDY, BIRMINGHAM
  PICKETING (OXFORD HOTELS)
  PICKETING (OXFORD HOTELS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Administration (Weekend Services)
  Departmental Administration (Weekend Services)
  Tree Council Conference
  Tree Council Conference
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. W. Ferguson (Application for Employment)
  Mr. W. Ferguson (Application for Employment)
  Illegitimacy
  Illegitimacy
  Israel
  Israel
  Civil and Political Rights
  Civil and Political Rights
  Rhodesia (Sanctions)
  Rhodesia (Sanctions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Diesel Fuel Misuse (Convictions)
  Diesel Fuel Misuse (Convictions)
  Tax Collection (Costs)
  Tax Collection (Costs)
  Export Sales (Overseas Personnel)
  Export Sales (Overseas Personnel)
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Driving Licence and Firearm Certificate Fees
  Driving Licence and Firearm Certificate Fees
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  National Debt
  National Debt
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospitals (Emergency Admissions)
  Hospitals (Emergency Admissions)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Foreign Vehicles (Departmental Purchases)
  Foreign Vehicles (Departmental Purchases)
  Manor House Hospital
  Manor House Hospital
  Expenditure (North-West England)
  Expenditure (North-West England)
  North-Western Regional Health Authority
  North-Western Regional Health Authority
  Dental Fees (Children)
  Dental Fees (Children)
  Dental Health (Children)
  Dental Health (Children)
  Emergency Dental Centres
  Emergency Dental Centres
  Contraceptives
  Contraceptives
  Hospital Services (Merton)
  Hospital Services (Merton)
  Rent Arrears Payments
  Rent Arrears Payments
  Wimbledon Hospital
  Wimbledon Hospital
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Hospitals (Temporary Closure)
  Hospitals (Temporary Closure)
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Health Services Board
  Health Services Board
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Shoreditch College, Englefield Green
  Shoreditch College, Englefield Green
  Universities
  Universities
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Japanese Seaweed
  Japanese Seaweed
  Nitrates in Water
  Nitrates in Water
  Local Authority Membership (Remuneration)
  Local Authority Membership (Remuneration)
  Caledonian Canal
  Caledonian Canal
  Polyurethane (Ceilings)
  Polyurethane (Ceilings)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  SI Unit System
  SI Unit System
  Price Control
  Price Control
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  NATO (Standardisation of Equipment)
  NATO (Standardisation of Equipment)
  Airfields (Civilian Use)
  Airfields (Civilian Use)
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Pilot Training (Royal Air Force)
  Pilot Training (Royal Air Force)
  NATO Defence Ministers
  NATO Defence Ministers
  Bands
  Bands
  Engineering Apprentices
  Engineering Apprentices
  Airborne Early Warning System
  Airborne Early Warning System
  RAF (Italy 1943)
  RAF (Italy 1943)
  Personnel (Owners of Rented Homes)
  Personnel (Owners of Rented Homes)
  Indian Ocean
  Indian Ocean
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Royal Air Force
  Royal Air Force
  USSR (Aero-engine Trade)
  USSR (Aero-engine Trade)
  NATO (United Kingdom Forces)
  NATO (United Kingdom Forces)
  Widows
  Widows
  Oman
  Oman
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Royal Reviews of the Fleet
  Royal Reviews of the Fleet
  Air Watch
  Air Watch
  Basingstoke Canal
  Basingstoke Canal
  Recruitment (Advertising Cost)
  Recruitment (Advertising Cost)
  Airships
  Airships
  Royal Marines
  Royal Marines
  Missiles
  Missiles
  Personnel (Redundancies)
  Personnel (Redundancies)
  Crime (Army)
  Crime (Army)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Information Officers
  Information Officers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Employment (Republic of Ireland)
  Employment (Republic of Ireland)
  Parades and Marches
  Parades and Marches
  Post Offices (Thefts)
  Post Offices (Thefts)
  Rate Arrears
  Rate Arrears
  Convicted Soldiers
  Convicted Soldiers
EMPLOYMENT
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
  Labour Force
  Labour Force
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Language Training
  Industrial Language Training
  Journalists (Pay Settlement)
  Journalists (Pay Settlement)
  Women (Night Work)
  Women (Night Work)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Newcastle upon Tyne
  Newcastle upon Tyne
  Bank Holidays (Christmas and New Year)
  Bank Holidays (Christmas and New Year)
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
INDUSTRY
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Energy (Research)
  Energy (Research)
  Wales and Scotland
  Wales and Scotland
  Information Retrieval
  Information Retrieval
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Info-Line Ltd.
  Info-Line Ltd.
  Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976
  Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976
TRADE
  USSR
  USSR
  Airports (Security)
  Airports (Security)
SCOTLAND
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Al (Cockburnspath and Musselburgh)
  Al (Cockburnspath and Musselburgh)
  Civil Service and Local Government (Employees)
  Civil Service and Local Government (Employees)
ENERGY
  Drax B Power Station
  Drax B Power Station
  Coal (Productivity)
  Coal (Productivity)
  North Sea Oil (Participation Agreements)
  North Sea Oil (Participation Agreements)
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Fertilisers (Feedstock Price)
  Fertilisers (Feedstock Price)

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

LORD FAULKNER OF DOWNPATRICK
The Right Honourable Arthur Brian Deane Faulkner, having been created Baron Faulkner of Downpatrick, of Downpatrick in the County of Down, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Erskine of Rerrick and the Lord Grey of Naunton.

TRIBUTES TO MR. ANTHONY CROSLAND
2.32 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I am sure we would not wish to proceed with business without recording our deep sorrow at the untimely death of Anthony Crosland and our sympathy and support for his widow and family.
2
The tributes that have been paid to his memory by leading statesmen all over the world, and not least yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others, are a testimony to the respect, admiration and affection which this brilliant and courageous man inspired in all who knew him. I myself worked closely with him at the Department of Education and Science and at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where I was privileged to enjoy his friendship as a man and his confidence as my superior. Like others, I saw for myself how he combined intellect and integrity, qualities which he dedicated in war and in peace to the service of his country and humanity.
His public achievements are a matter of record, but like the Prime Minister I should like to emphasise his contribution to the great inquiry of our times: how to pursue constructive change through democratic means. As thinker and executive he constantly applied this high principle to his every action. My Lords, like Iain Macleod, whose memory we continue to cherish, Anthony Crosland was struck down literally in the harness of duty. But I believe he died as he lived, a happy man, surrounded by the love of a family in whom he delighted, and knowing not only that he had worked to high purpose but also that he had lived according to the higher graces of good humour, good taste and good faith.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, who is abroad at the present time, and of my noble friends on these Benches, we should like to be associated with the moving tribute which has been paid to the late Anthony Crosland by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. From reading his obituary it was clear that Anthony Crosland as a student was already a dedicated politician, and he never swerved from the principles which he formed at that age. His thought and beliefs were implemented throughout his life by his distinguished writings and by his political career. We on this side of the House realise that he will be a great loss not only to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and all his colleagues in the Labour Party, but also to our country. He had already earned the great admiration of his fellow Ministers in the European Council of Ministers over which he was already presiding so distinctively in such a distinguished manner from January of this year.
From this House goes a particularly warm tribute to him for his achievements. Only last Thursday from all sides of this House tribute was paid to the remarkable and distinguished speech that he had made in the European Parliament. On behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I add our tribute to those expressed by the noble Lord, and we send our deep sorrow to his wife and his family.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we also wish to be associated with the tributes which have already been paid to Anthony Crosland both inside and outside Parliament. His tragic death came as a very great shock to the country as a whole, and those of us who had known him at fairly close quarters over many years sustained a special sense of shock at the loss of one who we all knew had so much still to give to international and domestic politics, in addition to the notable contribution which he had already made in his lifetime. It has been rightly said and echoed today that this is a loss to much more than the Labour Party and the Government. We all, in all quarters, feel it very deeply, and we wish to send our sincerest sympathy to his charming wife and his family.
Lord SELWYN-LLOYD: My Lords, I should like to say just a sentence or
4
two from these Benches, from one who held the office of Foreign Secretary and who in fact—a daunting thought—was appointed to it over 21 years ago. Anthony Crosland had a fine mind. He was an effective Minister and debater; he upheld the standards expected of the Treasury Bench—lucidity, courtesy, moderation but firmness when necessary. He had a most attractive personality. His death is a great loss to our public life. Our sympathy goes out to his widow; they were, I know, a devoted couple. Our good wishes go to his successor.

WATERWAYS BOARD AND HORSE-DRAWN BOATS
2.39 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: 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 will try to dissuade the British Waterways Board from banning horse-drawn boats from the canals and waterways under the Board's control; and whether they agree that possible damage to tow-paths and inconvenience to other users is insufficient reason for such a ban.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand that the British Waterways Board have not imposed a total ban on horse-drawn boats using their navigations but that they have decided not to licence any more than the seven boats which are already operating. Licensing of boats is a matter for the Board and it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to dissuade them from any course of action which they consider appropriate in matters of day-to-day management. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Minister of State has written to the chairman of the Board questioning this policy and I am sending a copy of his letter to the noble Lord.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that encouraging reply, may I ask her whether she would agree that we in this country have a great reverence for tradition, and

5
that the tradition of horses on the water-ways really goes back to the start of the waterways? Further, would she not think that if no further licences are to be issued, very shortly there will not be any horses anywhere, and would this not be the greatest of pities?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that these nostalgic links with the past ought to be retained in a few places where to do so might be feasible; but only seven boats are licensed at the moment on about 2,000 miles of waterway belonging to the Board, and I understand that they have not received any new application since 1974.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, would the Minister perhaps agree that it is not horses that harm the environment and inconvenience other canal users, but rather flat-bottomed craft fitted with outboard motors, which flagrantly exceed the statutory speed limits, thereby washing away the banks of the canals and driving away wildlife? Would she perhaps suggest to the British Waterways Board that, rather than horse-drawn boats and barges, it is this sort of behaviour that ought to be banned?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is another question. I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the comments made by the noble Lord.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while my noble friend is drawing the problem of the canals to the attention of her right honourable friend, and since many of us concur with the supplementary question just asked, may I ask her whether she will endeavour to make her right honourable friend realise the value to Britain of these great canals, to see that they are used for transport, when some future Government with common sense works out a national transport policy which will use the canals for the benefit of Britain, as the canals are used in Europe?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend is aware of the views expressed by my noble friend.

CONTINENTAL SHELF EXPLORATION: ROCKALL
2.43 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 will make a Statement on the right to extract minerals and hydro-carbons from the Continental Shelf in the vicinity of Rockall.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, areas of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf to the West of the Hebrides and surrounding the Island of Rockall were designated under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 in 1971 and 1974. Holders of exploration licences are free to exercise their exploration rights within designated areas. No production licences have yet been issued in the vicinity of Rockall.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I trust that the dispute that has arisen with the Irish Government can be settled amicably. Can the noble Lord give an assurance that in the mean-time there need be no delay in the exploration work relating to the blocks which have been allocated recently to BP in the area contested by the Irish Republic? And can the noble Lord confirm that in the past six years, since the British delineation of the Continental Shelf in that area, no dissent whatever was registered by the Irish Government until a few days ago?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can confirm that there will be no unavoidable delay in allowing exploration and, where licensed, production to proceed. As to the point on arbitration, we have conveyed to the Government of the Republic of Ireland our view that the dispute should be submitted to some form of third party settlement of a judicial nature. I would wish to give attention to the third point and provide the noble Lord with a specific and precise answer.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords could the noble Lord tell the House what is the basis of the Irish claim?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, not without considerable notice. This is not only an international claim; it is also an Irish one.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is not the basis of the British claim merely that slightly more than 10 years ago a helicopter owned by the United Kingdom landed on this rock in the middle of the Atlantic, and we then announced that it belonged to the United Kingdom? Is not that a rather artificial concept, and may not a way out of the dispute be for us and the Irish jointly to agree that the ownership of the resources in the Continental Shelf surrounding Rockall should be vested in the United Nations, as a contribution by the United Kingdom towards a solution of the problem of ownership of the deep ocean resources?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the concept might well be artificial if the facts were precisely as the noble Lord has advanced them. They are not quite as he has informed the House. It would take a little time to give a full account of the history of this island. I notice that The Times has been engaged in helping us on this matter. The noble Lord can take it that the British claim is well founded in law. The second point that he made is, of course, a very helpful one. I have said that we have conveyed to the Government of the Republic our willingness to proceed to arbitration on a judicial basis. As to the possibility of certain areas throughout the world, perhaps areas around islands of this nature, being sequestrated for international purposes, this is a continuing matter of discussion in the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that so far at least the United Kingdom has proved eminently ready to consider any proposal on those lines, not confined specifically to islands, but generally.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Irish Government's claim appears to ignore completely the islands off the West
8
of our coast, together containing many thousands of population, and to be based entirely on the coastline? Will he confirm that these islands are just as much part of Scotland as the mainland, and that any proposition of this kind, if it were to be sustained, would raise a very serious issue for other countries in a similar situation, and, of course, especially for archipelagos?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The Irish claim, at least in part, is based on precisely that: they wish to measure the distance between the mainland of the United Kingdom—that is to say, in this case the mainland of Scotland—and Rockall, from the land mass, ignoring the fact that the Western Isles and the Outer Hebrides are very much part of Scotland and of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord enlarge on what he has said and tell us this simply for the information of the House? Since he now admits that this Irish claim has, at any rate, a geographical argument behind it, does it also have a geological argument and does it have an historical argument?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would, of course, dispute that the Irish claim had valid argument on any of those three grounds, but this is surely a matter for fairly prolonged argument, especially in this connection. I would simply say that, on geographical grounds—in which the noble Earl is perhaps more interested than any of us, and certainly most competent to speak—a simple measurement would show that the island is within the sovereignty of Britain on measurable geographical grounds. As to history, I would not, as I said before, without very long notice, engage in any historical points involving myself and my cousins the Irish.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, can the noble Lord indicate the population of Rockall?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, with great precision—nil.

COCHRANE WORKING GROUP AND CHIROPRACTORS
2.50 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: 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 or not it is intended that a doctor of chiropractic will join Professor Cochrane's Working Group to study back pain.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Working Group on back pain has already held two meetings, and it is not proposed to add to its membership. The chairman has advised that full consideration is being given to the use of various types of manipulative therapy in the treatment of back pain. The British Chiropractors' Association has been invited to submit its views and particularly evidence of the results of research into the contribution of chiropractors to the relief of back pain.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he recall that when Dr. David Owen—and I take this opportunity of congratulating him on his elevation to Cabinet rank—decided to create this Working Party he used the word "multidisciplinary "? Therefore, would the noble Lord not agree that if it is to be multidisciplinary, a representative of this discipline should without more ado be appointed as a member of the Group?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. However, one must bear in mind that in this particular field, as he rightly says, a number of disciplines operate. It is quite impossible for practitioners of manipulative therapy to be represented in any great number on the committee. The noble Lord will know that among the members of the committee are a physiotherapist and an osteopath, who is also a medical practitioner. They were selected as being representative of the largest groups of such practitioners. There is this difficulty of limiting the size of the committee and embracing all aspects.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, is it possible for other groups that are interested in this area of treatment—such as groups interested in the Alexander technique—to make representations to this Working Group?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is for the Working Party to decide its own procedures, but in my reply I said that the chairman of the committee had made it clear that the Chiropractors' Association is invited to submit views. I imagine that that offer would be open to any other organisation that has a contribution to make in this field.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in view of the fact that Professor Cochrane is able to arrange his own procedures, would it not be possible to co-opt a member on to the committee without adding to the membership of the committee as such?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, whichever way it is done, one would add to the number. There is a chairman and 15 members who are drawn from a very wide field of competence, expertise and knowledge. If one co-opts one person, I am perfectly certain that three or four other organisations with a similar competence could also be asked to co-opt. I think that would be highly dangerous.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, although appreciating the difficulties to which the noble Lord has referred, does he realise that this particular discipline has more to do with the treatment and investigation of the back than any other discipline—in fact, that is its sole concern—and that this discipline is recognised in practically half the civilised world as part of their National Health medical advance.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is because there is some recognition along the line that the noble Lord has suggested that the chairman has invited the association to submit views and particularly evidence of the research which it has carried out. I hope it will do so.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, as this problem is so grave and extensive, can my noble friend give any indication as to when the committee is likely to report?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to do so. It has had only two meetings. I cannot give the House any guidance on that matter at all.

CHLORODIFLOUOROMETHANE AND CANCER
2.55 p.m.
Lord CROOK: 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 their attention has been called to the warning issued by reputable manufacturers (such as ICI and Du Pont) as to the necessary precautions to be observed in handling chlorodiflouoromethane; and what action, if any, has been or is being taken to investigate, in the public interest, the suggestion that the chemical is a cancer-causing agent.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission informs me that Imperial Chemical Industries Limited informed the Health and Safety Executive of the results of a test carried out on chlorodiflouoromethane which suggested that the chemical might be a cancer-causing agent. The results came from a screening test involving the induction of mutations in micro-organisms and cannot be taken as conclusive that the chemical would cause cancer either in experimental animals or in human beings. The Trades Union Congress medical adviser is also aware of this information. Both ICI and Du Pont have supplied the Executive with copies of the advice given to their customers outlining precautionary measures to be taken when handling this chemical. The Executive has further been informed that ICI has started a long-term study with experimental animals in order to resolve the suspicion of cancer-causing effect. Du Pont has also announced its intention to undertake similar long-term studies in the United States of America. The Executive is following closely this work and will consider the implications when the results of the studies are known.
Lord CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that excellent reply as regards general content. Is it the intention to get quick results in relation to this matter, and not slow ones, bearing in mind that I received that kind of reply when I first raised questions about asbestos and scrotal cancer as long as 20 years ago? No one thought then that anything was wrong, but look at what has happened since!
Lord ORAM: My Lords, we recognise the urgency of this matter, but, on the other hand, the kind of experiments that have to take place will necessarily take some time.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not everyone would agree with the "ratomorphic" approach to these studies that have been outlined? It would be more reassuring if the noble Lord could have told the House of any epidemiological studies taking place among those workers who are exposed to these materials.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I do not claim to match the noble Lord in his use of scientific words. I shall examine quite closely what he has said and write to him about any such studies that have taken place.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this general field of toxic agents—and the published list contains well over 100 chemicals—there is increasing anxiety at the statements we are getting? I received one fairly recently on dioxine, which is still in use and which we are now told can produce secondary effects if the weeds on which it is used are put on a bonfire. In every case there has been a tendency to conceal from the start; in every case there has been a tendency grossly to understate the risks, and in every case more serious toxic results have followed the use of these new and untested chemicals.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I know that the whole House is impressed by the way in which my noble friend constantly calls our attention to this problem and by his justified anxiety about the matter. I shall call the attention of the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to my noble friend's remarks.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that the chemical companies themselves are in some doubt as to the effect of this chemical—otherwise they would not be giving particulars or agreeing to make further tests—would it not be in the best interests of all concerned if the chemicals were withdrawn from use until all these matters are resolved without doubt?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, according to present knowledge this substance has a very low toxicity. I am not sure that the action suggested by my noble friend would be justified in this case, but his remarks will certainly have been noted.
Lord CROOK: My Lords, would my noble friend give an assurance that we shall hear something about this question at an early and not a late date? We had to wait until there were legal actions on asbestos and on scrotal cancer before anything at all was done by the Government of the day, and we do not want this to happen in respect of people using refrigerators and freezers.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I will give my noble friend an undertaking to keep him informed of developments. If it is appropriate, we can arrange that the House as a whole should be informed as weil.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I shall be brief because we have a long list of speakers and I shall have the opportunity of replying at the end of the debate. The Bill itself is self-explanatory. It has only one cause and effect—and I will take from the Long Title the words:
"An Act to restrict certain experiments on animals."
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate—taking up a truly Christian attitude, even to those who are going to oppose me. I should particularly like to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, who has come a long way especially to make his maiden speech on this occasion.
14
I am also grateful to the Research Defence Society and my friends in the cosmetics industry (I do have some) who have given me a statement of their case.
Today is animals' day. I think last Wednesday was people's day. Indeed, this is Animal Year, and I am sure that all your Lordships will recognise that people do care about animals. The recent plight of stranded cattle, the release of the beagle dogs just before Christmas, show that when people know about these situations they call for action. I have received, and continue to receive, hundreds of letters on this Bill. They are splendid letters, mainly from women but not entirely, and I would say to the cosmetics industry "Please note". In addition, I have had hundreds of thousands of signatures to a petition so weighty that I am unable to bring it into the Chamber. A letter I received today was typical. It came from the nursing staff and the members of the college of remedial gymnasts and therapy at a hospital in Wakefield. I have heard from doctors, chemists, consumers, and from all kinds of people.
The Bill originally, as your Lordships will remember, came before the House in June 1975, and bearing in mind, as befits a humble Back Bencher, the criticism of the Government spokesman at the time when he said that the Bill would not achieve the object sought, I have waited to see whether Her Majesty's Government would introduce their own legislation—as in the case of the Endangered Species Bill which noble Lords will remember was originally introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and his own tenacity was finally rewarded. However, so far there has been no move in an area where all agree that the existing law is somewhat out of date, to say the least. Therefore, the Bill comes before the House in the same form as before. Having re-read the previous Second Reading debate in Hansard, I suspect that the arguments deployed today also will be the same.
Therefore, the starting point seems to be quite reasonably the question: Is the Bill needed? No one has denied that vast numbers of animals are used for testing. I am not going to put forward a figure, as several organisations have come up with different figures, but I think that the cosmetics industry itself suggests 50,000

15
animals, or 1 per cent. of the total of animals used for experiments. Speaking today on a BBC programme, a doctor from the industry said that pain was present but that it was not the same level of pain as humans experience. I am paraphrasing. I think I can reasonably ask:"How does he know"?
There are alternatives, and these will not be looked at while scientists can use animals. Dare I suggest that scientists, like most people, are fairly conservative? I notice that the Research Defence Society in no way attempts to defend all animal experiments. It says:
"The Society is entirely in favour of 'alternative means' to animal experiments being developed as widely as possible and it contributes to the cost of research in this field."
It then goes on:
"But it necessarily takes the strongest exception to unscientific intervention in this very sophisticated area."
I reject at once this arrogant concept. I think I have every right, as an unscientific individual, to intervene in this sophisticated area.
The basic purpose of experimentation is to reproduce the human condition in the animal model. Again I am quoting from those who are dealing in this sphere of research defence. The other, as in the case of lipstick, for example, is that small quantities of the product are absorbed over a substantial time. I think we all know the kind of research that can produce any known result. Any substance, if administered in large enough doses, will kill. If any of us ate enough safety pins, or swallowed pots of paint, presumably we should die. I am not quite sure what, or who, would be benefited by that piece of research.
Much has been made of the argument for safety. May I again quote the Research Defence Society:
"The present legal position of safety testing of cosmetics in Britain is not precisely defined."
Exactly. It is certainly only related, so far as I can see—and I have done my homework—to products having a therapeutic claim. I recall that on a previous occasion the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to toxicity in relation to a cosmetic product. Particularly can I say to
16
the women who buy the cosmetics, is it not reasonable to ask for cosmetic products which do not contain toxic ingredients, such as we already have marketed under Beauty Without Cruelty and other firms? There are scores of well-tried basic ingredients already available. Do we need more? In any case, if a cosmetic makes a therapeutic claim, then it can continue to be dealt with under the Act as at present administered. Incidentally, I have obtained a copy of the Draft Directive of the EEC in this connection. It gives a definition of cosmetic products. This was a question debated at some length last time.
May I also mention that since, I understand, VAT is chargeable on cosmetics but not on medicines, a definition must surely be available within the Treasury. It is always significant that if money is to be extracted there can be a clear line of demarcation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, last time supplied us with a very good definition of a cosmetic, and I hope that this time we are not going to hear anything about that.
I note that reference has again been made to products sold which proved unsafe when used, and that animal tests had not been carried out. In reply to this I can only ask whether tests on animals were carried out for the talcum powder which was found to be dangerous to little children in France not very long ago. I still assert that allergies can be established only when the individual who uses the product has tried it out on himself, or herself, and luckily very few people are allergic to all products. I appreciate the point made, that even if my Bill becomes law it will still be possible for experiments to be carried out on animals for cosmetic products made in other countries (although there are some countries where alternative testing must be done), but why do the British manufacturers not appreciate that women are already asking me for the name of cosmetics for which animal testing is not carried out?
Just after Christmas I went with my two-year-old twin grandchildren to the Beatrix Potter exhibition and I listened again to the enchanting stories of Mrs.Rabbit and marvelled once again at the

17
ambivalent attitude of society to animals. Poor Mrs.Rabbit! She may be lovely between the pages of Beatrix Potter—but she may be more unfortunate if she is available for testing. All human life has dignity. If we are to use the animal, it must be for a purpose for which no alternative is possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY The Earl of HALSBURY rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, having proposed her Motion, in rising to move this Amendment, I have the unenviable task of setting about its rejection in a manner which will leave the House in no doubt that there will probably be a Division on the Motion for the Second Reading. It is a graceless business that I undertake; nobody would want to reject a proposal which obviously has its basis in goodheartedness. I have three purposes, however. First, I must do what I have just said, reject what I consider to be a wrong-headed piece of legislation, however goodhearted its intention. I want, secondly, to save your Lordships' time on the further stages of the Bill because, unless the Home Secretary has changed his mind since we last debated exactly the same Bill six months ago, we shall be told by the Government that they cannot make time available or give support or facilities for the further passage of the Bill, which means that it will not pass.
In that case, would we not do better to save whatever time we have to debate the Littlewood Report of years gone by but which has never had a proper treating in either House, or some of the anomalies latent in circumstances where the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911 cover the same territory in somewhat anomalous terms in such a way as to inflict injustice on the individuals concerned? My third reason is that once more I see medical science being placed between the hammer of the human and environmental protection lobby on the one hand and the anvil of the animal protection lobby on the other,
18
and it is my task, as the President of the Research Defence Society, to do everything I can to extract it from that position.
I will not make the kind of set speech which I made in the last debate, well constructed on Aristotelian principles and so on; I intend to try to debate this matter by answering some of the questions that were left unanswered then. Both this debate and the previous one have a background. In the last debate the background was a large-scale propaganda campaign mounted by the anti-vivisectionist movement related to the number of animals used in cosmetic testing, and in this debate we must add a further piece of background, namely last Saturday's "Horizon" programme, which I hope as many of your Lordships as possible saw as part of the homework for this debate.
On the last occasion, as to the usage of animals for cosmetic purposes, wild figures were put forward, anything from 1 million to 3 million out of the 5-plus million that occur in the Home Office reports. Wisely, Lady Phillips, both then and now, did not tie herself down to any particular figure, although the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, quoted 1 million as a figure he had seen, but he took no responsibility for its accuracy. Since our last debate I have been doing my homework. I have to some extent mobilised the cosmetical folk to operate through their trade federation to find out how many animals they use. A first figure of 50,000 was put forward, but they have subsequently reduced it to an upper limit of 30,000, so the whole battery of this propaganda has been concentrated on either 1 per cent., if one takes the figure of 50,000 mentioned by the noble Baroness, or 30,000, the figure I am working on; about one-half of 1 per cent. of the 5 million animals used.
The "Horizon" programme was a first-class piece of television journalism—balanced and fair in all respects—but in my view it gave insufficient emphasis to three points which I would like to put before your Lordships because I believe there has been some misunderstanding about them in the past. The first is the formidable character of the Home Secretary's power to cancel a licence. For the employee in industry who had his licence withdrawn it would in effect

19
involve complete loss of customary livelihood. He might get another job, but it would not be his customary one, and in a university with tenure it would involve complete blockage of promotion because a person could not go on doing research.
It is often said that there must be something "phoney" about the fact that 100 years have passed without a prosecution under this Act, but in fact there have been three: two of them resulted in an acquittal, and in the third there was a conviction on a technical point not involving an animal. The reason why the Act has not been broken is that the whole of the animal experimentation personnel are most anxious to co-operate with the Home Office; they are not prepared to run any risk of having their licences taken away, and your Lordships should be aware of that point. Secondly, I do not think sufficient emphasis was put on the way in which the economics here work in favour of minimising the number of animals used, and I shall come back to that point later.
Thirdly, I think there was some misunderstanding about the statistics they gave. I could not write them down at dictation speed because they took me by surprise, but the figures given were: for Government use, 950,000; medicine, I think 950,000, making 1,900,000, leaving a total unaccounted for, commercial, of 3,300,000, but that is partly based on a misunderstanding of what one means by "commercial". Insulin is made commercially and has to be tested by the use of animals, and 800,000 animals are used in industry which makes insulin simply for the purpose of standardising insulin, which would be a most dangerous drug if it were not properly standardised. Thus, one has to transfer 800,000 out of one category and into another, whereupon one finds that the accounted for comes to 2,700,000 and the unaccounted for comes to 2,500,000.
Then the LD 50 test. I find that whereas we took up a lot of time when we last debated this issue, it is barely used at all in the cosmetic industry; they use what is called a limit test. A limit test asks this question: what is the largest part of, let us say, cold cream which the smallest child is capable of manipulating that it could swallow at a go? What is
20
that as a percentage of its body weight? One then feeds that percentage of body weight to a suitably selected batch of animals, and if they survive it and nothing happens then that drug is regarded as safe. There are a few LD 50 tests done, it is thought with an upper figure of about 200 for the industry as a whole per annum.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY:
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he knows of any authenticated case of a child swallowing a pot of cold cream?
The Earl of HALSBURY: No, I think it most unlikely, my Lords. I said "let us say," but I must add—I shall come back to this later—that there is some difficulty in knowing whether lipstick is what we are talking about or a foodstuff, because lipstick can be traced through the human body and it is generally believed that the greater part of it is in fact ingested and swallowed, and children are brought into hospitals having eaten mother's lipstick and so on.
The last point left unanswered from our previous debate—it sounds rather like something from Agatha Christie—was the case of the noble Baroness's ear rings, and this is what Lady Phillips said:
"I bought some earrings, to which I was obviously allergic, but how could I claim against anybody? Could they have been put on to a little animal and tested?"—[Official Report, 27/6/75; col. 1762.]
If the suspensory part of the ear ring was made of gold or silver, I would doubt whether there was any direct connection between that and the allergy, but if, as might easily have been the case, it was a nickel containing alloy, then nickel allergies have been established because people have to work with nickel. In the context of their work, nickel allergies have been proved on animals. The reason that allergy is such an elusive thing is that it depends upon the life history of the individual and on prior exposure and sensitisation to what are called allergens. But, if the phenomenon of allergy is a little less mysterious than the noble Baroness suggested in her last speech, it is because there are animals which are much more sensitive to allergies than are human beings. Rabbits are an example. All we know about allergies is derived from experiments on animals.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, since the noble Earl has introduced this point, may I say that, when I purchased my earrings, nobody pointed out that because they were nickel and because they had a certain kind of spray on them I was liable to be allergic to them. So what was the point of the test if nobody told me when I bought the earrings?
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, if we want to extend the Consumer Protection Act to saying that jewellery must be tested for allergy in animals, we can do so, but it will be a pretty lengthy business. However, I shall come back to this question of consumer protection later.
On the general point of the excessive use of animals, this must be discussed in the context of the inspectorate. I believe that there is some misunderstanding here which I want to clear up. The 14 inspectors employed by the Home Office do not have to inspect 5 million experiments one by one, each of which is of a different character; they have to inspect 600 establishments, each one of which is carrying out a relatively small number of procedures on a relatively large number of animals. But 90 per cent. of the animals involved are located in 10 per cent. of the establishments, so 90 per cent. of the inspectors' work is involved in visiting 60 establishments. The Institute of Cancer Research, of which I am the chairman, uses 130,000 animals yearly—mostly murines. That is about 2½ per cent. of the 5 million reported to the Home Office. I can vouch from my own experience of our work that those that we use are covered, effectively, by about 10 to 20 standard procedures, agreed with the Home Office in advance and never varied, because to vary them would destroy the comparability between one experiment and another.
As to the definition of cosmetics, which is what this debate is about, I do not know whether the EEC Directive provides a good definition; I do not know whether the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is a good one. But the illustration I have used—that of lipstick—I think shows one of the difficulties. A hair dye is a dyestuff. If it is a hair dye, it is also a leather dye and it may be used in inks, in paints, in textiles and foods. Hair dye may be only one use
22
What about the factory personnel who handle these dyes during the course of manufacture? Currently, a large number of new, so-called "permanent" hair dyes are under suspicion as bacterial mutagens; that is to say, they induct the formation of new species of bacteria. This has two dangers. First, the natural bacterial flora of the human scalp can mutate into pathogens. Secondly, mutagens are always high on the suspect list for carcinogenesis. It is not a 100 per cent. correlation, but it is about a 90 per cent. correlation and probably if, under the Consumer Protection Act, one went into a supermarket, the most dangerous things one would find on the shelves would be tobacco products, on the one hand, and hair dyes, on the other.
What is involved in testing a material for carcinogenesis? One makes a solution of it, takes a paint brush and splashes is across an appropriate portion of the skin of a mouse, and then waits for the greater part of the life cycle of the mouse to see whether a tumour develops. If it develops, one kills the mouse and does an autopsy. Do not let us fall into the trap of thinking that mice would be immortal if there were no scientists who used them for experimental purposes: they have to die, like the rest of us, sooner or later. Nobody will keep the tumour going in the mouse for longer than necessary to establish its nature.
I now come to the control of compassion by the economy of the process. A mouse costs, at the point when we have used it, on an average, £1 in direct expenditure. Add overheads and it is £1.50. With 130,000 of these animals in use, I have to find £200,000 a year to finance the utilisation of animals in cancer research. That is about 10 per cent. of our total expenditure. We have to get it out of the Medical Research Council, which is itself short of money. On a project grant, the cost of the animals is included in the grant. The Medical Research Council refers it to assessors to see whether they can suggest cheaper ways of doing it. The first thing they look at is the number of animals we use. Of course, we try to cut it down because the smaller the number of animals the better the chance of our grant getting through. The Medical Research Council tries to cut it down because the cost will be less. We would

23
always use alternative methods if they were available and could be used. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, she is quite wrong in saying that scientists will not use alternative methods as long as they are given access to animals. At the Institute of Cancer Research, we have both types of research going on side by side. We are asked why we do not grow human breast cancer tissue—carcinoma of the breast—in tissue culture. The answer is that it will not grow; it will only grow as a graft in an immune-deprived mouse and that is why we have to do this.
Dealing with other Acts which might come into collision with this, there is the Pharmacy and Poison Act 1933, the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, the Agriculture and Poisonous Substances Act 1952, the Food and Drugs Act 1955, the Consumer Protection Act 1961, the Medicines Act 1968, and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Also, we are now subject to the EEC Directive of 27th July last, requiring us to homogenise our legislation on the safety of cosmetics and to bring the introduction of new cosmetics into line with the regulations covering the introduction of new drugs.
How can we, with any sense of responsibility, allow Bills to pass when their effect, on the one hand, will be to make it impossible for us to co-operate effectively with our partners in Europe and, on the other, will deny the courts in this country access to evidence in a civil action for tort arising out of the provisions of some of these Acts in our already existing legislation? We must not place Her Majesty's subjects in a position where what one Act enjoins another forbids. I have never questioned the good-heartedness of the noble Baroness, but this Bill expresses the wrong-headedness of the animal lobby whose spokesman she is. I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
3.29 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill from these Benches for three reasons. The first is that I believe that this is another attempt to re-examine the state of the law on experiments on live
24
animals; the second is that it gives another opportunity to call attention to a matter which gives rise to public concern; the third is that it provides an opportunity to review some of the basic arguments. Many of your Lordships who are taking part in the debate today will feel, as I do, that there is a certain predictability about the nature of the arguments themselves because we appear to be confronted with two irreconcilables—the public need for protection against drug hazard and the use of animals for research to satisfy this need because no suitable alternative exists.
I speak as a layman rather in the same tone as the noble Baroness, though from another Bench. I am not a scientist well acquainted, as is the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, with pathogens, carcinogens and mutagens. Nevertheless, I have also taken the trouble to do my homework in, I hope, some detail, and I should like to suggest, even at this early point in the debate, that these two irreconcilables are not perhaps without a third alternative. On the last occasion when we discussed the Bill, on 27th June 1975, the question of tissue organ and cell cultures was raised, but not in any great detail. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to it once in his reply, and I would further like to add to these alternatives much more sophisticated computer techniques which involve a mathematical process.
I am well aware that there are certain circumstances in which a live animal is to be preferred to either cell tissue or organ culture. Nevertheless, I return again and again to the Littlewood Report and to that very important paragraph, No. 237. I make no apology for quoting it because I believe that it is concerned with one of the basic problems here. It says this:
"As regards public acceptance of what is done, we think it right to draw attention to three major questions which were put to us by several critics of the present scale of animal experimentation:—

(1) Who can say whether, if certain biological tests were forbidden, satisfactory chemical or other methods of testing would not be developed?

(2) Who is responsible for establishing whether modern medical techniques, with their emphasis on immunology and drug therapy both of which are inseparable from animal experimentation, are developing medical practice in the right direction?

(3) Who is to take responsibility for moral or ethical judgment in the use of animals for experimental purposes as such?"

25
Those are three very leading arguments, three open questions; and I do not think they have ever been answered, either in this House or in another place. It was certainly not within the capacity of the Littlewood Committee to answer them because they left them as open questions. But I feel that one of the best tests of all is the test of public opinion, and I was particularly glad when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to this. The right reverend Prelate is not here this afternoon, but his brother, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, is to speak later, and I hope that we may have some further encouragement from that direction. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred, as reported at column 1732 of the Official Report, of our debate of 27th June 1975, to the "Draize" methods of testing. He said that:
"73 per cent. of the electorate disapproved of cosmetics and toilet preparations being tested on animals."
That is an expression of public opinion, and one has to bear in mind at the same time all that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said about the very necessary protection against drug hazard. I read the noble Lord's speech over twice before coming to this Dispatch Box, and I recognise the very real dilemmas in which the Home Office is placed. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was quite right when he suggested that the Advisory Committee should be more fully utilised than it is at present, and further that there are options open to the Home Secretary to cancel a licence. Here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury; he referred to this very point this afternoon. Should the Home Secretary be able to examine this question in a little further detail, there are options at his hand which it would be possible to use. The Bill before us suggests closing one of those options, and it was the recommendation of the Little-wood Report that this option should not be taken. Nevertheless, in the way that the Committee worded their recommendation they did not totally close the option. They left it as a partially open matter.
This afternoon we will cover a very wide field, and I want to touch merely upon its periphery. I believe that there is a passive acceptance within the Home Office
26
that the present system should very largely continue as it is. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be able to give a different view. Nevertheless, we have before us a Bill, and in the back of our minds the Report of the Littlewood Committee, which was set up in 1962 by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. The Committee reported in 1965, and as many of your Lordships will have found, by now aspects of the Report are considerably out of date, partially because the world of experimentation has become larger and partially because some of the conclusions reached are not entirely satisfactory.
I here refer to the question of publicity, because I believe that the Littlewood Report in its comments upon the publicity aspect did not know what we know now. The noble Baroness referred to the situation as it stood within recent months: the question of experiments on beagles; the question of certain other cases which were brought to public notice. Here is a very important factor. If the public had a greater knowledge of what was being carried out, there would undoubtedly be a far greater outcry, especially in regard to the LD 50 test. We listened with interest to the noble Earl's speech in regard to the LD 50 test this afternoon, and he assured your Lordships that it was used on rare occasions. I believe that this test is repugnant to many of your Lordships and to a very much wider public outside your Lordships' House. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to it—
Lord PLATT: My Lords, may I make a point? I think that when the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the LD 50 test as being very rarely used, he qualified that by saying "in the cosmetic industry".
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for saying that. Of course that is perfectly correct, and that is the context in which we are discussing the measure before us. I hope that I have not misled your Lordships in this regard, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for that advice.
I refer to the question of the Home Office returns in this field because we have seen a very substantial growth in recent

27
years. The year which was drawn to our attention some time ago was 1972, when the total number of experiments performed under licence was 5,327,123. That was a total figure. Of those, 86 per cent. were performed without the use of an anaesthetic. I understand from the figures cautiously advanced today that that figure has now increased to well over 5½ million. We return once again to the question: Are these experiments really necessary? Again, I believe that there is a wide and growing body of opinion in this country which believes that a number of experiments are duplications and are unnecessary; they are not only duplications of the same research in separate commercial establishments but, further, duplications in batch numbers of specific goods.
My Lords, I accept the fact that the figures are to some extent misleading because we are dealing here with what is said to be 1 per cent. of the total of experimentation. Nevertheless, I believe that even if just one unnecessary experiment in this field is carried out, it is to be deplored. My Lords, I have spoken often enough on this subject, and I have addressed your Lordships many times on measures of a similar nature. I believe that this Bill deserves a Second Reading.
3.40 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to address your Lordships extremely briefly because we have a large number of noble Lords who wish to speak today. I should like to start by saying that I entirely support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl. The number of experiments performed upon animals from a purely cosmetic point of view—I am not going to muddle it up with the medical point of view—is extremely small. It is about 1 per cent. of the total. This really comes down to what we mean by an experiment. You can have a very mild, simple, innocuous experiment, which is what the bulk of those for cosmetics are, or you can have the rather terrifying ones, of which one sees photographs and examples, which are extremely uncommon, although the photographs of them may be quite common.
The Research Defence Society believes, quite properly, that any substance which
28
is going to be used widely for a cosmetic must be tested, and that the need is that that test should be a decisive test. Poisoning by a non-medical substance, I am bound to say, does occur from time to time, particularly in the case of children who eat or drink things which are not intended to be devoured but which they find lying about. I think that if you are going to insist that every adult woman must be so careful of her cosmetics that no child can possibly gain access to them unnecessarily, you are really asking for more than can be expected. The number of children admitted to hospital last year suffering from some ill-effects from taking a cosmetic was about 10,000, none of which, I am pleased to say, was fatal. That shows that the testing which had been done before these drugs appeared on the market had been done to some good purpose.
Quite a number of experiments are made upon human beings, particularly as regards hair and skin. I think that if we were to make things more difficult for this limited number of experiments to be carried out in this country then more would be done in foreign countries, and I think it would be found, probably, that the standards of care required of the experimenter there would not be so high as those demanded in this country. One can see where things go wrong because, to come back to the thalidomide trouble, one wonders whether, if tests had been made on pregnant mice, pregnant guinea pigs or whatever was the animal in question, the trouble with thalidomide might have been discovered earlier and the large number of children who were born disabled would not have been so born.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? I should like to ask him a direct question. Was this drug, or was it not, tested on animals?
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, it was tested on animals but, so far as I know, it was not very thoroughly tested on pregnant animals, which is the point I was trying to make.
My Lords, I first became interested in this subject because of the terrible experiences which occurred in the United States of America during the First World War.

29
It is all a very long time ago now, but it made one realise then that there was a need to be careful. A certain number of girls were employed in painting watches with luminous radioactive paint so that they could be seen at night. Because there was thought to be no danger in this paint, the girls moistened their brushes with their lips and with their tongues before they applied the paint, which I think is something we all did with normal paint when we were children. As a result of that, because there had been no prior testing of this paint, every one of those young women—and, luckily, there were not a great many of them—developed incurable, intractible, painful cancer of the mouth or tongue, or somewhere in their upper extremity, and they all died of it. It was realised, once the first few had developed this disease, that those who had not developed it quite so soon would do so in time, and they lived waiting for this terrible fate to befall them. That, I think, was one of the first things to come my way that made me see that we have to be extremely careful to make tests whereever we can, so as to be sure that things do not go wrong again.
My Lords, the final point I should like to make is this. It is said that pet dogs and cats get stolen by the experimenters for use in their experiments. This, I think, is extremely improbable, because the kind of animals which are used for experiments of the kind we are talking about have to be bred, and they come from stock. They do not come from the odd dog or the odd cat which is picked up in the streets, or from the odd mouse. So, as your Lordships will have gathered from the short speech I have made, quoting a few points which back up what the noble Earl has said, I personally shall vote for the noble Earl's Amendment.
3.47 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, as a number of speakers have pointed out, this is the second occasion in the last two years when we have had the opportunity to discuss this matter, on both occasions on Bills introduced by my noble friend Lady Phillips. We are dealing here with the balance—and it is certainly a difficult one—between the needs of medical science, on one side, and the discharge of our responsibilities
30
towards animals, on the other. It is not the Government's view that this balance can ever be properly set by a single system, by an immutable set of guidelines. It needs to be constantly examined and, if changes are found to be necessary, they must certainly be made. I hope that what I have to say later in my speech will convince the House that the Government are prepared to do this. Nevertheless, I must begin by dealing with the proposals which are set out in my noble friend's Bill, and on this I must make it perfectly clear at the outset that our position has in no way changed since we last debated this issue. The Government do not believe the changes proposed in this Bill to be either necessary or desirable.
The purpose of this Bill is to make it a criminal offence to undertake certain research involving animals—research which has been lawful for a hundred years. Before we take such a step it seems to me that we require to be satisfied that there is involved a problem of such a grave character that the criminal law should be changed in this way. The Government do not believe that any such case has been made out. The case against cosmetic testing on animals—and, like my noble friend, I too listened to the programme on the radio this morning, when this matter was discussed—appears to be that animals should not be made to suffer for what is described as a frivolous purpose.
It may be argued by some that cosmetics may generally serve a frivolous purpose—although I would by no means accept such a statement without substantial reservations. But whatever our views may be on this, their testing, as opposed to their normal use, serves a serious and important purpose: the prevention of avoidable hazards to health. These hazards are not run only by the women, and men, who use cosmetic preparations of various kinds. As has been pointed out, they are run by children who may swallow them accidentally, by the staff who may administer them professionally in hairdressers and beauty salons, and also by those involved in their manufacture. I believe it is essential to establish from the outset that the safety-testing of any substance, whatever the ultimate use of that substance, is of fundamental importance.
The different situations I have described all require that substances should not be

31
in use which, because they have not been adequately tested, may have potential for causing serious and unsuspected harm. The prevention of damage of this kind is the purpose of legislation in this country and abroad, the provisions of which are increasingly being strengthened by EEC Directives, one of which deals specifically with cosmetics. My noble friend mentioned this in her speech and I think it is not without importance.
The EEC Directive of 27th July 1976 makes explicit requirements about safety-testing. Article 2 of the Directive reads:
"Cosmetic products put on the market within the Community must not be liable to cause damage to human health when they are applied under normal conditions of use."
Article 3 of the same Directive reads:
"Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that only cosmetic products which conform to the provisions of this Directive and its Annexes may be put on the market."
That is an obligation on this country. I would accept that neither the Directive nor the Annexes to it require the use of live animals in tests; but it is the blunt truth that in some cases animals simply have to be used if safety is to be guaranteed. I believe, and I must make it clear, that if this Bill were to go on to the Statute Book, the United Kingdom would be in breach of its international obligations.
Against this, it is argued that existing cosmetics have already been tested, that there is no need for more, and that the use of animals for this purpose only helps to swell the profits of the manufacturers. I do not believe that this argument is soundly based. If we believe that no new cosmetics should be made, and are prepared to make it a criminal offence to do so, that would at least be logical. But I find it impossible to believe that Parliament would ever agree to take such action. That being so, new cosmetics will continue to appear. And if they appear they must be properly tested. In our view it is not only new substances that need testing. Existing substances continue to come under suspicion from time to time—and the noble Earl gave an example—and have to be re-tested. And a new formulation of ingredients which have themselves been tested may still need fresh examination.
It is, of course, perfectly true that most ingredients and formulations have already
32
been tested, and this is why many major manufacturers are able to dispense with animal testing in this field; and this has been mentioned. The fact is that, despite exaggerated claims to the contrary, the number of animals used for cosmetic testing is relatively small. The Research Defence Society's estimate is that the annual number may be about 50,000. Although the Government certainly have no way by which they can establish a precise figure, it is our view that this assessment of the volume of cosmetic tests is substantially accurate and that therefore we are talking about a relatively small problem. However, even if the scale of what is involved is relatively small, it remains an important safeguard in this area. The safety-testing of cosmetics is indistinguishable from the safety-testing of any other substances, whether a drug, a pesticide or an industrial or a household product. The Government believe it would be fundamentally wrong to make it a criminal offence—and that is what we are talking about—to undertake the safety-testing of any product, whatever its character.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the point of the EEC Directive—and it is important—would he give a clear example of testing that has to be done on animals? He has not yet done so. He made the point that the Directive does not require—and I have studied it—that experiments must be carried out on animals. Would he explain which of the Directives would not be fulfilled unless there were tests on animals?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with respect, I have answered that point. I made it clear. If my noble friend looks at my speech in Hansard she will see that the very point which she has just put to me has been answered in most specific terms. I agree that there is no reference in the Directive to an absolute requirement that animals should be used—I give my noble friend that point—but I am saying that the Government do not believe that they would be able to fulfil the requirements set out in the Directive if safety testing so far as animals were concerned was barred by Statute. That is the point. I would accept at once that my noble friend has, on this occasion as on the last, been inspired by a concern

33
for the animals involved and by the desire (which we share) that their suffering should be limited so far as possible.
My Lords, I think we must ask ourselves this question. What is, in fact, the nature of that suffering? Safety testing of cosmetics takes three forms: eye-irritancy tests, tests of skin-reactions and LD 50 tests. In some of these tests, certainly in the first two categories, the suffering involved may be small or non-existent. If a substance proves not to be irritant, then even its application to the eye will cause minimal inconvenience. That must be so. I am not suggesting that in other cases serious suffering is not involved. I am well aware that it is. The point I am making is that cosmetic testing, as such, is in no way coterminous with suffering. This Bill would make a criminal offence of virtually painless treatments as well as of those which are painful.
My Lords, a further point to be borne in mind is that these procedures are far from being confined to cosmetic testing. They apply to all safety-testing of substances which may affect the eyes or skin, or be ingested, at any stage in their manufacture, distribution or use. The banning of cosmetic testing would reduce by only a small fraction the total number of these tests. If the tests cause unnecessary suffering, why ban them only in relation to cosmetics? It is in this respect that the Government believe that this Bill is misconceived. The ban in relation to cosmetics would be based on no principle which has any relevance to the actual pain and suffering which may be involved.
In the Government's view this objection to the Bill is fundamental. But there are other substantial difficulties about it. Let me touch for a moment on the question of definition. It has to be recognised that we are dealing here with substances which have a number of purposes. Soap, for example, is a cleansing and an antiseptic agent. The Bill would exclude from its effect substances which are intended for a medical purpose. Leaving aside the equally difficult question of what is a medical purpose, and how the experimenter is to know that the substance he is being asked to test is intended for such a purpose, substances used for cosmetics often serve purposes other than either cosmetic or medical. In the case of a substance which may be used for a
34
number of purposes, what is the position to be? Will it be lawful if there is no cosmeticapplication, or if there is a cosmetic application and also a medical application, but unlawful if, no matter what other purposes may be served, there is a cosmetic use and no medical use? My Lords, I beleve that a requirement of this sort would create a nonsensical situation.
What we are talking about here is our criminal law. This law would have to be administered; and all I am saying is that with such imprecise definition—and I recognise immediately the difficulty in this area so far as those who drafted the Bill are concerned—it seems to me to raise the gravest difficulties. Let me add one final point. In fairness, it was touched on by my noble friend when she introduced the Bill. It is one of substantial importance. If this Bill is passed it would be most unlikely to reduce the total volume of animal suffering in any way. Its most likely effect would be to drive this form of testing outside this country where the controls are often a great deal less stringent than they are in this country.
My Lords, I have set out the serious objections of the Government to the proposals in this Bill. But I fully recognise the strength of feeling which lies behind it. And certainly the Government are just as concerned to eliminate any unnecessary suffering by animals as are the supporters of this Bill. Where we differ is that the Government do not believe that improvements can be effected by a stroke of the pen of this kind, but that they require a continuing effort to bring about improvements wherever that may be possible. The Government are determined to undertake a programme of this kind. And I should like now to take the opportunity to set this out.
First, we believe that the most important requirement for reviewing and improving the administration of this subject is to obtain a better quality of information than exists at the moment. In May 1975, when replying to a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I undertook that the Annual Return of Experiments would be reviewed so as to provide more comprehensive and comprehensible information. I am glad to be able to tell the House today that this review is making good progress. A completely new return which licensees

35
will be required to complete has been prepared, and is currently being tested on a sample of licensees. Subject to any changes that that test may show are necessary, it is our intention that the new return should be introduced generally at the end of this year. The information it produces will for the first time enable us to obtain a really detailed and comprehensive picture of all aspects of experimental work. If the timetable can be maintained—and I believe it will—the Annual Return for 1977 published in the summer of next year will be a far more informative document than any of its predecessors. When that is available, we shall be able to identify the areas which call for special attention and review.
Secondly, there is the question of the Advisory Committee. As the House will be aware, my noble friend Lord Houghton has taken the initiative of making wide-ranging proposals based on an extension of the functions of the Committee. These are ambitious proposals and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not believe that the Advisory Committee is a practicable medium for achieving a great deal of what is proposed. But at the same time, we believe that greater use should be made of the Committee. My noble friend Lord Houghton and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, together with a number of their colleagues, saw my right honourable friend last week and had—I hope it will be agreed—a helpful discussion. I am glad to be able to inform the House that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now decided to ask the Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, to review the use of LD 50 tests. They will do this not only in relation to cosmetic testing, but in all the fields in which they are at present used. This will be a fairly complex review, but I am sure that your Lordships will recognise the importance of this proposal, and the direct bearing which the Committee's ultimate recommendations are likely to have on the suffering occasioned to animals by this procedure. The Government's view is that it is in this way, rather than by the method proposed in the Bill, that a reduction in any suffering of animals involved in experiments can be achieved.
36
My right honourable friend also made it clear to my noble friend Lord Houghton and his colleagues that there is no reason at all why the Advisory Committee should not be invited to turn its attention to other procedures which, in some quarters, give rise to concern. I understand that those who attended the meeting are now giving further thought to particular procedures to which the Committee could usefully direct its attention.
My Lords, I believe that this decision by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary represents an important step forward and that the LD 50 tests are the right place to begin. Let me say this in conclusion. There is no dispute between the Government and the supporters of this Bill over the desire to eliminate unnecessary suffering by animals. That is common ground. But we believe that the action that I have outlined today will hold out the best prospect of achieving this objective. The Bill before the House will not deal with many of the problems which cause the most serious anxiety. In our judgment, the Bill would be seriously damaging to the public interest. For that reason, the Government oppose it.
4.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I am sure that all of us in the House are grateful to the Minister for the constructive steps which the Government have in mind and which he outlined at the end of his speech. This is a complex and highly specialised subject, and I claim no particular competence to deal with it. My speech might also be described, as one speech has already been described, as an unscientific intervention. I make no apology for that, for complex and specialised as this subject is, it is also a moral and social problem and it should not be left exclusively to the expert. Indeed, it should involve the interest and conscience of the whole community.
May I at the outset try to set out two principles from which I approach this problem. In the first place, I recognise the right to experiment on animals in the interests of medical research and human welfare generally. But, secondly, in pursuit of these objectives man has a duty to restrict the infliction of pain and suffering to an absolute minimum.

37
Somehow we must try to do justice to both of these principles. One of the general findings of the Littlewood Report states:
"Anyone who makes use of an animal in research incurs a moral responsibility to justify his action and a duty to limit pain."
Behind this Bill, as I see it, lies the conviction that the use of animals for testing and developing cosmetic preparations which are not intended to be used for any medical purposes involves more pain and suffering than a reasonable view of human welfare can justify.
Studying the background to this Bill and trying to get to grips with the facts as best one can, I must confess it has been a distasteful experience, and sometimes even a horrifying and shameful one. Experiments are made by the tens of thousands. A number of speakers during the debate have indicated that only a relatively small number of cases are concerned in this particular area of the problem. It does not matter how few they are: they are either right or wrong, and such a decision cannot be taken on a numerical basis. However, there are enough experiments going on to make this a matter of public concern. We believe that such experiments entail a considerable degree of pain and suffering, and it is wrong that such trivial substances as bubble bath liquids, face creams, deodorants, shampoos and other toiletries should be tested on animals.
The extension of animal experiments to such an extent and in this direction surely was not foreseen when the Cruelty to Animals Act came into force a century ago. The law has served us well but it now needs some reform. Experiments for medical purposes that may well lead to an alleviation of suffering and the conquest of disease are legitimate and good, but even such experiments must be conducted with the fullest responsibility for the victims of the experiments. In the sphere of cosmetic preparations we believe that the use of animals should be excluded, and this Bill represents a modest step in that direction. If it is wrong-headed, we must make it right-headed. In Britain, as I understand it, it is mandatory to test only those cosmetics which make therapeutic claims or which contain more than a certain level of some specified substances such as hormones. The bulk of cosmetic poison testing using animals
38
is carried out voluntarily and under no specific obligation except general legal requirements to market only safe products.
Reference has been made to the public opinion poll in 1974, which was apparently mentioned by the Bishop of Manchester on the occasion of the last debate. At that time 73 per cent. of the electorate disapproved of cosmetic preparations being tested on animals. I believe that a great deal of ignorance exists among people as a whole, who are very often surprised to hear that cosmetic products are tested on animals at all; but when that fact is understood there is a volume of opposition to the use of animals for this purpose. I fully recognise—and indeed the Minister has referred to it—that there is a difficult line of demarcation. In certain instances it is almost impossible to draw a line of demarcation between the medical and cosmetic fields. Certainly the line is not easy to draw, and there are borderline cases where cosmetic and medical purposes overlap. Some discoveries in the field of cosmetic science may prove to be beneficial in the medical field, and all that is part of the complexity of the subject. However, I should like to suggest that it must not deter us in our determination to bring about the highly desirable reform that this Bill is intended to effect.
I know, and in some ways suffer from the knowledge, that the whole subject is bedevilled by sentiment. Emotionalism is all too easily aroused. Those sentimentalists who care more for their cats than for their cousins should merit our scorn and our disapproval. Support for this Bill does not suggest any lack of opposition to such misguided enthusiasts, and I am certainly not impelled here by any particular animal lobby. However, the passing of this Bill may lead to further research on the development of alternative methods of testing. Even if it did not, would we really be any worse off? Is not the world more short of compassion than of cosmetics?
In conclusion, I should like to try to sketch briefly the underlying philosophy (if that is not too portentous a phrase, at any rate on my lips), which is the basis of my approach to this subject. Mankind has a trusteeship over the rest of the animal kingdom, and now that we are more sensitive about exploiting the natural resources of the environment I believe we

39
need also to be more vigilant against human exploitation of other species; in other words, more aware of our trusteeship over the rest of the animal kingdom. Some enthusiasts speak of the rights of animals. I prefer to concentrate on the duties of man and of man's responsible dominion over Nature, which includes acting responsibly towards animals. Man has a responsibility for the whole of his environment. No other creature has the capacity to transform it for better or worse. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships of the words of Alexander Pope who wrote:
"The more entirely the inferior creation is submitted to our power, the more answerable we should seem for our mismanagement of it."
My contention is that much experimentation in connection with cosmetic testing is a grave mismanagement of our responsibility of our human dominion over the rest of the animal kingdom. We are the species uniquely capable of rationality and moral choice; and precisely because of our superiority we have an obligation to treat animals with respect—yes, and with humanity. This Bill is a modest step towards fulfilling that obligation.
As a non-scientist, I confess I have a starry-eyed veneration for research scientists and especially for those scientists whose work lies in the medical field. Their objectivity and dedication are utterly praiseworthy. Nor are they lacking in compassion. One of the findings of the Littlewood Committee, which is one great source of encouragement, declared:
"There is no foundation for any general suspicion of the concern of the licensees for their animals."
However, in a violent and cruel age, such as ours—an age marked by an alarming increase in torture—I believe we need to be specially vigilant to outlaw any unnecessary cruelty. Some experiments which this Bill seeks to prohibit must surely tend to blunt the sensibilities of those who conduct them. This Bill therefore will be a protection for those very scientists who themselves deplore experiments that involve the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering upon dumb animals. There was a certain 19th century Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, Dr, Lloyd, who was himself a scientist, of whom it was said by Caroline Fox, the Quaker diarist,
40
"He looks at Science with the ardour of a lover and the reverence of a child."
What a splendid description of the scientific spirit and outlook! I believe that this Bill will help to preserve the integrity of the genuine scientist, the scientist whose work is directed not towards satisfying vanity but to promoting the true welfare of mankind.
4.19 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I find it distasteful to be in the position of opposing a Bill that has been introduced with such sensitivity and customary lucidity by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, but I should like to say right away that I am sure we are all concerned to prevent unjustifiable and avoidable suffering to animals. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down that, in his words, we should be specially vigilant to eliminate unnatural cruelty.
Many people would ban all experiments on animals, even though designed to avoid suffering by people. Some are motivated by religious conviction, not only in other countries; some by horror at the thought of causing innocent creatures to suffer. This Bill, however, implicitly recognises that animal experiments are in some cases justified, if they are genuinely needed to point the way to medical treatment of human beings, or to avoid the risk of harmful side-effects resulting from treatment. But this Bill would ban such experiments related to cosmetics and, as has been said, these are a very small proportion of the total number of experiments on animals. I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, that that is no excuse if there is no justification for having such experiments at all. No unnecessary suffering should be caused.
I suppose that one should always try to reduce a Bill to its intellectual basis, and perhaps I might be permitted to do that in this way: Animal experiments for purposes that are inessential are unjustified; cosmetics—at least, new cosmetics—are inessential and, therefore, animal experiments for cosmetics, or at least new cosmetics, are not justified. That seems to be the basis for this Bill.
That animal experiments in relation to cosmetic preparations are in all cases not

41
justified may well be doubted, and I am bound to say that I found what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had to say on this matter convincing. For example, the use of cosmetics to conceal scars which embarrass the person affected, and also shock people who see them, seems desirable. That they should be safe is equally desirable. That the world should be satisfied at a given point in time with the cosmetics then available is a proposition that I find it difficult to sustain, if only because it may not always be possible to continue to produce cosmetics which have already been tested and adjudged safe. Established products need new formulations from time to time, and testing of them is also necessary.
The fact is that for centuries people have used cosmetics, that the present, more affluent, generation probably uses them more than ever before, and that, in all probability, generations to come will constantly be seeking new ways of beautifying themselves. But users rightly expect—nowadays more than ever—that they can do so safely. The law requires that cosmetic preparations, no less than other products offered to the public, should be safe to use and, so far as possible, safe when misused in ways most likely to happen; for example, by children. Even if this country were minded to apply the old doctrine of caveat emptor in the case of cosmetics, as a member of the EEC it would be prevented from doing so, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has indicated.
How then do we ensure that cosmetics are safe? If that could be done satisfactorily in all cases by laboratory tests, whether of the microbiological character or otherwise, a Government would be rightly condemned if they continued to issue individual licences for the carrying out of tests on animals. But such tests are not yet accepted as convincing proof that the products are safe—not in all cases, at any rate. Some think that progress towards discovering forms of testing that would be accepted by the authorities as satisfactory alternatives to animal testing, would be hastened if, in the case of cosmetics, a ban were put on animal testing. But what would happen in the meantime? Presumably, practical testing would then have to be confined to experiments on human volunteers, unless, of course, they too were banned. Surely
42
it is sensible to try out the product on animals first, lest it cause serious injury to human volunteers when used normally.
There was a case in the United States, that is often quoted, of shampoos which caused blindness in, I believe, the 1930s. That was a case which would probably not have arisen had animal testing then been carried out on the scale of today. Further, it seems reasonable to ensure that a product would do little or no harm if accidentally misused or swallowed. Experiments to indicate the appropriate treatment or remedy, when foreseeable accidents occur, also seem justifiable.
I entirely sumpathise with the noble Baroness in her contention that cruelty to animals should not be allowed. As I understand, it is the duty of those who grant licences for animal tests to satisfy themselves that there is no satisfactory alternative to animal testing, and that the testing will be carried out as humanely as possible. I very much welcome, as did the right reverend Prelate, the advances which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has announced today. Before he spoke, I was going on to say that there will always be a minority who abuse licences. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be able to tell us what is the incidence of abuses that are found in the course of Home Office inspections at the present time. There can be no doubt that, so far as the methods employed are concerned, the proposed changes in the annual report will be most helpful.
But I believe that licences are issued only to individuals who are qualified, and one must assume that both by disposition and by training they carry out their experiments as humanely and responsibly as anyone in this House would wish. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said that there is here a moral and social problem which should not be left to the experts. But, inevitably, it is left to the experts, and has to be, subject always of course to the closest supervision of the Government which licence the experts. In this respect, I suggest that the Government are the keepers of the public conscience, although they are in turn supervised by Parliament.
If there is one thing that the British are known for it is surely kindness to animals. We are undoubtedly far more kindly disposed than folk in other

43
countries, where experiments on animals are not only permitted but required. It would seem paradoxical, to say the least, if by passing this Bill we were to drive the practice of animal testing out of this country and into places where those carrying out the tests may well be less scrupulous and less humane. It is right to hope that, in the long run, science will advance sufficiently to enable experiments on animals to be dispensed with altogether. But I am bound to say that, from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has told us today, I have come to the conclusion that that time has not yet come.
4.29 p.m.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, this is a small, brief Bill, but it is one that can have great and unfortunate consequences. On first thought, it would seem acceptable to limit the use of animal experimentation to observations for medical purposes, but study of the problem shows that that is just not possible. I say again—and I repeat it forcefully and sincerely—that if it were possible to do away with animal observations on cosmetics, then most people would support such a move. But the matter is not as simple as that. Cosmetics are an ancient fact of life, and it is stated that in the United States 60,000 injuries a year and many deaths are caused by them. To combat this, a Bill is now before the United States Senate making it compulsory to submit each new cosmetic product to 19 separate tests on animals.
It is very unsatisfactory to allow unscientific intervention into such a complex situation. Without wishing to be disparaging or in any way offensive to good intentions, I suggest we could quite fairly describe these attempts at interference in complex and scientific matters as amateurish. The difficulties that this Bill can give rise to are not or do not seem to be appreciated by its sponsors. They do not give any impression that they are aware that the arguments against the Bill are many and real. These arguments emerge at once from an unprejudiced and systematic consideration of the whole subject.
Such an approach is essential to any proposal that existing legislation should be basically altered, especially when the
44
altered legislation would have significant effects on the standards and practices that our new European partners are seeking to set up. It must be unwise at this very time to initiate legislation that would be unacceptable to our European partners and would set up a whole new series of difficulties as detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. We come at once upon a matter that affects the European Community at large, but let us consider the intrinsic difficulties and drawbacks of the Bill.
It has been claimed that about 5 million experiments are done each year and it is implied that many of these could be prevented. This statement has gone unchallenged, but an accurate assessment of the number of animals used to test cosmetics in fact is from 30,000 to 50,000—less than one-tenth of the annual total of all experiments. One important firm, during 1975, used 3,000 animals for experimental observations, but also used 12,000 humans; so the animals were outnumbered four to one. In any case, observations could not be made on humans until the substances had been tested out on animals. It is a matter of common law by which manufacturers must not negligently injure the consumer.
Manufacturers would be negligent if they did not take appropriate steps to inform themselves on the safety of their products. Such action requires the use of animals. The animal testing involves no more discomfort than does vaccination against smallpox. Even the effects of the highly emotive eye test have been exaggerated. Only one eye is used and the material applied is not of full strength. In fact, it is so dilute that it causes no pain or suffering. Its chief effect is to produce a little redness of the eye.
If a child, misusing its mother's shampoo or other preparations, gets it into its eye the parents can be told, as things now are, with confidence that although the result may be painful and unpleasant there will be no danger at all to vision and no permanent effect.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will forgive me, but is he giving scientific facts?
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like an answer to my question. As a nonscientific person I am asking the noble Lord whether he is saying that no matter how much shampoo a child puts in its eye, it could not damage it.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, there is no evidence at all, and no experience, that the eye can be permanently damaged by the introduction of shampoo. This Bill specifically forbids the making of any test in the course of development of a cosmetic preparation. In other words, it forbids any testing to find out whether a substance may be harmful or, for instance, cause blindness or permanent damage to vision. It is difficult to understand how such a proposal can be made seriously and, indeed, now a second time, the first being in 1975. I repeat, it is a first requirement to a basic legal protection of the user that, if he buys something, it should not be a dangerous substance and that he should know that it has been tested for safety.
A special problem exists in the dangers to children. Any cosmetic preparation should ordinarily be used by a sensible adult, but a child may be attracted by a substance that its mother uses and applies it to its skin, to its face, gets it into its eyes, or eats quantities of it. The National Poisons Information Service is fully informed of this problem and, since its inception in 1963, some 20,000 cases of poisoning have been dealt with, 800 of which involved children who had become involved with cosmetics. If a child swallows an ointment or a toothpaste, the parents are inevitably anxious and demand from the doctor what the effect may be. The doctor can provide an answer at once from the National Poisons Information Service, as it now is, but could no longer do so if no tests had been made on cosmetics to study the harmful effects.
As soon as the testing of cosmetic substances is prevented, the doors would be opened wide to all sorts of uncertainties and dangers. These will extend to food additives and to pesticides from which great harm could come, especially in the case of children. In any case, the sale of such untested substances would not be permitted in countries abroad, and firms wishing to market their products would have to satisfy the laws of the countries concerned, a fact that has already been
46
emphasised by several speakers. It may be that the protection of animals from suffering would not be so effectively controlled as in Britain—another point that has been emphasised.
In effect, therefore, although at first sight this Bill appears to be acceptable and deserving of support, the true situation is very different. It would be a danger to health and even to life and it should not receive support. Furthermore, when it was introduced in 1975 the Government, via the Home Office, stated categorically that they would be "unable to assist in any way with further progress on the Bill", and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has repeated that intention. Reasons have been given by the Government for this, and I think that we should accept this decision.
4.37 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it is sad for me to find myself opposing a Bill that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for whom I have the highest regard. I am also somewhat distressed to find that I agree entirely with the Government view, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. However, it is a great pleasure to be able to support the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
I can be very brief because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said all that needs to be said about the Bill. What he has not said has been said by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, but there are one or two points that I might be able to underline because they cannot be repeated too often. First, it seems to me that the 1876 Act is remarkably good and that our forebears of one hundred years ago did a wonderfully good job. This has been borne out by the relatively controlled and not too harmful use of animals for testing in this country over the intervening years. In these days of non-discrimination, all that one can criticise the Act for is for giving a special place to dogs, cats, horses, asses and mules. One would have thought that there might be a Guinea-pig Self-discrimination Act which would put that at rest. Be that as it may, if this Act were properly implemented—and there has been a suggestion that perhaps the Home Office might be more energetic in this respect—it could provide all that is

47
needed. From what the Minister said, I gained the impression that the Home Office is taking what might be called corrective action, or that it is planning to do so; so even that point is taken care of.
The point about the Bill is, I should have thought, that it is not consistent with the 1876 Act, in that it singles out a particular end product. I should have thought that that was not particularly sound law. The Act is comprehensive and covers all testing; it gets one around the problem of definitions, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, touched, and the fact that certain products may be used in certain ways at different times. That in its turn makes difficult the application of the law.
I should have thought the Bill was basically defective; but my first thought was to give it a run, give it a Second Reading and kill it after we had talked about it. But it seems to me that it is so fundamentally wrong that it would not be right even to give it a Second Reading. That is why I am behind the noble Earl and convinced by his arguments.
As to the question of the frivolity of cosmetics, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn made the point and it seems to me to be beating against the wind in a most extraordinary fashion. However frivolously, people will always use cosmetics. The ancient tribes—our ancestors—put on woad; a large number of the primitive tribes of Central Africa use some sort of self-adornment and in the Western world there has been adornment, principally of women, since the beginning of recorded history. It seems to me to be a false try—if this is what is intended—to attempt to persuade people that cosmetics are wicked and therefore no special protection is required for them. Whatever we do, there will be girls who will use them; and we then come to the point that if they are going to use them they must be protected from the harmful results which have arisen—and which have been touched on by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and other speakers—in other countries such as the United States of America, where great harm has been done to people who have used preparations, whether cosmetically or otherwise, which have not been properly tested. Therefore it seems
48
to me that the argument is incontrovertible that it is irresponsible to try to pass into law a Bill of this kind. Therefore, if the noble Earl sees fit to take us into the Lobbies, I shall happily go with him.
4.42 p.m.
Lord JACOBSON: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be able to speak—and I shall be very brief—in support of this Bill. Much of what I was planning to say has already been said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield—an unusual position for me to find myself in—and by other speakers, so I wish to make only a few points. I was not in your Lordships' House when this matter was last debated about 18 months ago, but I have read the report of that debate in Hansard carefully and I was struck then, and I have been struck again today, by the calm and totally none-motive way in which my noble friend Lady Phillips introduced her Bill on each occasion. Of course that is absolutely right. There is no need for us to be harrowed; we have enough material on both sides. But I agree that while we should be non-emotive, we should not lose sight of the fact, as the right reverend Prelate said, that at heart this is not a debate about science; it is a debate about moral and social principles.
The issue seems to me to be whether we, as a society, should continue to allow animals to suffer for commerical profit derived from the adornment of a society that they did not help to create and in which their only protection must come from human compassion. That seems to me to be the core of the matter. If our answer to this question is that we should not allow this to continue, then figures really cease to have much relevance, whether it is 1 percent. of 1 million or 1 per cent. of 30,000 or 1 per cent. of 50,000. Such figures do not matter very much. We must give a clear answer to that question.
The cosmetic industry is huge, highly competitive and very prolific. It has been said that 100 new products come on to the market every week. Sometimes they are backed by very massive advertising indeed. Some of the advertising seems to me to be of a rather undesirable kind, and I sometimes think that when Ministers and others speak of the need

49
to protect the consumer in the context of this Bill they should perhaps consider some of the more startling claims made in those advertisements. In any case, although it has been rightly said that people have always adorned themselves and will want to go on adorning themselves, there are surely enough safe lipsticks, powders, creams, scents, soaps, shampoos, after-shave lotions and pre-shave lotions to satisfy every taste, no matter how exotic.
Is it right to experiment on animals in order to test and then produce an even greater flood—a duplication? Surely the time has come to say to this industry that if they cannot test new cosmetics without experiments on animals they should be content with what they already have and go on marketing that, or else that they should apply their scientific and technical resources, which are vast, to other and perhaps more socially beneficial ends. I believe there is little doubt that if that was said it would give a notable impetus to the development of alternative methods of testing such as have already been mentioned here today, including tissue culture, computer testing and so on.
I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for the concessions he has outlined today and particularly in regard to LD 50. When criticisms are made that this Bill is undesirable, that it is ill-drafted and it is piecemeal legislation, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would have produced evidence of the advances that he has produced today without the impetus of my noble friend's Bill.
I would make one final point. I believe that we are at last beginning to show some real concern for the environment and some real understanding of the relationship and the interdependence of the resources of nature and of all living creatures. If that is so, then the basis and starting point must be respect for all life. That is the moral basis on which I believe this Bill rests, and I earnestly hope that your Lordships will further its progress.
4.47 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I have the greatest sympathy for the speech just delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobson. I am instinctively always on the
50
side of the animals in cases of this kind, and particularly on this occasion. We are always being told that experiments performed on animals for medical purposes advance medical science which is available not only to doctors but to veterinary surgeons as well, and that through the vets the animal kingdom benefits from the experiments just as much as the human population. But in the field that we are discussing today, we are speaking of benefits for the human population alone and not for the animal kingdom. Therefore, I should have thought that in this connection the animals need rather special protection.
I should like to deal with a point which was raised first by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, then by the Minister, and, I think, was touched upon just now by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. They ask: what happens when you have a substance which is sometimes used for cosmetic purposes, although not always? I think the noble Earl referred to a hair-dye which may also be used for dying leather or for other non-cosmetic purposes. They seem to think that this raises a difficulty, but from my reading of the Bill no difficulty arises at all. The Bill refers to experiments performed solely for the purpose of testing a cosmetic preparation, and if you are testing something which is not solely for a cosmetic preparation then you are dealing with something that is outside the scope of the Bill. I believe, respectfully, that those three noble Lords have erected in front of them a fence which in practice they do not have to jump at all.
At this stage of the debate, I am in very much the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobson. There are points which I might have made which have been well made already and I will just boil down my notes and state as briefly as I can the very essence of the argument as I see it. I think the matter resolves itself into three questions. First, is real scientific advance in prospect in the experiment on animals which is contemplated? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacobson, that so many cosmetics are already available that the prospect of real scientific advance in this field, although one cannot rule it out entirely, is going to be pretty rare. The second question is: Are means of testing, other than testing upon animals, available?

51
Thirdly, is the intensity of the suffering foreseeable justifiable judged by the value of the experiment to be conducted?
My Lords, it is always easy to pose the questions. It is not always so easy to find the answers. Who is to find the answers to these questions? I would hope that it would be the new enlarged advisory committee which is advocated in that excellent paper which was circulated, I think last summer, to which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, were signatories.
At this point I am not proposing to trespass upon the speeches which we look forward to hearing from both those noble Lords, but I hope that they will underline and urge the setting up of this stronger advisory committee. I wish them luck in persuading the Home Office to go further along the road than the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicated this afternoon it was prepared to go—further along the road towards setting up this new advisory committee, which I believe could administer this Bill which the noble Baroness is proposing, could make it work, and make for a better world for laboratory animals.
4.52 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I believe there is a wish in nearly all of us to polarise issues; we like them black or white, right or wrong. This attitude is well shown in the political field, when people like to talk about Communists or Fascists, Right or Left, and so on. The truth, of course, is that most choices are not black or white, and decisions lie, or perhaps I ought to say should rightly lie, in the grey area. This is inconvenient because people like to apply their yardsticks, often in the form of principles, which are frequently derived only from emotional prejudice, in order to give a yes or no answer.
This difficulty is the one which faces us with the use of animals for research and testing for the safety of drugs and other products. Most people would, under pressure, accept that some use of animals for these purposes must be accepted, but they are not happy about it and do not want to know if they can avoid doing so. Periodically this tension manifests itself, as it did with the emotional reaction to the doomed monkey on one
52
of the early Sputniks. My own view, and I would think that of many others, is that we must accept animal experiments, but limit the numbers used, and the painful experiments or testing, to the minimum.
We shall hear, and have heard today, that the old 1876 Act and our surveillance assures us that all is well. This simply is not—I repeat not—true. The very fact that most people do not want to know about the subject ensures that there is no adequate independent check. This is a necessity in any closed tightly-knit enterprise, however highly principled and respected may be its operatives. Many of the animal tests with cosmetics are very unpleasant and painful, and, if such preparations were used solely for beauty purposes, hardly morally justified. However, as was pointed out in a previous debate on a similar Bill, and again today, there are great difficulties and objections to legislative action as proposed.
To my mind, the real merit of the Bill, if it were passed, is its psychological effect. It would focus the attention of average people, not the extremists, on this difficult subject of animal experiments, and help to limit them to a greater extent than is now the case. It follows that I am not impressed by the argument that if the Bill were passed it would simply have the effect of transferring the testing abroad and in no way decrease the total amount carried out. I must however admit that, balancing the arguments on both sides, I come to the conclusion that I would not be happy if this Bill were passed into law. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is inconsistent with this view to give the Bill a Second Reading, as we have done with some other measures which we know will never survive subsequent stages. I feel it is important that, by giving this Bill a Second Reading, we should stress that we do consider this an important subject and that more should be done. I am very pleased to hear from the Minister that in fact some new measures are on the way. I believe that, as in so many other matters, it is constant pressure by the average person, and not by the extremists, which is what we need. I will, therefore, vote against the Amendment and for the Second Reading of the Bill.
4.57 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, about 25 years ago I had to answer a

53
debate on behalf of the Home Office raised by my old Commander-in-Chief, Lord Dowding, on a much wider basis of vivisection than the present debate. I contented myself with stating the position at law and the practice which was followed in the Home Office. Certain considerations came to my mind at that time. First, I would agree broadly with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that in many ways the Act of 1876 is surprisingly enlightened, considering the time at which it was passed. I was disturbed, however, at the ration which the Home Office makes of one inspector for about 500,000 experiments. I know the arguments about this, that there is much in the way of standard types of work. I saw the inspectors and talked to them myself. I was impressed that they had a very real sense of duty; they recognised the nature of their work and the care with which they should execute it. But one inspector for 1,000 licensees—it is somewhere of that order—did strike me as being pretty thin. Indeed, the Littlewood Report somewhat endorsed the views I had at that time.
I do think it is peculiar that there has been no prosecution for a century. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that one technical prosecution had taken place. You may put a very good interpretation on that, or a very bad one. My own guess is that, like most of these things, the situation is somewhere between the two. I think also that the complete exclusion of non-experimental work is something which the Home Office should take up as well. I was quite certain at that time that an examination should be carried out, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke that this has now been done. I am sure—and the report that was made makes it clear—that legislation is required.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that the scientists in this field were between the hammer and the anvil. I think the anvil must be made of sorbo rubber. I do not really think the scientists have suffered very much. Since the time I speak of the number of experiments has increased four-fold. I should like to look into the future. In 25 years, will the figure be up to 20, 30, 40 million experiments a year? Is that the direction in which we are going? There is a great deal of talk about children eating things. Of course children do eat things, and most of us have in our houses items marked,"Not for internal
54
consumption". We look at these very carefully and if we ate enough of them we should become very ill indeed. I remember a young man saying to me, "Does it matter if I eat a ha'penny?" I tried not to frighten him but I said that it was a very bad thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, was perhaps incautious enough to mention thalidomide. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, knows much more about that than I, but I am given to understand that every conceivable experiment was carried out to ensure that this drug was safe before it was used. In addition, experiments were carried out afterwards, virtually without success, to discover whether it could reproduce in animals the desperate results which came from human contact. These drugs are not by any means wholly reliable, even in cosmetics.
The last half-a-century has seen the most terrifying advance in science. We who never go inside laboratories sometimes do not realise just what is happening. I should like to quote what I call a "throw-away line" from a letter which I received from a relative working in an advanced aerospace research centre in America. He said:
"Quite exciting here. Our scheme for getting into space cheaply may actually be real. I am beginning to believe in it."
Twenty years ago we had not even sent a sputnik into space. This is the pace at which things are going, and it is a pace which looks likely to increase even faster. What will the Home Office do to meet this developing situation? Is it a road that may be paved with crucified animals? The situation is, without doubt, accelerating. I was singularly unimpressed with the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who said that we are creating a criminal offence. There is nothing in the Bill about a criminal offence. What would normally happen is that the licence would be taken away.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. I said that there would be a fine of £50 on the first offence and £100 or one month's imprisonment on subsequent offences. That is why I mentioned the criminal law.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, to me it is redundant to tell anyone representing the Home Office that if one breaks the law one runs into trouble—of course one does. However, in this case the man's licence would be rescinded. The criminal law is the last thing that would be invoked. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, then said that we were bound by the EEC rules. Shall we maintain our standards of animal conduct in line with other European countries? Shall we be bound by any rules which the EEC passes? If so, this matter should go to the Scrutiny Committee for its views. We must maintain our own standards, in which we are far ahead of almost any country in the world.
This is a very narrow Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, it deals solely with experiments for one purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that it is difficult to discriminate. At paragraph 427 the Littlewood Report said:
"The inspector could question the purpose and design of the project."
That did not present any difficulty to Littlewood, and I am sure that it would not present any other difficulty as regards any other purpose. I agree entirely with the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. If we turn the Bill down without giving it a Second Reading it means that we are simply saying that we are completely content with the status quo. Whether the Bill can be amended in Committee is something we can find out. If we are wholly content with the status quo, we should vote for the Amendment. If we are not content—and I am not—we should give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.5 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I should have been in entire agreement with the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, a week or two ago—that is, that if no progress had been made we should give the Bill a Second Reading, even if that only brings the subject a little more to the notice of the public and leads to more discussion and perhaps eventually culminates in a final urge to the Home Office to do something about it. However, I believe that the situation has completely changed. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who knows more about this matter will be speaking on it. A week
56
ago today a group of us—largely inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—of which I am pleased to be a member and which has been trying to push the Home Office into action for a very long time, met the Home Secretary and obtained a number of concessions on which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has touched. He did not go fully into the various matters which the Home Secretary at least seemed quite willing to consider and probably put into operation.
I hope that there is no need to tell the House that I am deeply concerned about the welfare of experimental animals. I believe that many cruel and unnecessary experiments are carried out and that much misery is caused. The Act of 1876 constantly refers to pain. Pain is difficult to judge, but anyone knows when an animal is dying or miserable as a result, for instance, of an LD 50 test. Indeed, I have done a good deal of work on this, to such an extent that, from time to time, I may have incurred the disapproval of the entrenched positions of the medical scientists and of the Research Defence Society, of which I was once a member. They do very useful and important work, but there are times when their case can be somewhat overstated.
Foremost among the reforms which I believe are necessary—and I am sure that the group is entirely in agreement with this—is a reconstitution of the Advisory Committee to the Home Office, together with a new look at its functions. I was a member of the Advisory Committee to the Home Office on Experiments on Animals for 11 years. We met only five times and we considered only 24 experiments. The only matters that we ever considered were those which were referred to us through the Inspectorate—for which I have a very high regard—experiments which seemed to be out of the normal range and which the inspector thought it doubtful whether a particular scientist's certificate covered him to carry out. That is all, so far as I am aware, that that Advisory Committee has done for the last 100 years.
We thought that there should be a reconstituted committee; that it should contain more of a lay element, although it must also be a strong scientific advisory committee, and that it should not only consider matters referred to it from the Home Secretary through the Inspectorate,

57
but have power to initiate its own discussions. We believe that from time to time the Home Secretary should refer to this strengthened committee, which would meet more regularly, various topics for consideration—not merely isolated experiments. The former Home Secretary went a little way towards doing this when he referred the matter of the smoking beagles to a committee to which he had added some extra lay members. However, as I understood the meeting of a week ago, the present Home Secretary is prepared to go quite a lot further, saying that he would take up the other topics. It has already been decided that the first topic will be the use of the LD50 test and whether it is now relevant to the purposes for which it is used, and so on. It is perhaps not going too far to say that we were invited to give views and possibly submit a list of suggestions which from time to time might be considered. It was made clear to us that there could not be a large increase in expense and secretariat, and that things would have to move somewhat slowly.
In view of that—and I do not intend to say anything else of any moment—I think that this Bill fails. It is subject to all the objections which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has put before us, and some which other noble Lords have put before us. I do not think it would work out in practice. It would be another piece of bad legislation. This is no criticism of the noble Baroness, because I am sure that she does not want bad legislation, but I am afraid that it may turn out that way. We in this House know that we have had our fill of bad legislation, I will not say for how many years. For those reasons, and reluctantly—because I know how strongly the noble Baroness feels about this and to a large extent I am on her side—I shall in this case have to vote for the Amendment.
5.12 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, all of us, I am certain, must feel considerable sympathy with the humane efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to relieve the suffering of the animals which she has described. I have myself always been fond of animals. I was brought up as a boy with one or two dogs always in the house. For 40 years I have remembered the poet Cowper's four lines:
58
"I would not enter on my list of friends
(Though graced with polished manners and fine sense,
Yet wanting sensibility) the man
Who needlessly sets foot upon a worm".
But in spite of all my sympathy with animals, as a family doctor I am even more interested in, and fond of, human beings, and concerned with their health and welfare.
When we doctors have patients with blemishes on their skins or external imperfections of other kinds, we do our best to overcome or diminish their anxiety, depression, or inferiority complexes about these troubles which may sometimes really spoil their lives. It is our duty to help these people medically and cosmetically to adjust themselves as happily as possible to their disabilities which are usually no fault whatever of their own. For instance, a young woman of 29 with prematurely grey hair may really need a good hair dye for genuine medico-psychological reasons; another with excessive body odour may urgently require a deodorant; another in a desperate plight with excessive hair on her face—which is a superficial cosmetic disability from a deep-seated hormonal inbalance—may need special medical treatment; another may want a scar cream to hide an ugly scar; and a sensitive schoolgirl with disfiguring spots on her face (often due to another type of hormone inbalance) may ask for some cosmetic preparation from her doctor to cover these. The borderline between cosmetics and medical preparations and treatment is ill-defined, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said; and to suggest, as this Bill does, that no cosmetics are intended to be used for medical purposes is quite unrealistic.
We know that beauty preparations can give rise to untoward, unpleasant, and occasionally serious side effects through absorption from the skin, inhalation or swallowing. Scar tissue is particularly susceptible to carcinogens, which are substances liable to stimulate cancer. Even those cosmetics which the medical profession does not normally prescribe, for example mascara, eye shadow, face powders, and lipstick (part of which patients sometimes swallow when they eat or lick their lips) may at times cause allergic reactions which doctors have to treat or prevent.

59
We are told that a type of mascara called "LashLure" caused permanent blindness in several American women in the 1940s before it was withdrawn from the market. Hair sprays and other aerosols not uncommonly cause bronchial distress, and irritation of the eyes and nose. These sides effects may be brought about by the cosmetic substance itself, the vehicle in which it is dissolved, or by the propellant which expels it from the aerosol or atomiser. Some of us remember the asthma-spray deaths of 1966–68; and recently we have been told, on good authority, of possible dangerous effects on women and their unborn children of semipermanent hair dyes, some of which may possibly cause cancer.
Most of these tests are on rabbits, guinea pigs, mice and rats. We must remember that the great majority of these tests are negative, when no real harm is done to the animals. Those which are positive draw urgent and important attention to the potential danger and suffering to human beings which the use of such cosmetic preparations may possibly cause; quite apart from needless time off work, reduction in efficiency in carrying out their daily tasks in the home, and unnecessary costs in time and money to the hard-pressed National Health Service.
Many of us would be more than distressed if one of our own children, or other relations, a friend, or (in the case of a doctor) one of our patients became disfigured or seriously ill with a generalised allergic dermatitis or eczema, a blood dyscrasia, liver or kidney damage, a malignant growth, or the birth of a deformed child, just because a cosmetic preparation had not been properly tested before being put on the market.
Let us ask ourselves for a moment how else can they be tested except on animals? Some alternatives to animal testing of proven reliability are already used. They are cheaper and therefore preferred. But tissue cultures and other in-vitro, test-tube methods are not suitable for general application yet. Human volunteers come forward now in considerable numbers but, very wisely, not for the initial testing of potentially damaging or dangerous preparations. Are human volunteers to be used more? If they suffer permanent harm, such as loss of sight, how could this
60
possibly be justified? How will they be compensated and by whom? Their employers may be under considerable risk by law, because we must remember that firms which make cosmetics have a duty (under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1971) to ensure that operatives involved in manufacturing processes are not subject to undue risks.
In America a Bill is now before the United States Senate to amend the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Acts and make it compulsory to submit each new cosmetic product to 19 separate tests on animals. What will be the legal position with the general public in Britain, in future, of a firm putting on the market a cosmetic preparation which has not been adequately tested and later proves to be dangerous? The experience of the Distillers Company after the thalidomide tragedy gives us some indication of this.
We are told now, on good authority, that the thalidomide disaster was due to inadequate animal testing of a new drug before it was put on the market. Who could possibly have guessed that a pill used as a sedative to reduce the sickness of pregnancy would cause babies to be born with grossly deformed arms or legs, or perhaps without one or more limbs at all? In future, who will be able to tell for certain, without animal tests, for what troubles new cosmetics may be responsible?
No compassionate person in his senses would want to cause unnecessary pain or discomfort to any animal through an objectionable or frivolous experiment. We must always do our best to make sure that that does not happen by following strictly the rules already laid down in our Statute Book about these tests. "Unnecessary" is the key word here. Some people have said to me recently: "Is there a real need, now, for more new cosmetics; cannot we make do with the many well tried ones we already have?" I do not think so. The human race with its vanities has wanted new cosmetics for thousands of years, back to ancient Egypt and far beyond, when the most primitive peoples painted their faces and their bodies. It is very unlikely, I think, that our modern world could do without new ones now; but we must ensure that these are as safe as it is possible to make them.
May I say that how your Lordships divide at the end of this debate should

61
depend on how each of us answers one very important, simple but fundamental question, which is this: "If we continue to develop new cosmetics, and if there is the slightest risk of cancer or any other serious trouble arising from their use, would you wish for this to appear first in one of your daughters, another relative or in a friend, rather than in a rabbit, guinea pig, mouse, or in a rat?". Public opinion has been mentioned. There is very little doubt, I believe, how most people in this country would answer that question.
I am sure that we fully appreciate the kindly motives which stimulated the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to propose this Bill. But it remains true, at present, that really practical alternatives to many animal tests are not yet available, in spite of more than £500,000 which has been spent recently in trying to find them. That is the main reason why I and many other doctors, the Research Defence Society (with all the important medical, veterinary, biological, pharmacological, pharmaceutical and other scientific and research bodies connected with it) and a great many other people, are so very unhappy about this Bill and fervently hope that your Lordships will follow the Government's lead in opposing it and will accept Lord Halsbury's Amendment, so that it will go no further just now. Let us consider this subject again, later on, if and when a really suitable alternative to all animal testing has been found.
5.23 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I wish at the outset to break lance with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who I am glad to see is in his place. The main point of his brief speech appeared to be to unveil a testimonial to the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 which, he said, was a remarkably good measure, and he then complimented our forbears because he thought they had legislated better than they knew. In fact, the reason why the 1876 Act has worked well, as so many say, is that dozens, if not hundreds, of laboratories have been walking freely through it for years and years.
Any Act in such wide and general terms as are drawn in the 1876 Act presents obvious opportunity of evasion and loophole and even direct contravention, especially when there is no opportunity of
62
going to the courts for a remedy and no opportunity of going to the courts for a construction of the meaning of the words of the Act, except by consent of the Home Secretary; and that is really the mischief of the 1876 Act. I wonder for how much longer the Home Secretary's obstruction to an approach to the courts will prevent the wording of the 1876 Act from being closely examined in a court of law.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, as the noble Lord has made a direct attack on me he will, I hope, forgive me for asking him, first, whether there are not other Acts of Parliament about which the same sort of argument could be put forward and, secondly, whether he does not remember that I suggested that perhaps the Act needed looking at and needed implementing more fully? I got the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that that would be done. Perhaps it is a little unreasonable to pick out a particular Act and tear it to shreds around the shroud in which I find myself covered.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention, my Lords. But I want to emphasise that in most Acts there is a remedy for any person who feels aggrieved by its administration or application and anybody who questions the construction of an Act has access to a court of law, but in the case of the 1876 Act, no citizen can go there unless the Home Secretary gives his consent. This is the point we were on with the Post Office industrial dispute recently in connection with South African communications; it is the same issue. For how long are Ministers going to be able to stand between the public and the courts on a matter of public interest and the construction of a Public Act which is there in the public interest? That is the issue. We have not been able to find any opportunity of testing the construction of the 1876 Act in the courts. I mention that because it explains why there is this constant feeling of approval—that it must have worked well because there has been so little trouble about it—whereas, as I say, it is wide open; that is why there has been so little trouble about it.
I am very glad indeed that the Home Secretary is going to look more closely

63
than he has done for many years at the conditions of the granting of licences and at the conditions of issuing certificates under those licences for the performance of particular experiments in laboratories, but I will come to that later.
A word about the BBC programme in the "Horizon" series on this subject last Friday. I thought it was a bold first step into a difficult and controversial field and I hope the BBC will be bolder still in future programmes and more persistent in its intention to show more of the truth to the public. I know the difficulty here. I have met many people since Friday and I have asked them, "Did you see the 'Horizon' programme?" to which many of them have replied, "No, I couldn't look at it. I didn't want to see it". As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, people do not want to know. I submit that they should be made to know; they should be compelled, by frequent debate and illustration of what all this means, to give their attention to a matter of great public interest.
After all, public opinion is really the foundation of all legislation. It is the foundation of the administration of all Acts of Parliament. If we do not have public opinion we have nothing but the experts and the disputations between those of us who take one point of view and those who take another, neither of whom may necessarily represent public opinion, and so there is a duty on the public to form an opinion based on more information and more debate.
In coming to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, one must remember that he is the representative of the establishment, the Research Defence Society. I sometimes wonder about that: defence against whom? The Research Defence Society is the name, but against whom are they defending research—the public, whose interest they are supposed to be serving?
The Earl of HALSBURY: Inter alia, my Lords, against the people who are going about burning down laboratories and animal suppliers' establishments.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: No, my Lords. The Research Defence Society was not set up to deal with
64
vandalism, the burning down of laboratories and the freeing of beagle dogs; it was set up donkeys' years ago because those concerned feared public opinion. I think the stock in trade of the Research Defence Society is a pot of cold cream. We heard this afternoon about this famous pot of cold cream that some hypothetical child is supposed one day to have swallowed and, in consequence, got a tummy-ache. We not only heard it from the noble Earl but also from another member of the Research Defence Society, the professor in the programme last Friday. So this pot of cold cream is the stock in trade of the Research Defence Society. I think that they ought to get rid of it or find the kid who swilled the pot of cold cream and let us know what were the consequences. Is cold cream so appetising that kids want to eat it by the potful and, if so, cannot the cosmetic industry put a nasty taste into it so that kids will not want a spoonful of it, much less a potful? We must ask for a little serious debate in this matter.
Coming back to the programme, I understand the dilemma of the BBC. They say, "If, in a programme of this kind, we show some of the real horrors of experiments on animals, the television sets will be turned off by the million and our programme will have lost its impact."So there is a balance to be kept here, and I think that it was pretty well kept in the first programme, though I thought that, since the programme was called "The Law and the Guinea Pigs", the law might perhaps have been gone into more deeply, especially the point about the inability of the public to test the construction of the 1876 Act in the courts.
Why are the doctors and researchers and the Research Defence Society always so heavily on the defensive? Why do they leave it to others to suggest the course and direction of reform? After all, these are the people in the business. They know what is happening. They are doing it every day. They know what is wrong with it and they ought to be able to tell us how some changes could be made. But no! We never hear any of these suggestions from those who are constantly engaged in the field of research. I do not want to fix particularly on the Research Defence Society. I am very fond of their president and I do not want to lose his affection, so I shall transfer my

65
criticism from him to the doctors, who frequently say that if there were not all this research going on in the background they would not be able to treat the coughs and colds of patients as effectively as they do now.
Let us concede that a great deal has been done by the use of animals in discovering remedies and the causes of human ailments. But in this Bill we are dealing with non-medical substances. Here, I believe that the Bill is defective because it is too narrowly drawn. I think also that in present circumstances noble Lords would be unwise to give the Bill a Second Reading in circumstances where the Home Secretary has made substantial advances. I did not feel that my noble friend Lord Harris had done the Home Secretary's case the justice that it deserved this afternoon. I know that there are Ministerial difficulties, but my noble friend was not present at the inteview with the Home Secretary a week ago and he suffered that disadvantage. He was given a brief as to what happened. All I can say is that, if I had been writing a brief describing what happened at the interview with the Home Secretary a week ago, it would have been much more enthusiastic and I would have spelt it out more fully and should have recommended it to the House with confidence. Instead of that, my noble friend spent most of his speech on the traditional lines, defending the moral and ethical position and frightening us out of our wits by saying that if we stop doing experiments people in other countries will do more and all the rest of it.
Why did he not concentrate on the practical issues with which I believe the House should be concerned now? I shall deal with them very briefly. First, much has happened since June, 1975. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, I myself and the animal societies got together to form a reasonable and representative group to try to get something out of this situation. We thought that the best way of getting something out of this situation was to do all we could to get results from the Advisory Committee and the Administration without pressing for fresh legislation.
Let us make progress by using the resources that are available. The first is the Advisory Committee. The Advisory
66
Committee has been suffering from underemployment. It can only act on a reference from the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has made very few references to it in the last few years, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said. The score of meetings of the Advisory Committee in the last ten years is exactly seven, and three of those were in 1975. There was a nil score in 1967, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1973. Nil in all those years! The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross, is chairman and he is not suffering from overwork. He has probably sometimes forgotten that he is the chairman because the Committee never meets. He must wonder sometimes what he is doing there. I really wonder that he has not complained at being the head of such an idle, useless Advisory Committee to the Home Secretary and has not reproached him for not giving the Committee more work to do.
We want the Advisory Committee to do more. The LSD test has now been referred to it. That is an important first step. The Home Secretary has said that he is willing to consider the next recruits for the attention of the Advisory Committee when it has disposed of the first reference to it. That is an important step too. So we are now beginning to line up references for the Committee to keep it more fully occupied with investigation into areas that give rise to most public concern.
With regard to the composition of the Advisory Committee, there are too many doctors on it. There are eight doctors out of the 14 members. There is one veterinary surgeon, and four lay members, two of whom are politicians. One is a Member of Parliament and the other is a former Member of Parliament. We want the Advisory Committee enlarged to become more representative of the lay point of view and of the animal welfare point of view so that the Committee is not so heavily laden with so-called "expert opinion".
Another point that we must insist upon is that no member of the Advisory Committee shall have any interest in commercial establishments that are connected with animal breeding or commercial research institutions. Members must be clear of any suggestion that they have a finger in the commercial pie. I believe that this must be properly looked into before further appointments are made to

67
the Committee. I believe that another thing that my noble friend Lord Harris could have said is that the Home Secretary would have gone much further along the road outlined by my noble friend Lord Platt in a further widening of the field of investigation and a fuller use of the capacity for investigation of an enlarged, properly serviced Advisory Committee; he would have been willing to go into that with some degree of approval had he not been suffering under cuts in public expenditure, which he more than once complained had hit his Department very severely. However, we will hope that when those restraints are removed, we can get more research and investigation done and can have the reports published so that the public may form its own opinion about what is going on.
It is not until the windows and doors are opened and informed public opinion can be brought to bear that we shall have the satisfaction of relying on a public point of view. After all, the real remedy for all this cosmetic business is for the women of Britain to reject cosmetics. Since when has lipstick become an essential part of medicine, of toilet, or of anything else? When I was young the only people who used lipstick were tarts and actresses, but now it is universal. We disapproved of lipstick. We knew that a woman was an immoral woman if she wore lipstick, but now all the virgins in Britain put on lipstick. I would ask: Why has this vogue become such an essential part of the vanity of women?
That is a lighthearted diversion, but surely the women should know what cosmetics are tested on animals. Here the commercial interest is so much involved. Now the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is in his place. He has been the custodian of the standards of the advertising industry for quite a long time. He knows as well as I do that this insidious persuasion is going on; we see it on television, in the colour supplements, in the newspapers every day of the week. People are told that they must look more beautiful, that they must get more emotion out of life, that they must go in for more romantic love. They are told that the ways to do this are to beautify oneself, and to smoke cigarettes, and do all the things that are associated with a wonderful sexual life. This is the image that is
68
presented through the advertising media. No wonder that all the women fall for it. But I think that the whole of this industry could be turned further away from the use of animals if more publicity were given to the situation.
I am not going to take more than a minute more, my Lords. I want to say to my noble friend that the Home Secretary is to be congratulated upon having, I think with resolve and speed, determined to make a start on changes and reforms in the administration of the 1876 Act. He is determined to use the Advisory Committee more. We want to encourage him to do that. We have enlarged the representativeness of the group that is in association with it. We want to co-operate with it. I am not prepared to join with any noble Lords this afternoon in delivering a rebuff to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, because I think that he has done enough to justify approval, rather than the vote of no confidence which I think giving the Bill a Second Reading might imply.
I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on this point. I think that the situation has changed; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt. Let us say to the Home Secretary: We have heard what you are prepared to do. We encourage you to do it. We ask you to do more. We shall take stock again a little later on, but meantime we will not give a Second Reading to a Bill that you might think is a vote of censure upon you. I believe that it would be most unfortunate if we were to divide on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading. That would be to reject it. I do not know what might come out of it. But I say with great respect that I think it would be far better if the House were to take note of what the Home Secretary is doing, to approve of it, to move on, and then come back on another occasion to see how much has been done.
5.43 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I find myself in a most difficult position having to address your Lordships after the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as I do not have the skill with words which he can produce. I am not sure that I go the whole way with him, but I think it is rather peculiar that it has to take two presentations of a Bill like

69
this—in addition to the pressure which the noble Lord has been applying—to get the Home Secretary to move. I trust that in future when something needs to be done we shall have people like the noble Baroness who are prepared to put down Bills. Perhaps that would stimulate various Home Secretaries from time to time. It was pleasant to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for whom I have the greatest respect, as most of the opposition to the Bill sounded to me rather like a piece of music being played by five different orchestras with a number of different conductors. The theme was always the same, but the tone was slightly different.
What appeared to me to be difficult, is that the noble Baroness is posing a question as to how far can one justify the use of animals in experiments, and she has endeavoured to draw a line as to where this experimentation should cease. While I must confess that I do not like the idea of animals being used in experiments, I am not denying—and I should be the last to deny—that in certain circumstances it is necessary to use animals. There are certain areas of medicine in which I consider it is probably absolutely essential to use them. But I do not include the kind of self-inflicted wounds such as smoking as constituting a justifiable use of animals in order to cure anybody. It is difficult to know where to stop. In the Bill, the noble Baroness says that one should stop at cosmetics. People who oppose the Bill might consider that we are trying to insert the thin edge of the wedge in order to stop all experiments on animals. I personally should be most upset if that were thought to be so, and if anybody attributed that to me I should deny it most strongly.
It has been said that cosmetics have been proved to be dangerous and have caused all kinds of difficulties in the past in the way of injuries and similar troubles. Cosmetics have been in use for some considerable time. What I think people are trying to say is not that cosmetics as such are dangerous, but that people want to put new drugs and new materials into cosmetics and they are not quite sure what effect such cosmetics would have. I cannot see how much further one can go in enlarging the range of cosmetics. Having looked around this world for a number of years, I do not see that very
70
much improvement can be made. I am very strongly against the use of animals for improving cosmetics any further.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, carefully asked whether the public knew what was being done in all these experiments. My Lords, I am quite convinced that the public do not know, and I feel that if they did know there would be a tremendous reaction against many of the cosmetics which are now being produced. It would be interesting to see what would happen if manufacturers were required by law to state on cosmetic containers what animals had been used in the manufacture of the cosmetics and various other preparations. For instance, in regard to face cream it might be stated that the manufacturers had used 50 rabbits, 20 monkeys, 13 dogs and 14 cats. If that information had to be stated on a container, I wonder how many people, when they read that, would be prepared to buy the cosmetics?
One always has the feeling that the basis for all these experiments is highly commercialised. It is done only in order to increase the profits in cosmetic firms, and I personally do not like animals to be used in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, mentioned certain fearful things about allergies. He referred to what has to be done when people get allergies from cosmetics and said that you have to use animals to stop it. My Lords, you get allergies from quite different things. Penicillin is one of those things. Nobody testing penicillin on animals could have said that somebody like myself would come out in the most appalling sores as a result of its use. I am afraid that, to me, Lord Hunt's arguments have small bearing. Personally, I welcome the Bill. The noble Baroness has been told that it is defective. There is never a Private Bill which is produced which some Government Department does not say is defective, but no doubt that could be sorted out in Committee. Personally, I support the noble Baroness.
5.50 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, as in the case of other noble Lords, the carefully prepared speech which I brought with me is going home in my pocket undelivered, no doubt gaining in brilliance all the time, for there is very little more to

71
be said. I felt there was little more to be said after the forthright speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I will, if I may, concentiate on one point which I find both disturbing and puzzling—the noble Lord dealt with it, at least by implication—and it is this. One can understand the anti-vivisectionist who, on moral grounds, is wholly against the use of animals in experimentation. I do not accept that, but I can understand it. What I cannot understand is the selection of cosmetics for this particular exercise. I suspect that the reason is that it is regarded as an unnecessary activity, even a frivolous activity. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, thinking that an old gentleman like him can get up and tell the women of this country what they should put on their faces or other places.
I believe it has been selected because it is thought to be superfluous and unnecessary, and even improper, no doubt—and I believe that to be a substantial weakness. Thirty million people use cosmetics, and it is not only lipstick and powder—those particular items which years ago taught the noble Lord the difference between one girl and another. There is a wide range of products—soaps, lotions, creams, deodorants—which are used by people for one purpose or another, from the improvement of appearance to the sweetening of some part of the human body. I believe that to be the main weakness of this Bill.
We ought not to say to people, "If this is a substance you use of your own free will just to freshen yourself and to beautify yourself—unnecessary exercises—then you do it at your own risk". That seems to me to go right to the heart of the whole consumer protection business, in which the noble Baroness has taken so active a part. If women (and men, for that matter; but I will stick to the subject raised by the noble Lord) decide that these things are what they want, despite the pleas of elderly gentlemen, then they are entitled to have their safety guaranteed so far as can be, and that seems to me to be the main question to be asked and answered. Are we entitled to expect that forms of action or activity which are not essential, or articles which are not essential, are safe? For if we once depart from the present position, we shall be in grave trouble.
72
Toys are not necessary or essential, but parents are entitled to know that they are safe. There are all sorts of activities and articles which are not essential, but we are entitled to know that they are safe. I really rather regret the selection of cosmetics as an area from which experiment should be excluded, because I suspect it is being done for the reason that the noble Lord all too readily revealed in that temporary appeal to the women of this country.
So I would say that people are entitled to safety, and that therefore the question which arises is: Is animal experimentation necessary for that purpose? I do not presume to answer that question in strict terms. The weight of scientific opinion is that animal experimentation is necessary, despite the growing use of human experimentation—and I suspect that there will be many cases in which there will need to be animal experimentation before human experimentation can take place. So I believe that this Bill is misguided. As the noble Lord points out, it has had an unexpected dividend or an extra dividend in the form of the subsequent statement of the noble Lord. But on the basic issue of something that people do, or use or wear on their skins, sensibly or not, wisely or not, enthusiastically or not, they are entitled to know that it is safe. If we are to pursue the line of selecting such a group of articles as this and of denying animal experimentation on the grounds that it is an unnecessary activity, that seems to me to be a very dangerous doctrine. I hope the House will support the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and will bring an end to what is a most undesirable movement, contrary to a much more important movement—the movement for increasing the safety of the environment, whether it in fact relates to necessary or unnecessary, to serious or to frivolous, activities.
5.58 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward this Bill. In my opinion, the noble Baroness had rather a rough ride on the last Bill she brought forward. The noble Lord on the Front Bench, Lord Harris of Greenwich, rather interested me when he said that the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act must be quite all right because there have

73
been (I think he said) no prosecutions, or hardly any prosecutions, under it. That is really a very poor argument, I think, because we must remember that this Act was introduced to protect a mere handful of extremely high-grade scientists who were experimenting with only 200 or 300 animals, whereas we now have these vast commercial firms who are experimenting with millions of animals. This is a trade, I understand, worth £200 million a year and, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hill, it supplies 20 million to 30 million people. That is not to say that the 5 million experiments apply only to this trade, because the 5 million figure applies to non-medical experiments and to medical experiments. But this is a vast commercial business, and to say that the Act has worked well because there has not been any prosecution is a very poor argument. I should like to see a completely new Act. I think we should have a 1977 or 1978 Act to provide far more stringent protection for animals.
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that in the last debate I mentioned a figure of 1 million animals used in experiments for cosmetics. I did not mean toiletry. I took my figures from the Sunday Mirror of the 24th February 1974. The Sunday Mirror stated that 1 million animals died annually in cosmetic testing. They are referring to both medical and non-medical and not to non-medical alone. In previous debates, we have always been told by the Government, and by other noble Lords, that it is quite impossible to separate the medical from the non-medical in cosmetics. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I think, told us that there were only 30,000 animals used in non-medical cosmetics. If the noble Earl knows that, he must have made a definition and a distinction between medical and non-medical.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, may I intervene? What I said was that the trade federation of the cosmetics manufacturers circulated their members for information and turned up 30,000. I did not say that they were medical or non-medical; just cosmetical.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I am surprised there were so few; because the information I have had is that they were very much
74
greater. I was pleased to hear what Lord Harris of Greenwich—not that I am going to throw him any bouquets—told us about LD50; but I am rather of the opinion that if the Government had not had pressure put on them by these debates, we should not have had that welcome news about the LD50 tests. I know two young people who left laboratories that were doing that work because they were so disgusted. I do not want to go into further detail than we have had in the debate this afternoon, but the LD50 test does seem, in the majority of cases, to be quite unnecessary and extremely cruel: often to force-feed animals until their guts are broken and ruptured. Surely, it serves no purpose to take an animal which is perhaps one-hundredth or one two-hundredth the weight of a man and to test a substance on it by inflicting a far greater dose than any man would ever have to take. It seems completely illogical and absurd.
I should like to take up something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and others in regard to thalidomide. I understand that thalidomide was tested on various animals, and that on rats it had no effect at all. But it was found that if a rabbit received 30 times the normal dose for a woman, it produced slight abnormalities in the foetus. What I am pointing out is that tests on animals often have been proved to be completely unreliable as applied to human beings. For instance, as was mentioned in the last debate, insulin and cortisone cause abnormalities in animals but no abnormalities in humans. Let us take the case of penicillin. We might never have had penicillin if it had been discovered today; because if you give penicillin to guinea pigs it poisons them. In the days when penicillin was discovered, they did not, as a routine, go into the screening and laboratory tests that are carried out today with animals. Therefore it might never have reached clinical trials; we would not have had it; and man would have lost a great deal. They would have tried it on animals; it would have poisoned them; and we would not have got it. I am not a doctor, but one must go by the evidence. I do not think you can really say (as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, if I understood him correctly) that substances must always be tested on animals. He gave the impression that it was infallible.

75
When we come to some of these eye tests on rabbits and other animals, I think they are really cruel. There is plenty of evidence to prove that where you hold animals in a clamp keep their eyes open and pour into the eyes these shampoos and other astringents, this is very cruel. But what it really boils down to is the moral issue. The moral issue varies with the individual; it depends on an individual's attitude to how far he separates animal life from human life, from the human animal. I am nowhere told that we have a soul—and, as the right reverend Prelate is in his place, I am not going to enter into a theological argument—but I am sure we have a soul. We also have far greater powers of reasoning and greater inventiveness and greater imagination than animals. I do not think animals have much imagination. We have greater mental powers than animals; but do we differ greatly physically? Of course, the trouble is that it is very difficult to know how much pain an animal feels because he cannot speak our language.
Might I quote very shortly from two reports? The official report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals concluded that on behavioural, anatomical and survival grounds, animals suffer pain in the same way as human beings. This was followed by the Littlewood Report of 1965 which, on page 65, stated:
"There is scientific evidence that all mammals have the physical structures which seem to be involved in the production of sensations of pain and these appear to work in the same way as in man."
There you have the opinion of two very learned committees. From my practical experience, I know where animals do suffer acute pain, stress and misery. The average person's ignorance about animals is quite extraordinary. I suppose that is because we are an urban nation. Might I point out the acute senses that animals have? The average animal has a far better sense of smell than we have; it has better eyesight and better hearing. This is not always the case but I am speaking of the average. For example, a dog with his far more acute hearing going through a hayfield in summer time must be completely deafened by the noise of insects. When I worked sheepdogs I
76
had a whistle which, when blown could be heard by the dog a long way away. The human ear could not hear it. Animals on the whole have more perception than we have and a far greater homing instinct.
My Lords, if we consider whales, the blue whale can communicate for 400 miles with another whale. If it were not for all the disturbances in the oceans, such as those caused by ships, it could probably communicate for 4,000 miles. We are inclined to say that they are just animals, as if they are inanimate objects. If they have these senses, they must feel acute pain, misery and distress. If you are riding a highly-bred horse—and horses are not intelligent—its reactions are amazingly quick; they are quicker than those of a human being. If anything stirs in a hedge the horse will immediately shy. We must conclude that animals feel pain to the same degree that we do.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long. I would say to appease the scientists that I agree that legislating on biology is very difficult; but if the survival of a government depended at the polls on making a definition between a medical and non-medical cosmetic, I bet you anything they would soon make it! I do not think that the excuse that a definition cannot be made is good enough. We pride ourselves on being the highest and most civilised form of life; we must behave as such in our treatment of fellow mammals of less intelligence. If we do not, we debase ourselves and civilisation. It is the custom in this House to give Bills a Second Reading. A Bill can always be amended at Committee stage. I hope this Bill receives a Second Reading, and I support it.
6.13 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate and I venture to think that some of it has had very little reference to the Bill. One noble Lord referred to a case of the girls who were employed painting watch dials and who developed cancer. They developed cancer 25 or 30 years later. Animal testing I am afraid would not have saved them. Somebody else referred to insulin and the need for testing. Nobody pays any attention to the fact that the population of this country is eating far too much sugar and that is why there is

77
the development of diabetes. These issues are outside the scope of this Bill, which is devoted solely to one particular purpose: to make it clear that testing cosmetics should not fall within the definition which is contained in the Act of 1876.
Let us look at what this Act said. It was for the purpose of regulating and indeed for prohibiting, with exceptions, experiments upon animals. The experiments which were to be permitted were for making new discoveries of physiological knowledge or knowledge which would be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering. I do not think testing cosmetics has anything to do with alleviating suffering or prolonging life and I do not see what it has to do with extending new knowledge and physiology. It is not directed to that at all. If our predecessors, who 101 years ago passed the Cruelty to Animals Act, had been told that it was going to permit all the experimentation which takes place today they would have been horrified.
It is said that this Bill is highly undesirable because people must be protected by the testing of products. This is what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has said and what the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and others, have said. But what are these products against which people are to be protected? They are produced by people who are manufacturing cosmetics for the purpose of their private profit. Why should we help them to do this? Why should we say: "You can put them on the market if you like; it does not matter because if this Bill is passed you need not test them"? Is this really the law of this country, that anybody who likes to put a product on the market, recklessly and without knowing the effects it will have, is entitled to do so? I feel extremely surprised at this doctrine. If that is the state of the law of this country it wants fundamental re-examination. Whether or not this Bill should be passed, I do not know; but I have a feeling that it will be salutary if it has a Second Reading because this subject wants examination. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby referred to the Advisory Committee and perhaps that may be a useful method of dealing with the matter. I wonder whether the Advisory Committee ever considers whether the experiments which are being permitted fall within
78
the definition in the Act of 1876 of what is permissible.
My noble friend Lord Harris said that this Bill was objectionable because it was going to create a new crime. But the Act of 1876 creates a crime. Under it nobody is entitled to conduct experiments on animals unless they are for the purposes which I have mentioned, for providing new physiological knowledge. Surely, testing cosmetics is not providing new knowledge about the physiology of human beings, nor is it making a contribution to medical science for the saving or prolonging of life. I suggest that, if nothing else is done, somebody should begin to think about whether this is the kind of situation which this Act of Parliament is intended to permit.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will not attempt to reply to all your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. I feel rather punch drunk at the moment. I may say to my noble friend Lord Houghton that the amount of lipstick that I have used in the past few years since I have been in your Lordships' House has not produced for me any sexual experiences; but perhaps I should still be hopeful! I in fact use bath salts, but no white knight in shining armour has come up the garden. Perhaps I should sue under the Trade Descriptions Act!
Some interesting arguments have been advanced against my poor little Bill. I learned that it was a dangerous doctrine. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, seemed to think that anything should be safe, whatever you are going to do. I do not want to debate with him, but I wonder how far he would extend that to the realm of tobacco. We were told, notably by the doctors, of course, that they frequently recommend makeup. It is very interesting news to me that a lady who goes for treatment for depression is told to use a little more face cream. If it is therapeutic to cover up burnt skin, that would not be purely cosmetic. I thought I had tried to make that point at the beginning of the debate.
I thought the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made a very powerful speech, but I am sorry that I cannot say the same for the Minister. He thundered on and reiterated

79
at least three times that it was "criminal law". But, my Lords, what is every Act of Parliament that we have dealt with in this House? Nearly all Bills create crimes about which I, as a magistrate, have to listen, and which carry a penalty. I could not follow why this Bill was different in any particular from any other Bill or Act that is dealt with in this House. Certainly there are some civil actions which flow from certain matters but, generally speaking, we are concerned with the implementation of Acts of Parliament which make criminal law.
The noble Lord then went on to unfold the "goodies", as did the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—in other words, that the Home Office are going to decide either to resuscitate the Advisory Committee or to put more people on it, but at any rate I gather I was supposed to fall about and say, "Marvellous!" I say quite seriously to the Minister that it would have been a little more courteous if he, on behalf of the Government, and possibly also the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, had told me of these discussions before today. I will put it no higher than that, but if they were going to suggest that, on the strength of that, I withdrew my Bill—though they did not put it quite so forcefully as that—I think I might have been a little forewarned.
I am sorry that the Advisory Committee does not cause me to wish to withdraw the Bill and, for the life of me, I cannot see how the Government could take that as an act of censure. We are always told about these committees. When we debated quite recently a very small clause to be put in a Bill concerning handicapped children, what was I told from the Front Bench?—"Wait for the Warnock Committee". We are always waiting for something or for some committee, and I would say that this Bill does not in any way stop the Advisory Committee going about their business. In fact, it is very interesting that they have selected the specific LD50 test. Since the noble Earl informed us earlier that it was hardly ever used, why should they bother to investigate it?
We were also told that the number of animals involved was so small; and, incidentally, several people set up in
80
order to knock down Aunt Sallies that I had not raised. I very carefully did not raise the 5 million figure; so why people bothered to "reply" to it I do not know, except that perhaps they had their speeches written first and could not be flexible about them. Even if the number of animals is small, I would say to the noble Earl that surely that does not matter so much. You cannot have it both ways. If you are not doing the tests you have nothing to worry about, even if the Advisory Committee look at it. If the number of animals is only small then, all right, this is only a small piece of legislation.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that I stand on a moral base and I do not wish to be unctuous about it. I take the point that was made by the right reverend Prelate, and I care far more for my cousins than my cats. I care for people, just as all your Lordships do; but it is of little use to make a protestation of sympathy and to say, for instance, that you, like me, are sorry for the animals, if you still persist in saying that these experiments shall go on. I believe, with St. Francis, that we do have a trusteeship over the lower animals, and equally I believe it is unnecessary to carry out these experiments in our day and age. Where are our scientists, if they cannot devise some tests which need not involve experiments being made on animals?
My Lords, I am sorry that I remain unconvinced either by the scientific arguments or the frightening arguments that have been advanced. I am unconvinced by the worst and most insiduous argument of all, that if I do this I shall in some way be committing an act of censure on the Government. I shall risk that, my Lords, because I prefer to be on the side of the animals.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and wideranging debate on the Bill and on my Amendment, which have been debated together; and honours are even. We have had 10 speeches in favour of the Bill and 10 speeches in favour of the Amendment. In those circumstances, I do not think one can ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Bill and I do not think I can be asked to withdraw my Amendment.

81
Quite frankly, opinions are equally divided and we should go into the Division Lobby at the end of my remarks.
I was not entirely happy about the introduction of the noble Baroness, when she said "This is Animal Day and it is very appropriate in relation to Animal Year, and so to celebrate that let us have a new law." I realise that she was speaking only light-heartedly, but straws show which way the wind blows and I think there has been a very deliberate effort to get something done in Animal Welfare Year, 1976, because it is the anniversary of 1876. However, I do not believe that that is really the right attitude to take in respect of a matter such as this.
There is one item which comes through sometimes as a logical flaw in the argument and sometimes as a misunderstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to the Draize test. You do not do that test with sulphuric acid on the eye of a rabbit in order to prove that sulphuric acid will injure the eye, because you know it will. You only do a Draize test on something which you have good reason to suppose is safe. When I was young, we did not have shampoos and I had the trauma of having my hair washed with soap, and it always got into my eyes and stung. The sting passed, of course, and no-long term damage was done. It is quite understandable that an animal's eye might smart for a moment if something were put into it: so would mine. But as the law stands, and working under a Home Office licence, if, as a consequence, the animal was in permanent severe pain you could either kill the animal then and there or alternatively you could anaesthetise it then and there and see whether the pain was still there when it recovered consciousness. But, as the law stands, you would not be allowed to keep the animal in pain for that purpose.
As I said, there sometimes occurs a logical flaw in the argument and this applies to some extent to what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord de Clifford—put a label on the bottle saying, "This has been tested on animals". If the conclusion of the test on animals was that it did not do them any harm and therefore was safe for human beings to use, what was the harm in that? I think if you tried to bias people's choice by telling them that a preparation was
82
perfectly safe because it had been tested on an animal, they would see through the argument and say, "What does that matter?"
I am a little concerned about the idea that you ought to give something a Second Reading to mark the importance of the subject-matter. I think that is a rather dangerous doctrine. We have done that once already, and I said that one of my purposes was to save your Lordships going through the business of Committee and Report stages. All you could do in Committee with regard to so simple a Bill would be to put in a wrecking Amendment—so why not test the matter at the Second Reading?
I was very glad to recruit the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to our half of the team, as it were, though not necessarily for the reasons that I would have wished to recruit him, and to have his support. We have been crossing swords across the Floor of this House on this topic for long enough to have a family joke and, with regard to the famous pot of cold cream, I must tell him that I appear to have coined this as an aside in reply to a speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, when I said that I quite agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, about the unnecessary provision of the LD50s on things such as cold cream and so on. It was my coining; not the noble Viscount's. This got into the minds of the people who read Hansard, but I assure your Lordships that a pot of cold cream is not the crest of the Research Defence Society.
I do not want to talk about thalidomide. I was involved in that tragedy. The full story has never been told, save only that at that time the state of medical knowledge was such that non-toxic substances were not tested for teratogenic action. It was then believed that all teratogens were toxic. Thalidomide was the exception, and now non-toxic substances are regularly tested for that.
I very much welcome the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to have this new scheme of reporting. I am involved in one of his pilot studies for it. I do not know whether he has read the fine print in some of these documents, but, curiously enough, one of the categories which you are not asked to report

83
on is whether you are doing experiments on cosmetics. In view of all the "curfuffle" in Parliament about this, I find that rather surprising and perhaps the noble Lord would be willing to look into it.
The fact that the 1876 Act is 100 years old does not mean that it is inoperative or out of date. Magna Charta is 762 years old but we still have it, or something like it, on the Statute Book. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know whether that is the right way to talk about it. But times have changed since the 1876 Act and I am aware that there is considerable public anxiety about this question. More tests are being done, and for different purposes than when the 1876 Act was passed, and I think it is desirable that there should be a public reassurance. What I hope for is that, in the light of the new information with which the noble
Lord, Lord Harris, will provide us, we might consider the problem of legislation when the facts are known. I think that it would be the height of unwisdom to legislate first, and find out the facts second. Therefore, my Lords, I press my Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-jones): My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a second time, since when an Amendment has been moved to leave out "now" and at end to insert "this day six months". The Question therefore is that this Amendment be agreed to.
6.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

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

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Amulree, L.

Exeter, M.

Northchurch, B.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ogmore, L.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oram, L.

Bacon, B.

Glasgow, E.

Platt, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Popplewell, L.

Banks, L.

Hacking, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ridley, V.

Birdwood, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Harvington, L.

Romney, E.

Boothby, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Hives, L.

St. Just, L.

Brock, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sharples, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Hunt, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stedman, B.

Cathcart, E.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cawley, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Champion, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sudeley, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Swansea, L.

Cobham, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Congleton, L.

Lyell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thurso, V.

Cranbrook, E.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Vernon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Vickers, B.

Daventry, V.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Margadale, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Monck, V.

White, B.

Dulverton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenway, L.

Northfield, L.

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Caradon, L.

Kaldor, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Cornwallis, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Southwark, Bp.

de Clifford, L.

Listowel, E.

Spens, L.

Dormer, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stone, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Molson, L.

Strang, L.

Foot, L.

Monson, L.

Tranmire, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Morris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
6.42 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I am very conscious that in this debate I cannot for a moment match the knowledge and experience of many Members of your Lordships' House in their study of deer, the problem of their management and the knowledge of their habits. Already I am very grateful to many noble Lords for their friendly counsel and advice and, as I have gone about your Lordships' House, for the offers which have been made to me many times to meet me after the Second Reading of the Bill, if a Second Reading is given to it today, to try to get an agreed Bill at Committee stage. I wish to emphasise from the very beginning that an agreed Bill is my aim and the aim of many Members of your Lordships' House who support its Second Reading.
This is a Bill for England and Wales. It re-enacts, amends and strengthens the Deer Act 1963. I want to make it clear from the very beginning that the Bill should in no sense be interpreted as an attack on stag hunting, which still takes place in certain parts of the country. I
86
understand that no attempt will be made during the passage of the Bill to raise the issue of stag hunting and get it written into the Bill. It would be a foolhardy exercise to try to do so. If there were such an attempt, perhaps in another place, I am sure, from testing the water in this House, that the Amendment would be rejected here and that the whole Bill would be lost. As I say, it would be a rather stupid exercise because, judging from the comments which have been made to me, I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House want the principal provisions of the Bill to become law.
Therefore the Bill is not an attack on stag hunting; nor is it unduly restrictive about what is done, with the authority of the owner, on private land. The Bill helps, not hinders, the process of management and the proper culling of deer. It is not a sentimental Bill, designed to claim that deer are a threatened species which need very special legislation in order to save them. It is none of those things. Its purpose is to prevent poaching and the intensely cruel killing of deer by poachers. This activity has now escalated into big business in this country and has increased the cruelty of poaching because of the value of the carcases which are being taken, and it is leading to open lawlessness by gangs who threaten the safety of people who go about the lawful job of trying to safeguard and manage deer. The central purpose of the Bill is to prevent poaching.
May I make one preliminary point about the detailed provisions of the Bill. I understand, and I shall be very interested to listen to comments about it, that there are doubts about Clause 4 which deals with creating an offence of trespass in pursuit of deer. Also, I understand that there are some doubts, although I should not

87
like to say how great they are, about Part III of the Bill, which sets up a system for the control of sales of venison through the existing system of licensed game dealers. I shall deal with those two matters in a preliminary way.
May I say right away that I hope that the critics of these two cardinal features of the Bill will reflect upon the fact that these provisions are already part of the law of Scotland. They are not new, untried provisions which are being introduced into the corporate law of this country. The provisions are similar, but they are not totally identical. However, the principle contained in these two provisions exists in Scottish law, in the Deer (Scotland) Act and in the Sale of Venison (Scotland) Act. Therefore I hope that any criticism will be tempered by the fact that these provisions are working in another part of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, I hope that anybody who criticises these two provisions of the Bill will look at the extent to which our present law concerning these matters is way behind that of other European countries. If one takes the offences of night shooting, the close season, venison regulations, the firearms regulations and police game keeper powers, my researches lead me to believe that we are far behind Norway, Sweden, Denmark, West Germany, Holland, Belgium and Austria but that perhaps we are less far behind France and Switzerland. As the law exists at the moment, we have no good record to call on.
I come now to the Bill and the consultations which preceded it. First, at least 30 separate bodies have been consulted on the drafting of the Bill, which has taken place over several years. It is not new, hastily thought up drafting. I pay my particular tribute to Mr. Hotchkis, the Parliamentary activist, if I may so describe him, of the British Deer Society who has helped in every way with the drafting of this Bill—although it is not, of course, a British Deer Society Bill. The Home Office has been fully consulted at every stage; so also have other Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence relating to lands owned by them. The Forestry Commission and the British Field Sports Society have been consulted. The police have been particularly questioned on the proposal to
88
prohibit the use of shotguns. The RSPCA, the League against Cruel Sports and the Country Landowners' Association have been consulted. The National Farmers' Union who, I know, have written to many Members of your Lord ships' House, have been consulted, but they make it clear at the very beginning of their circular that they are in favour of the principles underlying the Bill. The Game Conservancy have also been consulted, and so have other bodies. The list is very long indeed. There has been consistent support for improving the Deer Act 1963 in journals such as Country Life, The Field, and so on. If I may say so to your Lordships, I think it has a very respectable pedigree even before we come to discuss its details.
Then what is the particular need for the Bill? The changes in the situation since 1963 form the need for the Bill. Deer have spread. There are at least something like 70,000, at a very rough estimate, in England. The legitimate annual cull of deer is about 17,000 but the best estimate that can be made of the illegal cull is about 5,000, although it is probably far more. In addition of course there are many legitimately killed by farmers who find them marauding crops, and a number are killed on the roads by cars. But if we look at the trade in illegal venison we shall find that it is becoming very big business indeed. That, then, is the first reason for the Bill—the change in the numbers of deer and the change in the amount of killing by poaching.
Secondly, since 1963 the habits of deer have been more clearly understood. Management is now known to be essential. Local deer societies in their culling work actually give the carcases to landowners—they are not trying to get a monopoly of shooting and keeping the carcases. These societies have grown, the trained stalkers have grown in numbers; the whole possibility of managing in a proper way has grown. Thirdly, national appreciation of deer as part of our natural environment has grown since 1963 and we can no longer allow indiscriminate killing of what is now regarded as an animal which is at least to some extent to be protected as part of our natural environment.
The fourth reason is the precise point which I made at the beginning—the

89
alarming increase in poaching, the threats to keepers by highly organised gangs who maraud nightly in many parts of this country on highly skilled operations to poach deer and sell them at anything from £50 to perhaps £150 per carcase. This is big business. For example, I see that the chief constable of Dorset has said that he regards them now as being highly organised in his part of the country. I understand that in one police area they have set up a special office to deal with complaints about this continuous poaching.
The methods vary, but the one that is the most grisly, disgusting and needing to be eliminated is the use by poachers of cars—they arrive in gangs in Land-Rovers, they use intensive light to dazzle the deer, they then pepper what they can find with shotguns, causing much indiscriminate cruelty to deer which escape to die in misery somewhere, and then make off with the carcases. Of course there are other things going on that we know about. Some poachers are now using specially trained lurcher dogs to catch deer. I have no wish to interfere with legitimate sport, but a great deal of what is done by these lurcher dogs goes quite beyond reason and they are used for indiscriminate poaching. For example, one sees advertisements for lurcher dogs to do this work, presumably mainly for poaching. These advertisements are now openly carried in the newspapers. The Exchange and Mart has an advertisement reading:
"Lurcher dogs, catch deer, rabbit; excellent with lamp. £50."
That is a clear indication of the way in which gangs are using lamps with lurcher dogs to do their poaching. Another advertisement says:
"A lurcher bitch: gets well stuck into roe deer."
The Newcastle Evening Chronicle of the 20th February this year was advertising them. They may be used quite legitimately for some reason, but we know that a great many of them are used illegally for poaching. On the 20th August last year a man caught as a result of investigations in connection with burglary—he could not be caught very easily under the present Deer Act—turned out to be what the Evening Standard called "A super poacher" who in four years got 100 deer valued at £12,000, mainly from the Woburn Abbey estate. Part of his statement read:
90
"One day I went to the park. My dog pulled a buck down; I pulled it to the side of the road, cut its throat, but it kicked me, so I ran the car over its head to finish it off."
We know that this sort of thing is going on by highly organised gangs to complete their poaching activities. I thought the climax of this—if I may be slightly lighthearted about what is rather a grisly subject—was a notice reported in one newspaper at Market Drayton: a poacher openly advertising in local shops that he had increased his prices for venison because of what he called "increased overheads", which happened to be fines for poaching of over £300. As I understand it, he was doing a large-scale trade with hotels.
I do not think I need dwell unduly on these methods, except to add, of course, that I have not been exhaustive in my list. Many other illegal practices go on: snares, the use of other missiles of cruel kinds, even down to arrows and all kinds of bludgeoning instruments. Many examples exist, quoted from all over the country, of deer found dying in misery through the use of disgusting types of snare in the countryside. That is the first point. There is a great deal of illegal poaching of a most grisly and cruel kind, now highly organised and highly profitable. But the case does not rest simply on that. It is now the case that this is leading to the beginning of real lawlessness and the possibility of crimes against the person on a much greater scale.
These gangs are openly threatening gamekeepers and other people lawfully trying to intercept them and to stop the poaching. Furthermore, there are re corded examples of people injured, people beaten up, people just avoiding being run down by the Land-Rovers. I see that one Blackdown farmer reported: "They told me that if I informed the police my property would not be worth looking at. By that I presume they meant fire ". I am told that one magistrate—and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, knows this case better than I do—who did not in fact sit to adjudicate on a case but withdrew from the Bench nevertheless (quite coincidentally perhaps) found that his farm buildings were burnt down a few nights later. This is the way that the trade is now growing and the extent of the cruelty is well known.
The kind of practice is well documented in an article in the Sunday Times in

91
December 1974. It reads something as follows:
"Guns are too noisy for the real professional These are the hoodlum gangs who go about their business with a cold-blooded nastiness that A1 Capone would have admired. Their favourite method of slaughtering deer is messy but devastatingly effective."
Then it describes how these poachers drive the deer to feed and then dazzle them with light, let loose the dogs and then finish them off. It continues:
"Deer finished off in this way may be considered lucky. All too often, especially when a shotgun gang is at work, the end is as bloody as the climax of a Sam Peckinpah movie. The animals are simply strafed with buckshot blasted into the herd at random. Those which are not killed outright often manage to escape, perhaps hobbling away on shattered stumps or with their jaw so badly smashed that they are unable to feed and slowly die of starvation. Places where access is easy are hardest hit by these deer slayers. At the New Forest, the head forester, Fred Courtier, has assembled a grisly museum of barbarous trophies—snares, crossbow bolts, traps, broken deer skulls; a grim legacy of the poacher's art."
Then it goes on to describe some of the worst examples. I have looked at 135 Press cuttings of court cases in 1974/1975 trying to catch people of this kind. I have seen county by county reports, which I have here—I could not possibly read them all to your Lordships in a speech of reasonable length—showing what is happening county by county as these practices spread and attempts are made to catch the poachers.
My Lords, I come penultimately to the Bill itself. May I go through it very briefly. Clause 1 provides for close seasons, mainly re-enacting the Deer Act 1963. Clause 2 provides for nightly close times. I would imagine that there is universal agreement in your Lordships' House on those two provisions. Part II of the Bill deals with illegal methods of taking, snaring, killing, the use of lamps and the grisly weapons of the poacher's art, in an attempt to tighten and strengthen the law prohibiting them. Clause 4, to which I have already referred at the opening of my remarks, deals with the prohibition of trespass but only in search of deer; it is based on the Deer (Scotland) Act, and it is, of course, needed in order to give the police a chance to catch the offenders effectively by seeing them emerging from the land or catching them on the land actually doing their
92
work. Clause 5 deals with the arrest of such people and is based very much again on previous legislation, on the Night Poaching Acts, on the Badger Act and other pieces of similar legislation dealing with animals.
We come to Part III, which is absolutely essential to the Bill. Clauses 6 to 12 regulate the sale of venision through licensed game dealers. This is very important indeed in order that the outlet for deer should be so clear that the police have a chance of catching those selling deer illegally. I would say to my noble friend who is to reply for the Government, that if there is any dispute with the Home Office about Part III, we must fight this through to the end. It is a very important Part of the whole Bill on which I am not prepared to give way, although, of course, if it can be amended and made simpler, I should be glad to listen to suggestions. I would say to him, as I have said already—and I am repeating myself at the risk of boring your Lordships—that the same principle as is in Part III is in Scottish legislation already. I cannot think why there is resistance to bringing it into effect in this country, given the scale of poaching and cruelty.
We come to Part IV. Clauses 13 and 14 deal with enforcement. Clause 15 deals with forfeiture. Here I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who I know is going to raise a point about forfeiture of lurcher dogs, that if it would help him I would certainly agree to a suggestion which I think has already been made; that is, that the words that the court can "order the destruction of any dog" could certainly be amended to read "order the disposal of any dog". I hope that that would meet a point that I know he is very anxious about—an example, if I may say so, of the extent to which I am already having negotiations to try to get an agreed Bill.
Clause 16 deals with fines. I will have a word to say about that in a moment. Clauses 17, 18 and 19 broadly deal with exceptions to the general rules of the Bill. They cover such matters as mercy killing. They cover farmers to a very large extent. If I may put it in a nutshell—I will say it slowly, because I think it is very important—under the Bill as drafted, a farmer on his own land, able to plead damage to his crops, will be able to shoot deer, even

93
inside the close season—inside and outside the close season he will be able to shoot deer doing damage to his crops—with a shotgun of a certain size, for five years, before he should begin to use a rifle instead of the shotgun which is creating so much misery and cruelty. I would only say that one Amendment that I would not wish at any point to accept is to allow shotguns to be used on red deer, which are very large animals and which, once peppered with these shotguns, undergo a great deal of suffering.
Clauses 17, 18 and 19 also, incidentally, allow the use of a sawn-off shotgun for slaughtering. Of course, that is important as I understand it, to stag hunting. I hope farmers will accept that as a gesture from me and from those behind the Bill. It is an attempt to meet some of their legitimate points, that they need to use this weapon in the pursuit of their sport on some occasions.
My Lords, I come finally, because I have spoken quite long enough, to possible changes in the Bill. I have mentioned one small point to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. I would say that we might well simplify, if necessary, Part III. I would quite accept that there may be difficulties about Clause 22, which applies the Bill to the Crown, although I would point out that this is in fact already in the Scottish Acts; it is a little hard to understand why this should not apply to the Crown in England when it already applies in Scotland. Anyway, I shall be very happy to listen to what my noble friend has to say in advice on behalf of the Government. I would say that we would be quite happy to understand that the clause on penalties needs to be revised, so as to categorise penalties more clearly, lessening doubt about small offences against larger offences under the Bill.
My Lords, I say this finally. I hope that if the Bill is given a Second Reading we will in Committee—and I hope for many consultations before that; I hope that if necessary we would postpone the Committee stage for some time in order to get agreement—try to get all the points of view carefully taken care of. But I would plead very humbly with noble Lords not to ask us to compromise unduly on Clause 4, which is the offence of trespass in pursuit of deer; on Part III, which is the sale of venison, and the steady
94
—and I repeat steady—elimination of the smaller type of shotgun which is causing so much cruelty to deer in the rural areas.
I end with one personal remark that perhaps will help your Lordships to understand my own position on this Bill. Some years ago, I think it was 1965 or 1966, I began preparations, which were publicly announced, to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons to protect the badger. As is normal in such a case, I consulted with the Home Office. The Home Office talked me out of the Badger Bill: "There are difficulties; you are making departures in the law; it is all going to be so difficult". My Lords, perhaps I was a coward; I do not know. I stupidly gave in, only to find two or three years later that somebody with more courage than I had had introduced a Badgers Bill which became a Badgers Act. I felt foolish, humiliated. I learned that day never to give in unduly to the Home Office, which is not the most progressive of our Government Departments in relation to cruelty and the regulation of these matters in our country side. All I will say to your Lordships, therefore, in conclusion, is this. After my own first unhappy experience, after now learning of the need for the principles of this Bill, I hope nobody will expect me to do otherwise than fight very hard indeed to safeguard the principles of the Bill, which I think are very necessary and should be carried, if necessary, in the teeth of the opposition of the Home Office, if they drive us that far. I hope it will not go that far. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Northfield)
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on introducing the Bill for our consideration and, generally speaking, for the moderate manner in which he introduced it. If our blood has been made to run cold by overuse of the word "grisly", I am sure that we shall all forgive him.
As the noble Lord said, the purpose of the Bill may be said to be twofold. First, it could be said to be for the proper conservation of deer of a number of

95
species and to prevent poaching. Secondly, the Bill seeks to prevent cruelty in relation to the control of deer and to protect them from indiscriminate slaughter by unsuitable weapons. Both those aims are thoroughly meritorious and I have no doubt that none of your Lordships would seek to quarrel with them. For that reason undoubtedly the Bill will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
I say "all parts of the House" advisedly having regard to the thoroughly inept leading article in last week's issue of The Field, dated 17th February. I do not believe that there is any Party issue on this matter and, indeed, it is deplorable to suggest that because the Bill has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who occupies the geographical position in the Chamber that he does, there are Party political considerations. Nor do I believe that there is anything sinister about the fact that Mr. Jasper More tabled three Bills on the same subject at approximately the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
Such an article shows a distinct lack of knowledge of our Parliamentary institutions and how they work. However, in the same way, if some of us have reservations about certain parts of the Bill, I hope it will not be thought that we have these reservations because of what I might term "Party considerations". Such certainly will not be the case so far as I am concerned. Indeed, I wish to disclaim any interest in the Bill, partly because I live in Scotland and partly because I am not particularly interested in anything in England except as it applies to a Home Office matter and relates to this Bill.
My Lords, any consideration of deer will rapidly show that, however delightful they may be as animals and however much we wish to protect them from undue harm or cruelty and, still more, from methods of poaching, which we would all deplore, they certainly have the most prolific breeding habits given the right environment. There comes a time when, for their own good, they have to be culled. In addition, it must be faced that owning, perhaps in large measure, to the activities of the Forestry Commission, the habitat in which deer breed has become steadily larger, until now in several parts of the country deer prove a considerable menace
96
to both argicultural and forestry interests. Therefore, one should not minimise the fact that already there are and will increasingly be in the future, people who are concerned with perfectly laudable agricultural activities, such as farming, who will be gravely disadvantaged if they are unable to protect their crops or otherwise their interests in a humane but nevertheless effective manner. It is probably this part of the Bill which affects me the most.
At this time of night I shall not make a long speech. Indeed, I shall confine my comments to two matters: first, to Clause 3 as it is qualified by Clause 17 and, secondly, to the already notorious Clause 4 which I know always plays a great part in the thinking of noble Lords opposite. Clause 3(1)(c)(i) is really the heart of the matter so far as the taking and killing of deer is concerned and the method used. As I read this clause and Clause 17, the use of shotguns is to be banned immediately in the case of red deer, sika deer; and after five years all other deers will be protected from the use of what I call a normal shotgun. Under Clause 17(8), the deer will not be protected from an abnormal shotgun—in other words, a sawn-off shotgun. To anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the criminal courts prosecuting criminals for using sawn-off shotguns, this is a slightly unusual reaction.
Lord NORTHFIELD: As a slaughtering instrument, which is defined later in the Bill.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: As I read the clause, if someone shoots a deer with a sawn-off shotgun he will not be liable to be prosecuted under Clause 3(l)(c)(i). I may be wrong about that, but that is how it reads to me. Clause 17(8) reads:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3(l)(c)(i) of this Act by reason of using, as a slaughtering instrument, a smooth bore gun…"
and so it goes on. Of course, he has to use the large shot in it. I take that to mean that if a farmer wishes to protect his crops with a sawn-off shotgun, he will be entitled to do so under Clause 17(8). That may not be what the noble Lord intends, but that is how the Bill reads.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I do not want to cross swords with the noble Earl on English law, but is it not illegal to have a sawn-off shotgun in one's possession unless one has a special licence for it?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I shall deal with that; but we must take the Bill as we find it. What is the farmer to do if he finds deer on his land, injuring his crops, after five years? He can do nothing but watch the crops being eaten; he can use a shotgun, which will be illegal; or he can use a rifle, which will be illegal unless he has obtained a firearms certificate for it and, even so, it has to be the large rifle—certainly larger than a 2.2. Certainly it will be illegal for more than three people to take part in any shoot pending the five years.
I note that the noble Lord says that many bodies, including the police, have been consulted about this matter. Perhaps either he or the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, can tell me the reaction, if any, of the Association of Chief Constables to the likely increase in applications for firearms certificates in five years' time if the Bill receives the Royal Assent. We are increasingly told of the danger to the public of the increased use of firearms in an unauthorised manner. Bearing in mind the troubles in Northern Ireland and the frightening increase in violent crime, I should have supposed that chief constables would be doing everything in their power to discourage the possession and use of high-velocity or high-capacity rifles. It follows that if a farmer is granted a certificate, the police will naturally ensure that the rifle will be kept in the most secure conditions. And who shall blame the chief constable? This is one of the points that worries me. It is more, I suggest, than a Committee point, and it is more important than it might at first blush seem to be.
I have already dealt with the matter of sawn-off shotguns. As my noble friend observes, sawn-off shotguns are, in the ordinary course of events, not within the lawful ownership of the average citizen. He has to have a firearms certificate. I suppose he could get one, but a sawn-off shotgun is generally regarded in the criminal underworld as an even more delightful weapon than a rifle. I question whether the proliferation of these weapons
98
is something to be welcomed. I know the purpose for which subsection (8) has been written into the clause, but I wonder whether it will have the effect that the Promoters of this Bill think it will.
The only other matter with which I wish to deal at this moment is Clause 4. As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, related to us, there are horrifying incidents, unfortunately all too frequent, which poachers get up to in the cruel pursuit of what is now a profitable crime. So far as Part III of the Bill is concerned I have no comment except to say that it is a cumbersome way of going about regulating the purchase and sale of this meat. I have no doubt that when the noble Lord replies to the debate he will prove that I am wrong.
So far as Clause 4 is concerned, may I first say that the fact that there is already similar legislation valid and subsisting in Scotland, may not be a very good argument when it comes to England, partly because the law of Scotland has grown up in an entirely different way. If the noble Lord is going to satisfy one or two doubts which some noble Lords may have as to this Bill he will have to go further than saying, "Well, it is all right in Scotland". The first point is that Clause 4(a) is perfectly straightforward as a prohibition of the unlawful taking or killing of deer. I am worried in regard to Clause 4(b):
"If any person unlawfully—
(b) enters or is on any land in search or pursuit of deer with the intention of taking, killing,…"
Two matters arise here. The noble Lord was quick to point out when he introduced this Bill that it is not his intention, nor that of the Promoters of this Bill, in any way to interfere with, or stop, the perfectly lawful and, I suggest, laudable occupation of staghunting. Since he has mentioned this I think that I must make some comment on it. The noble Lord gave illustrations of the type of activity which he seeks to render illegal under this subsection, and he instanced the gentleman, or more than one, who come on to land, he said in a horrible way in a Land-Rover—I did not see what was horrible about it, but still—with a lurcher or two and pursue the deer, and by one method or another incapacitate it and kill it. That is perfectly easy to comprehend, and it is unlawful under Clause 4.

99
If a stag hunt in pursuing a stag, for instance, go to some place to which they do not normally go but because the stag takes them there (the outskirts of a town or some part of the country to which they do not normally go), and there is there somebody who violently objects to their presence and to what they are doing and what they are there for, how does the noble Lord distinguish between the one and the other? For the life of me, I cannot. I do not think that one can do so by some tautologous use of the word "unlawfully". That is one part of this Bill which will have to be considered carefully. I know that the noble Lord says that they have this in Scotland; but they do not have stag hunts in Scotland, and therein lies one particular difference.
The second example concerning which I am seeking information, and maybe the noble Lord can give it, is if in England an occupier perfectly properly shoots with a rifle and wounds a deer on his land—and occupiers are not all good shots—and he then goes to his next-door neighbour in pursuit of that deer, what in English law is his defence to a summons under Clause 4(b)? I do not know of it, and I am sure that perhaps at a later stage the noble Lord and I can talk about it or be in correspondence, and he can satisfy me.
There is going to be considerable—I will not say outcry—adverse comment from noble Lords, and I do not want to take up any more time, on this question of the rights of the occupier or farmer to control deer in a way which seems most suitable having regard to his particular circumstances. I instance, for example, the case of a suburban farmer, where it would be highly dangerous to have the air rent with bullets. I think that the noble Lord would agree that in general fanners, being countrymen, are responsible in what they do, and if they do shoot at a deer in order to protect their crops, or for whatever reason, they are on the whole scrupulous about following it up and seeing that it is as painlessly despatched as may be.
If the noble Lord is to justify this fetter upon their otherwise lawful activities I think that he must show rather more irresponsibility on the part of the farming community than he has been able to so
100
far. I fully agree that the man who comes in some form of transport and descends on land for the purpose of taking deer by whatever method he can, purely for the purpose of selling its meat, merits very little consideration and no sympathy; but I suggest that the opposite situation obtains in the case of a farmer who may genuinely merely want to protect his crop, and will not spray unsuitable shot in the general direction of a deer. I know that other noble Lords will have many other points, but for myself, as I said at the beginning, I welcome this Bill. However, it will need a bit of digging out of the ground to make it acceptable in the end.
7.28 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I claim some knowledge of this subject, being the owner of a large area of deer-occupied land in Scotland, and thereby having the responsibility for the management and culling of a herd of wild deer numbering usually something over 1,100. I have also stalked deer both as an amateur and as a professional. I have pursued and apprehended poachers, and finally I served for a number of years as a National Farmers' Union representative on the Red Deer Commission in Scotland. I suppose that in a remote sense I have an interest in this Bill, but only inasmuch as the Bill may affect the whole British market in venison. Otherwise, I join in the debate hoping that the knowledge and experience of the subject that I can offer will prove to be of assistance to my Welsh and English colleagues in your Lordships' House.
The Preamble to the Bill claims that its main purpose is to improve the management of deer in England and Wales. I have read through it carefully several times and yet I still cannot find where it is supposed to provide for this. I find in it provision for the prevention of poaching, but the prevention of predation on a wild stock is not necessarily good management, not unless it can be shown that the predation is threatening the species, and we have no evidence of this—the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has already told us that the deer population of England is increasing in spite of the level of poaching that is taking place—nor unless it can be shown that there will be substituted for the predation which normally takes place a

101
controlled cull, and there is no provision in the Bill to try to ensure that this takes place.
When the Deer (Scotland) Act was passed, the whole key to the legislation was the establishment in Scotland of the Red Deer Commission with their duty to advise on proper management, to carry out a cull if necessary, to control the deer population, to prevent damage and, their most important advantage of all, that of providing a focal point where the interests of deer forest owners, farmers, stalkers, scientists and administrators could meet to thrash out the problems of management and advise all those interested parties as well as Her Majesty's Government in the person of the Secretary of State. Now that I am no longer a member of the Com mission, I think I can claim for that Commission that they do a good job and I know I can point out that a defect of this Bill is the lack of such a body, the lack even of the suggestion to provide a committee to advise or to act as a forum where competing interests can meet to thrash out their problems.
Let us examine the individual clauses of the Bill more minutely. Part I, together with Schedule I, provides for close seasons for the taking of six species of deer, and here I find myself at odds with the Bill right away, on two counts: first, I do not see the need for differences in the seasons between Scotland and England; and, secondly, I do not think it desirable to include muntjac and Chinese water deer in the list. The differences between seasons in Scotland and England would in my view be helpful to poachers, especially in the area of the English-Scottish Border. It would in my view be confusing to the venison trade and it seems hard to justify on the grounds of conservation.
Specifically, the differences are that the Bill suggests a month less open season for red dear stags in July and six and a half months more open season between 21st October and 30th April. Why? Stags are in poor condition, smelly and run down, after the rut in the last six and a half months, and are not desirable for meat, so it cannot be to meet the market demand. Nor can it be to meet the need to cull, as we have never found any difficulty in Scotland in achieving a suitable cull within our existing seasons. The Bill then suggests 10 days less open season for hinds
102
in October and a fortnight more open season in February. This must surely be wrong, as hinds are in much better condition in the early part of the season and are getting well on in pregnancy by the latter half of February. In the case of fallow does, the same difference of season is suggested, though the season for fallow buck is the same as the Scottish one. In the case of sika, the anomalies are the same as those for fallow. The suggested roe seasons are again totally different, starting this time earlier by a whole month for buck and ending 10 days later, even though in the case of does it is suggested that the season starts only 10 days earlier and ends on the same date as it does in Scotland.
All of this must be very confusing and I cannot see why it is not an advantage to get together on these points. In Scotland we do not have seasons for muntjac or Chinese water deer. I do not think we have these species and I do not think it desirable that we have them. I can see no conservation case for granting recognition to a recently escaped exotic species. They do us no good in the feral state, they are a potential menace to farmers and nurserymen and they could be a problem and hazard in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. They should be treated as vermin and eradicated in the feral state, not recognised by granting them a close season. If wolves escaped from our wildlife parks would we give them protection? They would have more right to it than muntjac because they were once native to these islands.
I come to Part II of the Bill, and here again we find a difference between the law of the land in Scotland and that proposed for England. It is proposed to ban the use of shotguns for taking all species of deer except, oddly, in the case of a sawn-off shotgun—to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred—a weapon the use of which it can hardly be a good idea to encourage in any circumstances. In Scotland, the occupier of agricultural land is entitled to use a shotgun to protect his growing crops and this should be true, too, in England. If we take from the farmer the right to use a shotgun, we must automatically grant to him the right to a firearm certificate so that he can arm himself with a high powered sporting rifle in order to protect his goods.

103
Do we seriously think that it is wise in these troubled times to proliferate the ownership of high velocity rifles and high powered ammunition all over the country? Most farmers have a shotgun and know how to handle it sensibly. They should be allowed to continue to use it for the necessary protection of their property. If, by some misfortune, muntjac and Chinese water deer get left in the Bill, the use of shotguns should certainly be left in for the culling of these species. Some of them are little bigger than hares and a high powered rifle could almost blow them to bits. If we are to use them for meat at all they would have to be culled with shot guns. However, I see one case where the use of shotguns is undesirable; it is not good for it to be legal to shoot at a fallow or roe running through the line at a pheasant drive; but this would not be a problem if the right to use a shotgun were restricted only to the agricultural occupier of land.
Coming to Part III of the Bill, here in my view we come to the most serious flaw of all. Farmers and growers have a right to prevent damage to their crops and produce; nay, they have a duty to the country to prevent this damage and to protect the food supply of the nation by doing so. They must therefore be allowed to kill deer destroying their produce. By killing these deer they take possession of them, in legal terms, and therefore they should have the right to sell what is theirs without it being conditional on close seasons. It is their only compensation for the damage done to their crops and it is a great inducement to see that deer are controlled and managed properly.
The same clause which seeks to prevent farmers selling deer taken out of season would prevent the sale of Scottish venison that had been lawfully taken in Scotland to English hotels, restaurants and game dealers. To achieve adequate culls of deer, it is vital to keep existing markets, and one hopes we will not see restricted the existing markets in England for Scottish venison. It is also conceivable that the attempted restriction on sale would be frustrated by carcasses being sent to Scotland to be marketed. This clause raises one or two fundamental questions about trade across the Border which go far beyond the province of this
104
Bill and which might more properly be considered for discussion in another place at this particular time.
However, let us turn to Clauses 7 to 10 and the proposal to put the venison trade into the hands of licensed game dealers. I wonder whether anyone asked the game dealers whether they wanted this responsibility. In Scotland, we have game dealers but not all of them wish to handle venison. I suspect that the same may be true in England. Likewise, there are butchers who wish to handle venison but who do not wish to be game dealers. Therefore, when we thought that there was a real need to gather information about the venison trade, we asked Parliament to create a separate class of dealer. We created this separate class as a venison dealer and the records kept by these people were used by the Red Deer Commission to check the levels of cull being taken in different areas. By relating this information to levels of population statistics, an overall picture of the growth or decline of numbers was built up. In this way, the Red Deer Commission can give more fully informed advice to the Secretary of State and to the owners of deer forests. But who is to collect and collate this information under the present Bill? For what purpose is the information to be gathered? For what purpose will an authorised person seek to examine a game dealer's books?
One final point occurs to me to criticise. In Part V, Clause 19 empowers the Nature Conservancy Council to issue licences to take deer for experimental purposes. As the Nature Conservancy Council is a body which is engaged in wildlife research, it seems wrong to put it into a position where it is licensing its own activities. It would surely be better to put this matter into the hands either of the Home Office or of the Ministry of Agriculture.
To sum up, although there are certain features of the Bill that are desirable, it seems to me to be lacking in the right sort of motivation. It appears to lack the provisions necessary to achieve its avowed main objective. Whether it is possible at this time to draft a Bill which can do for England what the Deer (Scotland) Act did for Scotland, I rather doubt. In the circumstances, it may be desirable for this Bill to fail. Certainly, it seems desirable that it should be considerably amended

105
in its passage through your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I shall listen with great interest to the rest of the debate.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I say that the reason for the very short close season for stags in England and Wales is that the habitat is quite different in England. Here, we have dense woodland and the land is very rich so that the stag soon regains his strength after the rut whereas, as noble Lords know, after the rut in the Highlands and after the close of the season on the 20th October, the stags are not worth shooting. Indeed, they can hardly walk and many die. That is the chief difference. It is the difference in the habitat. One cannot compare Scotland with England in this Bill.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his explanation, but I hae me doots! I shall listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has to say at the end of the debate.
7.45 p.m.
Lord DORMER: My Lords, I rise for the first time to address your Lordships' House and must ask for your customary indulgence. The list of subjects on which a Peer may address your Lordships for the first time is wide. In my case defence, the arts, law and order, forestry and agriculture occurred to me. I have deliberately chosen the Deer Bill because I feel that this is a subject on which there will be a wide measure of agreement on both sides of the House. For this reason, I believe that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for introducing the Bill.
Before I begin to discuss the Bill, I should like to take a short backward glance into history. The deer has always been a much favoured animal and has been hunted by kings and queens down the centuries. Saxon kings hunted the deer; in the reign of King Henry VII a Statute was passed to prohibit hunting by night; Queen Elizabeth I hunted deer with delight. Last weekend I saw one of the herds that she used to hunt and I am glad to say that the deer are still in excellent condition and are beautifully managed and a very fine sight.
106
My honourable friend the Member for Ludlow introduced the Deer Act 1963 which formed the basis of this Bill in another place. Events since have proved it to be inadequate and ineffective in some respects, and the present Bill enlarges it and strengthens it in some important ways. The Bill also contains some new provisions. It is essentially a humanitarian Bill. It is based upon the Scott-Henderson Report of 1963 and implements most of its recommendations. The first change is that all six species of deer—red deer, fallow deer, sika, roe deer, munljac and Chinese water deer—are mentioned in it. A further background change is that foreign buyers are now prepared to pay very high prices for venison in this country. A fundamental change has taken place in the woodland acreage in England and Wales since 1963. This is now 1,134,000 hectares as a result of the excellent efforts of the Forestry Commission and private landowners. Similarly, there has been a great increase in the number of deer during the same period. I am told that there are now approximately 100,000 deer in the kingdom. These two factors have been important in bringing about the necessity for this Bill.
Turning to the Bill in detail, Part I deals with the close season for deer. An important addition here is the close season for roebuck. As many noble Lords will know, the bucks are then in velvet and are in a weak physical condition as they are growing their horns. This close season is therefore both overdue and very welcome. The nightly close times during which it will be illegal to kill or injure deer are also extremely welcome and will do much to prevent the poaching which, unhappily, is taking place in many areas with great cruelty to the deer.
I shall not give details of what is going on. It is sufficient to say that wounding, though not killing, is taking place on a very considerable scale and the subsequent sufferings of the deer are exceedingly severe, the more so as they are often prolonged over many months. All, including the police and gamekeepers, who love and value our wildlife, are concerned at this aspect of the matter which, I am happy to say, has received great attention in this Bill. I should like to mention the admirable work of the Deer Society in

107
the South of England in supplying a trained shot whenever necessary to control the numbers of red deer.
Part II is the heart of the Bill. It defines the unlawful weapons which may be used and gives a legal definition of poaching. I am particularly glad to see that artificial light by night is prohibited and that, although it may sound curious, the arrow, artificially discharged, is also prohibited. I am told that this can be a particularly unpleasant weapon. I consider that the position of private herd owners in attaching a tag to the ear of newly born calves, for age identification in the culling programme, at a later date, should be clarified.
Part III concerns the control of sales and purchases of venison. This is a new provision. It places an obligation on all game dealers to keep records of purchases and to produce them for inspection by an authorised person. This is a very valuable provision. I am advised, however, by a very reputable game dealer that it would be in the interests of all if on the official form (Schedule 3) space could be provided for the signatures of both the seller of the venison and of the game dealer, to make it a legal document. I am further advised by a senior police officer that it would be advisable if the number of the vehicle delivering the venison could also be compulsorily entered on this form. This would enable the police to check on the activities of the vehicle, if necessary, in the future.
Part IV concerns enforcement and procedure. I am advised by a senior police officer that the Bill gives ample powers to the police for their task. He also particularly welcomed the power of forfeiture of the vehicle in addition to the firearm, which the court may order under Clause 15(1)(b); and of the cancellation of any firearms certificate. Under Clause 16 the penalties for offences under the Bill are greatly increased. I particularly welcome the penalty for an offence of a fine up to a maximum of £500, and the provision that in respect of more than one deer the maximum fine shall be determined as if the person convicted had been convicted of a separate offence in respect of each deer. This will, I hope, prove a valuable deterrent. In my opinion these greatly increased fines will, together with
108
the forfeitures I have mentioned, provide a real deterrent to poachers, and will, I hope, put an end to the undesirable practices with all the attendant cruelties which they inflict.
Part V concerns the exceptions to the Bill. Clause 17 concerns the necessary provisions for the killing of a calf or fawn deprived of its mother. While welcoming the intention of this clause, which it quite admirable, I believe that it needs careful attention. It is a well-known fact that a red deer hind will leave its newly-born calf for most of the day while it goes in search of food and water, and an unscrupulous or ignorant person, or both, could take or kill the calf and plead that it was deserted, whereas that is not so at all. I have no doubt that other noble Lords may wish to consider this matter, particularly at the Committee stage. I should mention that a red deer hind may travel up to 20 miles a day before she returns to her calf.
My Lords, I would not wish to be controversial in this speech, but I am advised that Clause 17, which deals with the killing of deer which may be causing serious damage to crops, may be too widely interpreted. I am further advised that subsection (7), which deals with the killing of fallow, roe, Muntjac and Chinese water deer by means of shooting with any smooth bore gun of 12 bore gauge during the period of five years following the passing of the Bill should be very carefully considered, with the welfare of the deer in mind. As is well known, the fallow deer is a far more difficult animal to shoot than is the red deer. I have no doubt that other noble Lords may wish to consider this clause in the light of objections which have been made; and I have no doubt that with the deep knowledge and experience of wild deer which noble Lords possess, and with their humanitarian instincts, they will be able to reconcile the conflicting interests under this clause—those of farming and forestry—with the true welfare of the deer themselves.
I welcome the Bill. It will, I hope, improve the conditions, life history, and chances of survival of one of the most beautiful—and certainly in the case of the red deer the most magnificent—of all our mammals, which has been famous in song and verse down through the centuries,

109
and which lives on for us in the canvases of Landseer, Sir David Wilkie and Sir Francis Grant. From my own knowledge of deer I know the prosperity they bring to the areas in which they are preserved and in which light industries flourish as a result. During the time that I have been in your Lordships' House I have noticed the emphasis placed upon light industries in our more remote areas and the sad drain of the best of our young manhood to the towns. In those parts where deer are preserved the reverse is the case; together with agriculture, light industries are carried on and bring prosperity and worthwhile employment to young people, as well as to older people. To see the deer in their natural state is a joy which can be appreciated only by those who have done so; and to come upon a red deer calf in early summer, alone, is to experience a sense of rare privilege.
The Bill will greatly reduce and indeed, I hope, obliterate the extremely undesirable poaching with vehicles and sophisticated weapons which has become a large-scale operation in deer country and from which great cruelty results. It will strengthen the powers of the police in bringing offenders to court and greatly increase the penalties to bring them into line with modern economic conditions. My Lords, I heartily welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy and well deserved passage through your Lordships' House.
7.56 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dormer, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord did a much better job on it than I did a few years ago, and I am sure that like me he is glad that it is all over. I was particularly pleased to hear in the speech his use of the word "hectare". This obviously shows that he has studied not only the Deer Bill and got that under his belt, but also the Common Agricultural Policy. So I hope that in future we will hear him speak on agriculture as well.
I must follow the noble Lord's excellent example and be brief and get on with my task. I have an interest to declare in that I am a farmer. I am a farmer who has had, and does have, and will have damage done by deer. The amount of damage is anyone's estimate, but one year we certainly
110
lost four acres, and I do not intend to tell the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, he being an agricultural economist, how much that cost me. I am sure that he could also tell me how much it cost me in "green pounds" as well. I have got that over, thank heavens! No doubt when he looks at the Bill, and when we all look at it, we see that it is dealing with the English problem as opposed to the Scottish problem, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, is a slightly different problem.
My Lords, when I first got sight of the noble Lord's Bill—and indeed I was aware of its rough format in July, because my local branch and council member of the National Farmers' Union asked farmers who were affected by deer for their views on deer control—I and my neighbours readily agreed that something ought to be done to prevent poaching, and, more important, to prevent unnecessary cruelty. It was particularly pleasing to find that the National Farmers' Union and the British Deer Society were in agreement. I believe that the British Deer Society was anxious to obtain the farmers' support for this, and listening to the noble Lord I think I can still take this as being so.
Provided that the Bill would prevent poaching and cruelty and preserve a correct balance of deer in the country, it would have my complete support—but here comes the snag. I sadly have to tell the noble Lord that unless he can see his way to certain Amendments, I do not think that it will. Furthermore, he knows as well as I do that over the last few months there has been a difference of opinion between the National Farmers' Union and the British Deer Society. I hope that we shall be able to resolve this division as the Bill passes through Committee. I felt that the noble Lord's speech was particularly moderate, and I hope that mine will be in a similar manner.
My Lords, I will leave it to other noble Lords to express their detailed views on poaching. I believe the provisions in the Bill relating to the sale of venison to be on the right lines. It is my view that the great majority of cruelty comes from the poaching fraternity. My worry is that the effect of the Bill as it is written now will be to take from the individual farmer

111
his right to protect his crops. Your Lordships can understand Bills far better than me, but I am supported in this view by Clause 17 (to which the noble Lord has already kindly referred) which prevents the use of shotguns on red deer and sika by forbidding completely the use of a shotgun in five years' time, and by the prevention of deer drives, which are the most effective method, or one of the most effective methods, of controlling deer. My Lords, deer drives have a horrible image. Images are not necessarily correct. I should be grateful for any documented evidence weighing up the alternative. Frankly, the using of rifles instead of shotguns at drives is not for me, but knowing of the many Members of your Lordships' House with decorations for gallantry, it may be that we could find a firing squad from them. It may also save any further discussion as to what should happen to your Lordships' House in the future!
My Lords, these items in Clause 17, I am afraid, are totally unacceptable to farmers—I am sorry to say it laughing, but they are—because it will mean that the British Deer Society will eventually have complete control over protecting my, and our, crops. So I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, to tell me something about the British Deer Society. I have a long list of questions here, but I will not bore your Lordships as it is getting late; I will ask just one or two of the things which are most important. How many members has the Society got, and where are they operating? Who will pay them to kill my deer? Will they do as I tell them, and what happens when they do not? Can the noble Lord assure me that the British Deer Society's interests will be the protection of my crops, and not the protection of its enjoyment? What happens if the British Deer Society goes broke, which is quite a common thing nowadays among farmers? Who will take its place? Lastly, I ask: Where is the noble Lord who will convince me that this corporate body is more efficient and effective than the individual farmer?
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Can he tell me where in the Bill the British Deer Society is mentioned?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am sorry, my Lords; I may be using the wrong words. I mean the control. It will eventually be done under the control of the British Deer Society, as I understand it. They will take over control.
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Who is going to take over, then? Will the noble Lord tell me who is going to control my deer when I am not allowed to?
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord will be able—and I would think he really were able—to control his own deer.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, could I tell the noble Lord—
Several noble Lords: Order, Order!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think we can carry on a debate in this way. If any noble Lord raises a matter, then presumably my noble friend Lord Northfield will deal with it; but if we have this continuous interruption we shall not make any progress at all.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am doing my best. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will pull me up on these points and that we will get them straight in Committee, as I suggested.
My Lords, my last point is that of cruelty. This Bill was promoted to prevent cruelty. I believe it will have the opposite effect, for the following reasons. If the Bill works as it is suggested it should work—I am not allowed to mention the British Deer Society now, I think—the farmer will have to protect his crops with a rifle, and not a shotgun. I ask your Lordships: Is the farmer as capable with a rifle as with a shotgun? I am not. Does he know the range of a rifle as well as he does that of a shotgun? Does he, like me, think it is a 25-pounder, or does he think it a pea-shooter? Is he as good a shot with a rifle as with a shotgun? Certainly I am not; in fact, I am a positively dangerous shot with a rifle. It is possible to wound with a rifle just as well as it is to wound with a shotgun.

113
I believe the farmer is much better with a shotgun. It may be that safety does not matter. I think it does in England. I farm near Oxford, and there are a lot of people there. Indeed, due to his long experience with a shotgun and none with a rifle, he is, as I said before, just as likely to kill cleanly with a shotgun as with a rifle. If, however, the farmer does not get a licence for a rifle—and, quite frankly, I am not keen on every farmer having a rifle in his unlocked back kitchen, which, law or no law, is where it is likely to be—I ask your Lordships: What might happen then? He will shoot deer with a shotgun. Make no mistake: he will. I would. I hope I am protected by privilege. The non-farming community has no idea at all of the strength of the farmer's wish and will to protect his crops. A farmer is not worth being called a farmer unless he is dedicated to producing food and protecting it. So, my Lords, as the shooting will be illegal, it will be surreptitious. The shot size is likely to be six. Why should I go in and buy buckshot when it is illegal to use it? The shooting will be hit-and-run, and he will not attempt to follow a wounded deer. I hope that I have convinced your Lord-ships, or some of you, that under these conditions there will be more, not less, cruelty.
I leave the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, with one thought. The farmer's first responsibility is to produce food. It is not necessarily to make money, even though he, as an economist, may think it ought to be. The farmer must be allowed to protect his crops. The noble Lord's Bill, as written, prevents him from doing so effectively. Therefore, I must ask the noble Lord to look again at these points. I should like to see the Bill go on to the Statute Book with the farmers' approval. After all, we do farm the land off which the deer live. I can assure the noble Lord that I and the National Farmers' Union are only too happy to try to resolve these differences with him between now and the Committee stage. After all, we are basically all on the same side. Indeed, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am promoting a Bill in your Lordships' House tonight to prevent roe bucks being shot during the mating season, a practice which is undoubtedly cruel due to the tender state of their heads.
8.8 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I support the Bill, and as I introduced the original Deer Act in 1963 I should support this Bill because it incorporates a lot of the original Act. The Bill brings up to date the original Act, particularly in relation to the change in the value of money. Where I am extremely pleased regarding this Bill is in the clause dealing with the sale and purchase of venison and with the prohibiting of the illegal traffic in venison which will stem from this. This has been a custom for a long time on the Continent. I am most happy that we are now having provisions in this Bill—if it becomes an Act, not too much amended as regards this clause, anyway—regarding the sale of venison. That is excellent because the price of venison has so rocketed since the 1963 Act came into force. I sell my venison now for 56p a pound with no transport costs. It goes to a middle man. I do not know what he sells it for. What the poor consumer has to pay, I have no idea.
Under the old Act, my Lords, the fines were quite laughable. I have known instances where poachers have been had up in court—not lately but a few years ago. They may have shot, say, six deer and they have got away with a fine of £25. Of course the price of venison was not so high then, but they probably netted £150. So I commend to the House this clause dealing with the sale and purchase of venison. I also commend the greater powers of enforcement given to the police and the courts under Part IV. Clause 15 empowers the court to forfeit among other things a man's car if he is convicted of an offence. This power did not exist under the Act which I introduced in 1963. Today, with the very much greater ownership of cars and the resulting increase in cars on the road, I think this is important, because a lot of poaching is done in early mornings from cars and even if the deer are not shot from a car the latter is necessary to take the carcass away. If people did not have cars they would find it very difficult to poach deer.
Clause 16, the penalties clause, provides realistic penalties. Paragraph (a) is particularly appropriate because formerly a poacher was usually fined the same amount whether he killed one, three

115
or four deer. I think it excellent and very appropriate that now he can be fined per deer, so to speak, and if he shoots three deer he will be fined more than if he shoots one—not necessarily, but it can be done. That I think will be a great deterrent. What I should really like to see is the fine tied to the cost of living index every year, but I do not suppose we shall get that. One of the clauses I am a little worried about, and I think my noble friend on the Front Bench was too, is Clause 4. I think it will have to be amended. I will not go into the arguments that my noble friend Lord Mansfield went into, but I agree with him there. It is going to be difficult particularly of course, as my noble friend mentioned, regarding a hunt like the Devon and Somerset. A person on entering land may not actually be seen shooting deer. If he was not carrying a rifle or a shotgun it would presumably be difficult to prove he was going to shoot a deer. If he was carrying a cross-bow he might say he was going to shoot squirrels. Well, he would have to be a very good shot. On the other hand, if he was carrying a shotgun he could say he was shooting jackdaws or pigeons and was not after deer. I think this is a difficult clause.
Might I turn to Clause 3 and Schedule 2 which deal with unlawful weapons. I think this is excellent. This extends and clarifies the provisions of the 1963 Act, but I am not too happy about the prohibition on marking of live deer. Presumably it applies to the owners of deer, of estates and parks. Some estates mark deer calves on the ear. It is quite an interesting study, and if one has to apply constantly for a licence to do this it would certainly be rather a bore. Perhaps some exceptions might be made, but it is a Committee point. As regards poachers, weapons have become more sophisticated since 1963. I am pleased to see that this unlawful weapons clause includes, as did the 1963 Bill, cross-bows and bows, but the weapons have now become far more sophisticated. Who in 1963 would have imagined somebody with an infra-red light or ray to poach? This is, I imagine, used with some telescopic sight that you can use in the dark.
Before concluding I should like to refer to the Part V, on which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, spent a large part of his speech. For instance, I think
116
subsection (2) of Clause 17 will be open to abuse. An individual can easily claim that he killed an injured deer, but he may have injured it first, then killed it. I think it is going to be difficult to prove otherwise. Regarding the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the farmers, I farm and I am also a landowner and grow trees. I see his point, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him all along the line. In fact, I cannot agree with him to a very great extent. From my own experience many farmers—and this applies to foresters—are inclined to exaggerate the damage done by deer. I farm my park down here and we do not have any deer fences round the crops. We do get some damage, but at the worst the damage done is never more than 10 per cent, of the total, and usually 5 per cent. I agree that is annoying for farmers, but I think they are inclined to exaggerate the damage.
I am sorry to say that I know one or two cases of farmers who have sown a crop, in my opinion deliberately to attract deer in order that they may shoot them. They have put a single wire with a few posts round a field so that it is enclosed. I am sorry to say I have known instances of that, because now, with the very greatly increased price of venison it can be far more profitable for a small farmer to shoot all the deer he can than to farm. So I do not agree with the noble Lord behind me. I think it fair in the close season to allow farmers to shoot deer provided that they can prove they were destroying their crops; I think that is fair enough. I think the Promoters of this Bill have been rather generous in saying that for five years farmers can continue to use shotguns to shoot deer on their land—apart from red deer and sika. I cannot see why after five years a farmer cannot apply for a firearms certificate. Provided he is a responsible person, I am sure the chief constable would grant him one. I appreciate that we do not want thousands of farmers roaming the country with rifles, but provided the man is responsible—and it is up to the chief constable to decide that—I can see no harm in it. Where big estates are concerned I can see no problems at all. They have their gamekeepers and one man probably experienced in deer, and if a tenant has his crops eaten and rings up the landowner or the agent the keeper will go and control the deer; so that there is no trouble regarding big estates.

117
I appreciate that there may be some injustices here. But if you are going to completely ban shotguns for all species of deer after five years you will have to have some form of organisation like the Red Deer Commission in Scotland, who can send out experienced stalkers to a farmer if his crops are being eaten and if he wishes that protection, which presumably he would. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, say that the Deer Society (and I am a member of that society) were hoping to have a monopoly of all the deer shooting in the arable country through England and Wales. There is nothing about that in the Bill, and I think he is jumping to conclusions. There will eventually have to be some organisation, probably a joint organisation between the State and some society.
I must commend Clause 17(7)(c) regarding the number of persons carrying firearms—no more than three persons on the land at the time. Deer drives are highly unpleasant when shotguns are used. Large numbers of people gather who have no experience of deer—at any rate, most of them have not—and they loose off at extreme range. A lot of deer are wounded and blinded. It is most unattractive. The proper way to shoot deer is to stalk them in the early morning with a rifle when they come out from the woods to feed. You need only one man if he is adept at the job. He can keep the deer down perfectly well with no cruelty. The shooting of red deer with shotguns ought to have been banned a long time ago. That is extremely cruel. You have to be within 12 yards of the deer. The number of deer I have seen blinded by people using shotguns—and it is not all done by poachers—is sickening. My Lords, I must not speak any longer. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, upon introducing the Bill and I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dormer, on his maiden speech. I hope we shall be hearing him often in various debates.
8.23 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill very strongly. Of course I realise as well as anybody else that deer have to be kept in control; but surely it is up to us to see that the culling is done in as humane a way as
118
possible. So far as I can see, that is one great merit of this Bill. It eliminates poaching. Poachers use the most barbaric methods in the killing of deer. Very often they will snare it and then kill it by degrees with a clawhammer, or something like that. They have used all descriptions of weapons in their efforts to get their deer. As the poaching movement seems to be growing a great deal, particularly in England, this Bill does a good job in stepping on that practice.
Poaching is not the only method by which deer can be illegally killed. They can be illegally killed by the landowner on his own land. I should like to quote a paragraph from a talk given by the vice-chairman of the British Deer Society to the all-Party Conservation Committee in your Lordships' House. He said:
"The other side of the problem is perhaps even more worrying. It is the landowner or occupier who shoots deer on his own land illegally. This is now so widespread in many areas that it is regarded as commonplace. Let me give you one of countless examples. In January last, two and a half months ago, on a farm of 2,000 to 3,000 acres in a southern county belonging to an extremely wealthy farming family, 40 gallon drums with holes in their sides filled with corn were put out in a field to attract the deer. One night, when enough deer were thought to be there, three Land-Rovers were driven into the field, the headlights were turned on and within minutes 27 deer were killed: male, female and young. How many were wounded will never be known".
That is a statement of an incident which actually occurred. I would be the last person to support any legislation which was going to make things difficult for farmers. I have a great respect for farmers, and the last thing on earth I would want to do would be to make conditions difficult for them; but I cannot see that this Bill will do so.
The National Farmers' Union support the entire Bill with just two exceptions. I should like to deal with those two exceptions. One, of course, is something which has been discussed at some length already tonight: the question of the banning of the shotgun. Farmers are given five years in which to perfect them selves in the use of a rifle. Meanwhile, they can go on using their shotguns provided that they are not smaller than I bore. All the objections that have been raised are entirely baseless. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, spoke of the fact that the police would not welcome the

119
terrific increase in gun licences. If a gun licence is applied for by a farmer and he states the purpose—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? What I said was that I did not think the Association of Chief Constables would welcome a proliferation of firearms certificates.
Lord SOMERS: Yes, firearms certificates. My Lords, if it is known that they are for the purpose of farmers defending their own lands and properties, I hardly think that they would raise any objection.
The second exception was regarding the numbers of people who may shoot deer at a time. This is referred to in the Bill towards the end of Clause 17. It says that a person has to certify:
"that he was one of no more than three persons using or having in his possession such firearm and ammunition on that land at that time".
That, of course, is solely for the reason of preventing these deer drives that take place at the present time and which result in a great deal of very random and reckless shooting, together with an enormous number of wounded deer. That surely is something which it would be good to try to prevent. I am no expert on firearms—I can say at once that I have never shot anything—but, on the other hand, I cannot believe that a farmer who is an expert in his own work cannot learn to use a rifle just as well as he has learned to use a shotgun.
8.31 p.m.
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, I am rather involved in the subject which is before us this evening, because I have the privilege of being the chairman of the British Deer Society, and I shall be saying something to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in a moment, when he comes back to his place. However, I should like first to say to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, how grateful all deer men are to him for his introduction of this Bill and particularly for the way in which he introduced it into your Lordships' House not so long ago. I should also like to congratulate him, if I may be so bold, on his grasp of a subject which he has told us is in many respects somewhat
120
new to him. I also congratulate him on the clarity of his explanation of the issues before us.
I think it is notable that at this time, when our national life is being assailed from within and without by so many dangerous influences, in your Lordships' House we can give a day to the welfare of animals. I think that is a splendid thing. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dormer on his interest in deer, so clearly and feelingly expressed. I am glad that we have him as an ally of the Deer Society.
I feel that in these rather introductory remarks of mine I must mention John Hotchkis, who was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and who, as an individual, was the man most concerned with the immense amount of work, involving research and the interviewing of people, which went into the composition of the Bill. In so far as the Bill is in your Lordships' House, it is Lord Northfield's Bill, but until it came to these august premises, I had always thought of it as John Hotchkis's Bill.
As serving president of the British Deer Society, perhaps I need not tell your Lordships how much I applaud the aims of this Bill. I am also a serving member, as was the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, until a short time ago, on the Red Deer Commission of Scotland. However, so as not to give the impression that I am wholly biased in favour of the deer, I think I must also add that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, am a farmer. I am also a forester, and am at present president of the Timber Growers' Organisation in England and Wales. Therefore, I can view deer and their place in the countryside in the various aspects in which rural people have to view them, and I know full well the damage they can do to crops, to young trees and to some trees which are not all that young.
We have to try to find a more civilised way of dealing with the deer in England and Wales. I may say that I think we are fairly civilised in Scotland, where I also have interests; but it has to be said that in England we have a fairly new phenomenon. The deer exploded in population during the war, when they were not being controlled very well. Also, the enormous amount of planting that was done up and

121
down the country and the number of young plantations have given them cover which they have been quick to seize upon, so that they have expanded rapidly. Within the last 20 years the expansion has been most marked, and deer are now found in the wild in very many parts of England and, I believe, also in Wales, where they were not found before.
I feel I must dwell for a moment on the comments made by my noble friend Lord Mansfield. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will not feel that in making comments on what some of my friends have said, I am seeking to usurp the function of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield; but some of the things they said I cannot let pass without a comment or two. Incidentally, I thought the article in The Field, to which my noble friend Lord Mansfield referred, was very fair comment. My noble friend made much of a point which, however, he failed to understand, about the sawn-off shotgun. If it is of any help to the House—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, could explain this later—the sawn-off shotgun was put down particularly because the staghounds in the West Country, having bayed the stag, brought it very often to bay in a brook or stream. It was then despatched at very close quarters with a slaughtering instrument, which is a sawn-off shotgun. That is why it was put down in the Bill, and it seems to me a very good reason.
As regards the difficulty of getting firearm certificates, my noble friend was a little inconsistent, because he drew attention to the great danger of many people having rifles, and then he went on to say that shotguns were much more frequently used by the criminal classes; so I do not know where we are on that one. However, the fact is that the criminal classes, as we all know only too well, can get hold of firearms if they want to—and they have got them.
A point was made concerning the pursuit of a wounded deer on to a neighbour's land. I think that was also referred to by my noble friend. As he knows, in Scotland on the rare occasions somebody has the misfortune to wound a deer, the convention is absolutely well established: that you follow it if necessary over the marsh into your neighbour's forest, and
122
try to get it for all you are worth. How ever, I think it is a valuable point, which we must try to deal with during Committee stage, as to whether something ought to be said about that specifically, because the convention may not be known in England.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, my recent companion on the Red Deer Commission, as was (and still is) my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, was straying from those wide-open spaces of the far North of Caithness into what I might respectfully call, for him, somewhat unknown territory. That would account for one or two of the questions he asked, which could be fairly simply answered. He queried what the Title of the Bill meant when it referred to the improved management of deer, and I think I should dwell upon that for a moment.
The custom where deer existed in small pockets of England used to be, I regret to say, either a drive to shotguns, which could be a holocaust, or, even worse, a snare was used in the woods. Listening to our debate this evening is one man who has done more than any other to evolve a means of management of deer in the woods of the Forestry Commission and elsewhere. I am referring to Mr. Richard Prior who, together with Mr. MacArthur in Scotland, has done more than almost any other man to devise a means of management whereby not only are the deer shot effectively and in the right numbers, in view of the population increment, but they are the right individuals, both for the good of the herd and for the prevention of damage.
If I may digress for a moment to illustrate what I mean, it was those two men who discovered that where widespread damage was taking place in young plantations, as it was all over Britain, it was no good just indiscriminately shooting roe deer. The right ones to shoot were the young bucks, and of course a proportion of females as well. But people had tended to shoot the old big bucks and that was the best way to ensure lots more damage, because all the young bucks which the old buck had kept well under control, started moving into his territory and trying to claim it, and fraying the trees. I hope that I have not digressed for too long, but that is what we mean when we are talking about management.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? This is all very interesting and very well known to me, but where does it appear in the Bill?
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, I think that it appears in the Bill in various ways. One object is to stop the poachers so far as you can, because you cannot have a management plan if the poachers are coming in and shooting the wrong animals, and possibly too many of them. Will the noble Viscount let me off with that? The suggestion of an English Deer Commission, such as we have in Scotland, must have occurred to noble Lords and it has been mentioned by others. I hope that consideration will be given to this but it is not so easy. A year or two ago, it was suggested that the Red Deer Commission in Scotland should consider extending its responsibilities and activities to roe deer. But having considered the matter very thoroughly, they came to the conclusion that it was too difficult and diffuse a problem for them to deal with, so they rejected it.
On the game dealer question, very much the same reasons apply in England, where there is a lack of proper regulations, as in Scotland. Very similar regulations have worked fairly well in Scotland and, among other things, have enabled the Deer Commission to check up on what deer are being legitimately shot. Otherwise, under the counter sales are only too easy and it is very difficult indeed to check up on what is legally acquired venison and what is illicitly shot.
Moving on to the final two points that I want to make to your Lordships, I have had a communication from the Zoological Society of London which I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about afterwards. They are worried about the restriction on the movement of deer, and I am sure that that is a simple matter which could be dealt with in Committee. Coming to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, there are two difficulties of major importance in this good Bill and one of them, certainly, is connected with the prohibition of the use of shotguns, in the case of red deer immediately and in the case of other species in five years' time. Let me say categorically that I wish it were possible for the banning of shotguns to be the rule. They are not
124
the right instrument to use on bigger deer, and they wound far more than they kill. But it may not be realistic to try to force this legislation at the present time, because, in view of the attitude of farmers and their knowledge of deer, it would be virtually impossible to enforce it, and a law that cannot be enforced is worse than no law at all.
I have referred to the rapid spread of deer of three or four species, but especially of fallow and roe, which in many parts of England have spread faster than it has been possible to train people in their control. That is really the crux of the problem. The best way of controlling them is by employing skilled riflemen doing selective shooting, maybe at dusk and dawn, and this has been proved. Of course, the man behind the rifle must be well trained in field craft and have aknowledge of deer, as well as being accurate in markmanship and following the rules of safety. He will often operate in woodland conditions from a high seat. There are tens of thousands of deer shot every year on the Continent using this method, and quite a few thousand in England. Many people are afraid of the dangers of using a high velocity bullet in highly populated areas. As we know, a bullet can carry or ricochet a very long way, but, taking a firm grip on this good English oak behind me, I can say that I have never heard of an accident from operations of the kind that I have been describing; and I would ask your Lordships to take in that point.
The National Farmers' Union have strongly expressed their view that the farmers of England should not be debarred from protecting their crops by the use of shotguns. I hope that the House will note that the shotgun is now debarred on deer and was phased out over, I think, five years, as is suggested here, in the densely populated and intensively farmed, and well-farmed, country of Holland. That is the rule now. Thus, I feel that we can at least look at some alternative way of bringing in measures of this kind, even if it takes a little longer than we were hoping, and that we can look to the understanding, co-operation and willingness to learn of the farming community. The British Deer Society must, and I am sure will, make efforts through precept and example to educate people with responsibilities in the countryside in how, most expeditiously

125
and in accordance with British standards of fair play, to deal with this fairly new phenomenon. This will entail the training of a cadre of people all over the country, which has already started, but the numbers are probably insufficient and the geographical coverage is not wide enough.
Before I leave the subject, there are certain inaccuracies in the paper which some of your Lordships will have received from the National Farmers' Union. I must address this point to those of your Lordships who have received, as I have, their circular letter—we have since heard much the same from the noble Lord sitting on my right—in which the NFU make the insinuation that the British Deer Society are aiming for
"a virtual monopoly of deer killing over agricultural land in England and Wales."
The British Deer Society is not simply a shooting organisation. Many of our members do shoot and they are very skilled at it, but that is not a generous interpretation by a big and powerful organisation, the National Farmers' Union, of the motivation of a small and dedicated society, an interpretation which I hope the former will have the grace to withdraw with no less emphasis than they have given expression to this unworthy and damaging thought.
I said that there were two main difficulties. The other is that with which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, dealt so frankly and explicitly at the outset, and I am so glad that he did. It revolves around the danger of this good Bill being seized upon by others, perhaps in another place, and twisted for some purpose other than that which was intended by those who laboured so long and hard to make it an instrument of the sound and humane management and control of deer in this country. I am, of course, referring to the stag hounds of the West Country. I think I am right in saying that there are still three packs. I was born and nurtured down there, and in my early youth I was steeped in the great traditions of the warmhearted and great-hearted people of the West Country. I should hate anything that passed through the House in this Bill and connected with the name of Dulverton, which I bear, to damage in any way the West Country stag hounds. That is a sentimental point but there is another absolutely practical point, and
126
I promise your Lordships that it is my last. If the stag hounds were stopped or if they ceased to exist, only a very short time would elapse before the wild red deer of the West Country ceased also to exist. It nearly happened during the war when they had to cut down their activities. I thank your Lordships for bearing with me for longer than I had reason to expect. That is, I promise your Lordships, my last point.
8.53 p.m.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dormer on his maiden speech. As I made my maiden speech on the Deer (Scotland) Bill, as it then was, in 1959, I have a great affection for noble Lords who venture into controversy by making their maiden speeches on Bills connected with deer. The subject seems to attract a great deal of interest. I do not think that I can put it any higher than that.
This is the first time that I have spoken on the subject without having to declare an interest. I own no land in England or Wales, except for the very small area upon which my London house stands, and that certainly does not have marauding deer coming on to it. Although, as my noble friend Lord Dulverton has said, I am a member of the Red Deer Commission, its remit does not extend South of the Border, for which I, for one, am very grateful as I find that we have quite enough to occupy our minds in dealing with the problems of the red deer North of the Border.
Your Lordships may well wonder why I should want to speak tonight. There are two reasons. First, I have always been very interested in the welfare of deer and therefore am a natural supporter of the Bill. Secondly, if it passes into law, as I hope it will, I feel that eventually it may have an effect on legislation for Scotland. In an ideal world, obviously there would be no need for the Bill. Unfortunately, this world is not ideal. Poaching and illegal shooting exist and I am assured—and I am sure that this is right—that they are very common in many parts of England.
As we have already heard from various noble Lords, in particular from the

127
noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, great cruelty is involved in this illegal shooting. I am sure therefore that there is no one in this House who does not support the principle of the Bill, and we all hope that tonight it will receive an unopposed Second Reading. However, there are two points in the Bill to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The first comes in Clause 6 and relates to the total ban on the sale of venison 10 days after the start of the close season for a particular species. I appreciate that many people feel that this is the only way of preventing poaching, but are we morally justified in insisting that much perfectly good meat, legitimately shot by farmers and others in defence of their crops or their woods, should go to waste? I suspect not.
The ban on the sale of dead wild geese has been accompanied by an explosion in their numbers. Farmers cannot get people to shoot them because cartridges, as most of us are only too well aware, are very expensive; and you cannot sell the geese afterwards. The geese are doing a very considerable amount of damage, certainly in the central parts of Perthshire, and I feel that some of the damage is due to the ban afterwards on the sale of geese. Admittedly, the ban on the sale of venison is not so extreme because it applies only during the close season of the species concerned. However, I feel that a similar problem might arise. Also, I feel that it is wrong that one should not be able to use perfectly good meat.
I should like to point out that most marauding takes place out of season, although as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has pointed out, the seasons in this Bill are considerably shorter than those which apply in Scotland. To a certain extent, therefore, the position would be better. I support the Bill. In fact, I introduced the Bill which registered venison dealers in Scotland. However, I think that there are differences between the situation in Scotland and that in England, the main one being, as has already been pointed out, that the officers of the Red Deer Commission, who are very knowledgeable about such matters, have the power to inspect the books of the venison dealers in Scotland. Secondly, venison dealers are separately
128
registered and do not have to be game dealers. It would be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, considered that point at the Committee stage of the Bill because there are many people, like butchers, who to a certain extent deal in venison, but not in game. I think that it would be better if there were a separate licence for venison dealers.
There is a minor technical difficulty over banning the sale of venison during the close season: that sometimes it is very difficult when the carcases have been skinned to tell the difference between the sexes. The sexes have different close seasons, of course. I hope that this point will be borne in mind. I hesitate to say what conditions are like down here, but in Scotland the sale of the carcases of marauding deer is regarded as slight compensation for the amount of damage that they may have done. Again I feel that this point should be taken into consideration.
Then there is a danger that venison shot out of season in England might be sent up to Scotland and sold there. It would be perfectly legitimate to sell it there, as there is no ban on the sale of out of season venison to registered dealers in Scotland. I should like to see some more flexible system adopted so that marauding deer, legitimately shot by the occupier of the land in defence of his crops, could be sold without sending them to Scotland. This would to some extent recompense the farmer for the damage done to his crops.
The second major point which I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention is this—and I will be very brief because this is developing into a long debate: Before you can shoot deer out of season in defence of your crops you have to show that they are doing serious damage. I am not all that happy about that. My experience with deer coming down from a hill—and I appreciate that this may not apply to deer coming in from woods—is that the sooner you shoot them when they start getting into your crops, the better, before they get the taste of the turnips, or whatever is the crop. I personally prefer the words used in the Scottish Act:
"It shall not be an offence for an occupier of agricultural land or enclosed woodlands to take or kill during the period specified in that subsection"—

129
that is the one referring to close seasons—
"any deer found on any such arable land, garth grounds or land laid down in permanent grass as aforesaid, or on such woodlands as the case may be."
Under the Scottish Act you do not have to wait until the deer has done serious damage before you can shoot it out of season. I think it is a little illogical for the farmer or the forester to have to wait until he can prove that the deer are doing serious damage.
As I have said, I very much hope that this Bill will get a Second Reading. I support it. The cruelty attached to the poaching and illegal killing of deer must be stopped, but at the same time, as we all recognise, deer can do much damage to most crops and trees and occupiers are, as this Bill recognises, entitled to defend their crops. We must get the balance right, and that is something which we shall have to weigh up carefully at the Committee stage.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for bringing this Bill forward. It will cause him much worry and fuss, take up a lot of his time and necessitate his writing innumberable letters, and I have every sympathy with him on that. I hope we can get it on to the Statute Book. If we do, I am sure it will give him great satisfaction, and he will deserve the thanks of all of us.
9.2 p.m.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, the hour is late and I hope I shall not keep your Lordships long, but I want to join with other noble Lords in giving a welcome to this Bill and also to take the opportunity of congratulating my noble friend Lord Dormer on his excellent maiden speech. I hope we shall have the pleasure of hearing him again soon and often.
The Deer Act of 1963 has done a useful job but it needs to be brought up to date and strengthened in some of its provisions, which is what this Bill proposes to do. In particular, the poaching by organised gangs has reached a very serious pitch in some parts of the country, as we have already heard. The penalties for the unauthorised killing of deer must be increased to the point where they become a serious deterrent. Deer of all species are among the most attractive creatures which we have in these Islands. It is
130
fascinating to watch them and to study their habits. I have seen them in various parts of the country, sometimes in the most unexpected places. For instance, in Surrey I have a bungalow at Bisley Camp, and once or twice I have seen deer there when I have been driving in late at night. Only about ten days ago I was walking round the ranges, and on the butt of one of the ranges itself I found large numbers of footprints of deer, some of them very fresh which must have been made only the previous night. Obviously they are not disturbed or worried by the shooting which goes on at the Bisley ranges or the Pirbright ranges next door. They stay happily in the woods during the day and come out at night to feed.
Of course the damage that deer cause to crops and young trees is a serious problem, so they must be kept under control. Obviously the feeling uppermost in the thoughts of everyone who has spoken here this evening is that the control of deer must be carried out in the most humane way possible. I am not really happy to see shotguns permitted for the control of deer. Their effective range is very limited and they can cause prolonged and great suffering. It is very tempting to take a shot at too great a distance. That only results in peppering the deer, which goes away with a number of pellets in it and it can go through the most terrible agonies.
I notice that in this Bill the permitted size of shot in shotguns has been reduced from that commonly known as SSG to that known as AAA. I am told that the reason is that the denser pattern with a larger charge of smaller shot increases the chance of hitting a vital part of the deer, and I can understand that very well. At the same time, smaller pellets also have less striking energy and it is really a case of finding the optimum size of shot which will still be effective at normal distances, preferably not above 20 yards. But it is a compromise. I would rather see shotguns prohibited altogether. The rifle is much more effective and humane, and I do not think the difficulties which some noble Lords have mentioned are really as great as they are made out to be. It is perfectly possible for anyone to achieve reasonable proficiency with a rifle at the distances at which he might reasonably be expected to shoot deer,

131
if he has to do so, especially in England and Wales where he is likely to be shooting them in woodlands or in fairly close country and not at long distances.
In the United Kingdom we have been for many years so hedged around with firearms legislation of a highly restrictive nature that the police have got into the habit of viewing applicants for firearms certificates with the gravest suspicion. Also, chief constables in different parts of the country interpret the Firearms Act in widely differing ways. One chief constable's idea of what constitutes a safe place to use a rifle may not coincide with the views of his neighbour in the next police area. Furthermore, prospective applicants for firearms certificates tend to be frightened off by the formalities which have to be gone through. I hope that the proposed five-year period for the elimination of shotguns can be looked on as a period of education for both the farmers and the police, to get the farmers used to the idea of looking on a rifle as a natural weapon with which deer should be controlled, and to get the police into a more amenable frame of mind over the issue of firearms certificates.
The rifle is quite safe in densely populated country, as my noble friend Lord Dulverton told us a few minutes ago, if the proper precautions are observed. Using a high seat, where you are firing at a steep angle downwards towards the ground, the bullet does not escape; it generally breaks up, especially if you are using an expanding bullet, which is prescribed in this Bill. A soft-nosed or expanding bullet will 999 times out of a thousand break up when it hits the ground, whether it has missed or hit the deer. So the danger is, I think, very much exaggerated. If, as my noble friend told us, a rifle is the only permitted weapon in such a densely populated country as Holland, we cannot go very far wrong if we follow that example. So I hope that by the end of the five-year period both the farmers and the police will have overcome their objections to the use of rifles.
A certain amount has been said about Clause 4 and the question of trespass in pursuit of deer. I am speaking off the cuff here and I am open to correction, but I think I am right in saying that
132
similar provisions already exist in the Firearms Act and in the Acts in relation to game. Of course, deer are not classed as game as such, along with, for example, pheasants and partridges. But I think the objections to this clause in the present Bill are probably unfounded. My noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned the point about following up a wounded deer which has been legally shot at but has run on to neighbouring land. Obviously there is an obligation to follow up that deer and dispatch it as quickly and as humanely as possible. I am sure that point can be met by a relatively simple Amendment to Clause 17 in Committee. There are other points which also need further consideration in Committee. I join with other noble Lords in wishing this Bill a speedy passage through this House. I think we all ought to be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for introducing it.
9.12 p.m.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for introducing and steering this important Bill through your Lordships' House. Any measure which at one and the same time is designed to cut out inhumanity, promote the conservation of animals, and eases the enforcement of the law, which at present serves of little benefit to anyone, must be welcomed. I should perhaps say that I am a member of the British Deer Society and also of the British Field Sports Society, both societies whose aims and achievements I thoroughly applaud. I am also a farmer, regretfully not a member of the National Farmers' Union, but I can well appreciate the difficulties and troubles which many farmers have to put up with from marauding deer, and they have my every sympathy. I mention these points because I know there is a great deal of opposition from these organisations, if not to the Bill as a whole, certainly to the more important clauses. This is a great pity, because I believe that the fears are not based on sound fact. The principal objection to the Bill seems to be in relation to the prohibition of the use of shotguns, on which my noble friend Lord Swansea has just addressed us. I hope I shall not repeat what he has had to say.

133
The National Farmers' Union complains that it is illogical to ban shotguns now on red and sika deer but to retain their use for five years for all other types. I agree with that. In my view, shotguns should be prohibited forthwith for all types of deer and we should not have to wait the five years. The weapon is totally unsuitable and invariably causes considerable pain and wounding. Today in your Lordships' House we have discussed the Cruelty to Animals Bill. It seems rather unfortunate that that Bill was not given a Second Reading and yet we are in some danger of allowing a measure to go through which will cause pain and thereby cruelty to the animals covered by it. I see no reason whatever why farmers who have a deer problem should not be allowed quite easily to possess a rifle. My noble friend Lord Mansfield said that large rifles would have to be obtained. I think that possibly he painted a slightly inaccurate picture. Large rifles are not necessary for culling deer. A calibre of about·243 inches is quite large enough to be effective. On the other hand, the shotgun is not only a more expensive weapon than the rifle but is certainly much less effective.
The dangers of having weapons "pinched" from unlocked kitchens apply just as much to shotguns as they do to rifles. I should be interested to know the number of criminal cases that have come to light where rifles have been used in preference to sawn-off shotguns. I would suspect that the shotgun is a more attractive weapon than the rifle. It is a false argument to say that public security is at risk. As your Lordships know, deer feed in the early morning and after that retire to the woods for the rest of the day. The general public are seldom about at dawn and therefore the danger of anyone getting shot by a farmer stalking deer is very slight.
It is not true to say the the police would view the increase of applications for firearms certificates with alarm. Quite the contrary—I understand that they would welcome it on humane grounds and because it would make enforcement of the law very much easier. The NFU also fears that police would not issue certificates. I do not know why that should be so. If that were to happen, appropriate action could be taken. The NFU also argues that the control that the Deer Society has attempted to establish in many
134
parts is incomplete. This may be so, and it is quite right for the farmer to be allowed to defend his crops—but it must be with the right weapon. The shotgun does not qualify for that description in this context.
Apart from the poacher and the farmer, the only people who still regularly use a shotgun on red deer are, I think—and if the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, were here he would correct me—the members of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds who from time to time organise deer drives principally to cull surplus hinds as hunting alone does not seem to kill a sufficient number. The hunt maintains that these shotgun deer drives are the only effective method of deer control, and claims that all wounded deer are always followed up by hounds and accounted for. If the banning of the shotgun on red deer comes about, the Devon and Somerset Staghounds would have to make other arrangements for culling surplus deer.
A solution could be to appoint one or two suitably trained forest rangers who during the autumn staghunting season could act as harbourers, while during the winter hind hunting season they could selectively kill surplus hinds in those areas where stock are too high. A comparison can surely be made with the manner in which the Forestry Commission now go about deer control. At one time it was their practice to drive the deer to men armed with shotguns, but now the rifle has replaced the gun, and quite apart from being more humane, far better results are being achieved.
Some 25 years ago, the Scott Henderson Committee made a thorough examination into the question of cruelty to wild animals, and their report was, and I quote from Cruelty to Wild Animals, Cmnd. Paper No. 8266:
"… the shooting of deer with shotguns must inevitably be accompanied by a great deal of suffering."
Twenty-six years has not made the shotgun any less cruel.
I should like to applaud in particular two important features of the Bill. The first relates to close seasons. In the Deer Act 1963, while there is provision for close seasons for both sexes of red, fallow, and sika deer, only the roe doe is accorded any such protection. The new Bill,

135
therefore, provides not only the roe buck with a close season but also those two small Asiatic deer which have now established themselves in a feral state in parts of Central and Southern England—namely the muntjac and the Chinese water deer. The close season proposed for roe bucks extends from 1st November until 31st March, which is entirely right, for many of the older bucks will have their antlers clean by this date and with the spring foliage not yet much in evidence, one can be more selective.
For the muntjac and Chinese water deer, it has been decided, very sensibly, to provide both sexes with the same close season as already exists for all other female deer in England. A "unisex" close season for these two small deer is a wise decision, for distinction between the sexes in the field—particularly the Chinese water deer, in which neither sex bears antlers—can be extremely difficult in cover or when the animal is in flight. Thus, giving both sexes the same open season avoids giving anyone an excuse for killing "by mistake" the wrong sex out of season. Furthermore, it will enable both sexes to be killed during the winter months when the undergrowth is at its minimum.
The second provision is that contained in Part III. Venison in this country is at present currently worth almost more than lamb or beef and, as such, ought to be making a valuable contribution to our food supplies, particularly as it costs virtually nothing to produce. It is quite wrong to allow this important product to be badly managed or be the subject of large-scale indiscriminate killing, as is the case today. The quantity of illegally killed venison reaching our tables today is fairly considerable, and provisions contained in Part III should effectively block the existing outlets.
It is not only from the poaching angle that I find these provisions highly important; there is a health aspect as well. As many of your Lordships may know, two years ago it became the rule that any venison to be exported had to be handled in an extremely hygienic fashion, and to pass a veterinary officer's inspection to see that it was fit for human consumption. I can think of very good reasons why similar regulations should be made for
136
venison supplied to the home market. After all, any bullock, pig or sheep so killed in our abattoirs is inspected by Ministry of Agriculture officials before it is allowed to be sold to the general public, so why cannot our venison be treated likewise? I wonder whether the noble Lord would accept a new clause to this effect at Committee stage.
Finally, I would suggest that the method of keeping records as prescribed might be looked at again. There is another method which, in my view, might be simpler and more effective; namely, the tagging of carcases. At this extremely late hour I certainly do not wish to deal with this in detail, but briefly the system works that each owner applies to the appropriate authority, which in Scotland would presumably be the Red Deer Commission, for a number of tags to cover the number of beasts that he knows he wants to cull in any one season. The tags would have the name of the property on them and the issue of such tags would be recorded. The tag would then be attached to the carcase, removed by the dealer when it reached his premises and retained by him for presentation to an inspector from time to time. The dealer would be prohibited from accepting any carcase without a tag, and therefore if he sold more carcases than he had tags, questions would be asked. If it became necessary for a farmer to kill marauding deer to defend his crops, special permission could easily be obtained from the authorities for him to kill and for the dealer to accept the carcases.
That would go a long way very speedily to remove a substantial amount of poaching. I should be interested to know if this method has been considered and whether it would work in England. Certainly so far as red deer in Scotland are concerned, action along these lines is imperative and I hope it will not be long before we see legislation to that effect. I hope the Bill will be given an unopposed Second Reading and I look forward to seeing it put on the Statute Book speedily.
9.26 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, knowing the propensity for your Lordships to talk at length about animals, I am rather sorry that we have had two such important Bills on the same day; I should have thought that it warranted two days to discuss these

137
matters, and I shall be interested to see what length of speeches we get when your Lordships discuss Bullock tomorrow. I speak as an ex-president of the British Deer Society, and I wish briefly to pay tribute to what that Society has done during its existence to increase interest in, and care for, deer all over Britain.
As well as the increased knowledge and study of deer, has come, as has been mentioned, the increased knowledge of the control of the deer population which has been rendered so necessary because deer have been suffering—if "suffering" is the word—a population explosion of unprecedented magnitude all over Britain in the last 20 years, as has the price of venison. I remember that only 10 years ago many of my neighbours would say, "Please come and shoot these beastly deer which are eating all my roses ". Now they say, "Please try to find me a fat, rich German who will come and shoot the deer and pay me £150 each for doing so". That is the measure of the success that our knowledge of deer has increased over this period.
I thoroughly support the primary purpose of the Bill, which is to stop the illegal killing and poaching of deer. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has spoken at such length about this with such graphic descriptions that I will not weary your Lordships with anything further. I believe it is absolutely vital that we have the Bill to prevent this abuse and the terrible things he described to us. I was sorry that my noble friend Lord Mansfield felt it necessary to give the Bill rather a tepid reception from the Front Bench of the Party to which I belong; I had rather hoped that we would have had something more enthusiastic from him and from others on this side of the House who are interested in landowning and the welfare of animals.
My noble friend made several points which are worthy of careful thought and his natural and right concern that stag hunting be not dragged into the Bill in any shape or form is an important point which we must look at. He mentioned in particular the clause which allows the entry on to land in pursuit of deer and the problems that could cause in stag hunting areas. I wonder whether we could consider in due course an Amendment to exclude just those parts of England where stag hunting still goes on. I should have
138
thought it would be possible to exclude them from the clause, although that may not be so easy.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the use of shotguns to control deer. Personally, I feel it is absolutely abhorrent and revolting that people still use shotguns for the control of deer, and it is even worse to think that they might control or protect their crops by blazing away with shotguns at deer in a cornfield. That seems to me to be a most appalling thing to do. We may have to look with very great care at the National Farmers' Union's case that this law might not be enforceable. We also need to know more about the reactions of the police force to this. I can see a problem in that chief constables would not issue every small-holder with a firearms certificate to buy a rifle and I can see this reaching the stage when the law would not be obeyed, and we would not wish to be associated with laws which cannot be enforced.
I am not sure about the period of five years and whether it would not be wiser to compromise and have a longer period, during which I hope that the National Farmers' Union and everybody else concerned will try to educate their members not to use shotguns on deer but to acquire the proper rifles with the proper permission to use them. In short, I think that it is possible that we should be prepared to compromise, because it is so important to get the rest of this Bill through. In order to get the support of the National Farmers' Union it may, as has been said before, be necessary to make changes in this part of the Bill at the Committee stage.
For instance, danger has been mentioned. I believe that, in many people's minds, the idea that a rifle bullet can travel a very long distance over flat countryside is a threat. I live in a fairly flat part of the world and I am very frightened in certain places where I should like to fire a rifle at deer but sometimes cannot. There are ways round this, but it is not always easy to remember that a rifle bullet is lethal at such a tremendous range. I believe I am right in saying that in some of the States of America the use of a rifle has been banned because there were so many accidents to other hunters and domestic livestock. There, it is only possible to use a shotgun to control deer

139
and that is a different situation from what we have here. I should never support that, but it shows that we cannot quite write off the dangers of indiscriminate rifle shooting in England where there are so many small farmers, all of whom would claim that they had a right to own a firearm. I believe that we must look at this again.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made several points, two of which were good ones. As he only had two points, if he will forgive me, I will describe him as a "switch" not a "royal" on this occasion. The first point was on the Deer Commission, and that has been dealt with so I shall say no more about it; but the noble Viscount made a very good point about the seasons being the same in Scotland as in England. I believe that this wants looking at. I venture to suggest that, not for the first time, the Scots are behind the English in some of their legislation. Maybe they should move to keep up-to-date and follow the proposals in this Bill for close seasons, which I think are very reasonable and a great advance on what we now have. There is a case because venison could undoubtedly be shipped across the Border in one or the other way and sold in the close season. At this moment, Scottish game dealers come down and buy venison in England quite legitimately. I think that we could look at that again and amend the Scottish laws if necessary. I shall not waste time on discussing how one might do that. If we can improve the Bill it will be to the benefit of everybody.
My final point is this. It appears from what has been said, not in this House but outside it, that the British Field Sports Society is opposing the Bill. I should like to know whether this is the case and, if so, why. It seems that the Society has introduced in another place three small Bills which are parts of the present Bill. Two of them seem to have been shot with a shotgun or maybe they were shot with a rifle. I am not certain. I hope that, in the future progress of this Bill through this House and the other place, we can have agreement from the BFSS and everybody else concerned on the very desirable aims and objectives of the Bill, and that they will support in another place what we are trying to do here and what the noble Lord, Lord
140
Northfield, has so ably introduced to us tonight. I therefore end by supporting the Bill, with the reservations that I have made. I was particularly glad to see the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, to compromise. In that spirit, we shall get the main purpose of the Bill which I shall do my best to help when the time comes.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dormer on his most interesting maiden speech. I thank him very much. There are really only two aspects of the Bill which disturb me. Like many of your Lordships, I have had countless trees destroyed by roe deer since 1961. However a kind neighbour with a rifle has been culling them and now the stock is controllable and healthy. This has produced a very satisfactory balance with nature. However, any great increase in the number of persons allowed firearms licences might upset that balance. I know that the police are extremely strict in dealing with any applications to shoot with a rifle, but, agreeing with my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I ask: do we risk overburdening the police, whether it be now or in five years' time? We live in a climate of violence which may escalate, and the police have to protect everyone's interest.
The British Deer Society may well be able to cope with all the extra demands which might be made on it and it is a highly responsible body, but I have a fear that some other, all-powerful, organisation, covering the whole country, could spring up. Might it even become yet another Governmental Department? Of course all deer should be killed as humanely as possible, but do we really need more legislation to achieve this? That is a question that I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Northfield; but despite my query, I support his Bill and wish him luck with it.
9.36 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, first I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, because I was not present to hear his opening speech; this I greatly regret. But I welcome the Bill in general terms, and I speak at this late hour only because I live in a far corner of England which is one of the few places where there have always been some deer,

141
both red deer and roe deer, right through history, and not just introduced in either the 18th or the 19th century. Therefore I would think that we in the North-West of England are probably more deer conscious than are people in other parts of England, if not as excited as the Scots always appear to be about deer. This interest is a very good thing because deer are the largest and among the most interesting of our mamals; and the interest is growing. Nor is it just something found among tourists. In the North-West of England the numbers of deer are not such as to cause much damage, except in a very few small areas. None the less, we must try to meet the legitimate interests of farmers in those areas. But this is a matter for the Committee stage, and with good will I do not see why some solution cannot be worked out.
Next, on the question of control, I would say that control does not by any means just mean reducing numbers—shooting the first deer that one sees. Whatever we do, we must find the right balance between the danger from the use of rifles by people who have never been trained how to use them, and those who have absurd faith in the killing power of big pellets in a 12 bore cartridge, which even at 20 yards can show such a dispersed pattern that wounding is much more likely than killing.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Ridley that in some parts of enclosed country, such as his and ours, one has to be very careful before using a rifle; because a careless shot can well carry over a motorway. All this means discipline, training and schooling from teenage years upwards, which many people who see deer eating their crops have not had. There can be a real danger in putting a rifle in the hands of somebody who has not had a certain amount of training in the Army or elsewhere. But a sporting rifle is not the best weapon for robbing a bank, and I wonder whether all chief constables consider this when refusing certificates. And do they all work on the same lines, because magnificent men though most of them are, I do not look upon them as omniscient, any more than any other group of men is omniscient.
With regard to poaching penalties, I believe that they must without doubt be brought into line with today's money values and today's price of meat. In this,
142
as in so many other matters, there should be closer liaison between England and Scotland. I find this all-important. Are the penalties the same on both sides of the Border? If not, they ought to be. I understood my noble friend the Duke of Atholl to say that there should be much closer liaison between the two sides of the Border. That suggestion I welcome. My Lords, however high meat prices may rise, possible fines, even if they do not reflect a Botany Bay attitude, should at least show that poaching does not pay. I say this because poaching with a firearm, whether it is a shotgun or a rifle, is just as dangerous to others as drinking and driving—something which takes up so much of police and magistrates' time, and which should be taken seriously.
9.40 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House I must first of all say that I have never shot deer, either with a shotgun or with a rifle, and I have had no connection with any estates owning deer: I have merely been an onlooker. I welcome this Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I think it is an extremely good Bill; and I must thank Mr. Hotchkis most sincerely for all the time he gave me when I was asking questions about it. I can assure Lord Northfield and Mr. Hotchkis that I give it my full support, apart from what I call Committee detail, and at this late hour I do not propose to go deeply into that.
There are three things which worry me about the Bill. One is the use of shotguns and rifles. One arrives at a situation where great suffering is caused to deer by the use of shotguns and one wants to restrict their use considerably; and then it is said that that must be done by the issue of rifles. I have great sympathy with chiefs of police in this matter. We are facing an outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland, and, although we may or may not like it, one might at one time or other be faced with the same situation in England and Wales. I would not presume to go further North than the Border in view of the prospects of devolution. I have an awful feeling that if one starts granting licences to farmers around the countryside one must, somehow or other, obtain some guarantee, or provide some method, whereby these

143
rifles—or, for that matter, sawn-off shotguns—are properly kept. We are told that the acquisition of sawn-off shotguns and other dangerous weapons for the criminal fraternity is quite easy in urban areas, but there might come a time when it is not so easy; and if we proliferate sawn-off shotguns and rifles around the countryside, one feels that we may be laying out a potential armoury for any ill-natured person who wishes to lay his hands on these things, and providing more easy access to them.
Another thing which worries me slightly is why we should allow this period of five years for the use of shotguns. Personally, I should have liked to see a shorter period. I can see the difficulties in that, and the difficulties in proliferating arms around the country. I can also see the difficulties which are facing chief constables around the country, and I sympathise with them. I should like there to be further control over these guns. That is a matter which we can perhaps go into in Committee.
I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for referring to me in his opening address and to the subject of the destruction of dogs, which are used in this matter. One has a principle—at least, I have: how many other people have it, I do not know—that one should never penalise an animal for the action of its owners. I am extremely grateful to him for his reference to the fact that he would accept a small Amendment to that effect in Committee.
My Lords, the other thing which rather worried me concerns the rather kindly disposed persons who will find what they think to be the abandoned calf, or whatever it may be called, of a deer. They will take it home with them and, as I know has happened in a number of cases, will successfully rear it. According to this Bill, you are not allowed to remove a deer from one area to another. I am a little worried as to the meaning of the word "area". It is one of those things which, as is the case in many Bills which pass through your Lordships' House, a rather closer look at the wording may resolve. Apart from that, I should like to say that I am fully in support of the principles of the Bill, and any help that I can give it to go through the Committee stage I shall only be too willing to give.
9.46 p.m.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for having so ably introduced this Bill. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dormer, on his maiden speech and I very much welcome his support. I am sure your Lordships will agree that he put the case in a most persuasive and competent manner. The question has been raised as to why there should have been so many Scottish Peers interested in what appears to be an English Bill. The suggestion has been made that perhaps we are worried about devolution. So far as I am concerned, it has nothing to do with that. I am still a tenant farmer near Burton.
My Lords, deer is an emotive subject about which there is still much ignorance, but an enormous amount has been learned about deer in recent years. Knowledge and experience have developed enormously since 1963. Unfortunately, not only have the best methods of controlling them been learned and developed; there have been other technical developments which have not proved so satisfactory. The 1963 Act, so far as it goes, has generally proved useful but there are many flaws and loopholes, partly those brought about by new technical developments. These badly need stopping up and the Bill should be strengthened. A substantial effort has been made in this Bill to update the 1963 Act to the satisfaction, I think, of the vast majority. It has been suggested that, in place of this Bill, the 1963 Act should be amended, but I am afraid that if you go into this you will find it a terrible hotchpotch which would be probably little more than a lawyers' paradise.
I heard some fears voiced. Many of these, I believe, are ill-founded. I agree that some Amendments may have to be made. I hope that we can get an agreed Bill after the next two stages. As has already been agreed by most people, most of the Bill is highly desirable. There has been some apprehension expressed as to the view of the police in this matter, but I understand that the police have been widely consulted and that with one accord they agree that the Bill is a highly desirable piece of legislation to enable them to enforce the existing law.
I think that the NFU hand-out which many of your Lordships will have seen,

145
can be largely ignored. Alas! In spite of being a farmer in England, I saw this document only this evening, but there are in this hand-out a number of technological inexactitudes. My noble friend Lord Dulverton has already mentioned one. As an instance of another, the Bill does not propose an immediate ban on the shooting of roe deer, as the hand-out suggested. The Bill proposes an immediate ban on the use of shotguns on red and sika only; and not roe deer. Their objection to the number of persons being allowed to pursue deer with shotguns is almost certainly misconceived. Shooting in groups, killing indiscriminately, will almost invariably murder the hinds, leaving motherless calves. I need not say much more about this as your Lordships were fully enlightened on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Somers.
The worries about the use of rifles are also misconceived, as was explained by the expert on firearms, Lord Swansea, and many other noble Lords. The NFU and, I regret to say, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, are wrong in attributing deer control societies to the British Deer Society. The control bodies are individual organisations affiliated to a federation which has very strict regulations. Indeed, the British Deer Society specifies that anyone using the name of the Deer Society to secure stalking will be immediately removed from the list of members of the Society. The NFU themselves have tried to get similar organisations started for the control of rabbits.
So far as deer in Scotland are concerned, there are very many more red deer there than in England. We were worried about the use of shotguns on red deer in Scotland and made an approach to the Red Deer Commission. Their answer for not introducing any legislation on banning shotguns for red deer was that they had made a survey of the carcases submitted to the various dealers and during that year they had found in Scotland, I believe, no carcases with shotgun pellets in them. That shows that the worries about the shooting of a few red deer in England are ill-founded.
There is also the possibility of wounding which we have heard about this evening. I have had the misfortune of having to shoot two blind stags. There is nothing more pitiful or painful than to see these
146
animals struggling. One was on a public highway trying to dodge the cars, and the cars were trying to dodge it. The deer had broken knees and looked in a most pitiful state. One stag had been wounded, probably by a crofter with a shotgun, and the other by a poacher. I also shot a stag in which, when it was skinned, three different sized pellets were found. I do not know if any noble Lords have had the misfortune of being shot with a shotgun, but I can assure your Lordships that it is extremely painful.
One more observation on the NFU paper. It shows another inaccuracy in remarks about the size of shot. In fact, what the Bill proposes is not a larger shot but a smaller one. The NFU paper shows it the other way round. The answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said, was the intention that there should be a better pattern of shot, which would be given with smaller pellets rather than bigger ones. At the present time over 16,000 deer a year are shot with a rifle in England and Wales. Perhaps more amazing still is the fact that at least 300 to 400 roe deer are shot with a rifle each year south of the Thames within a 40 mile radius of your Lordships' House. It is not likely that there is a more densely populated area in the country than will be found in that 40 mile radius. This gives the answer to those who, in their ignorance—and, 15 years ago. I would have been among them—feel that control by rifle is not feasible or practicable.
It has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Mansfield and some other noble Lords that there is a danger in the Bill about the possibility of the pursuit of wounded animals. I agree that this must be looked at either before or in the Committee stage. I should like to issue a warning to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, after his remarks on having no close season for muntjac deer or Chinese water deer. I know that a certain naturalist would be, to say the least, angry, and he is likely to be suing the noble Viscount without any close season!
The noble Viscount was also worried about gamekeepers having to keep records. I am afraid that I was not able fully to follow his reasoning on that point. I think he was suggesting that licensing of venison dealers, as is done in Scotland, might be better; but I cannot agree with

147
him on that point. The licence can be bought for a very small sum of money—I believe 50p—which will last that individual for the whole of his lifetime and cannot be removed for any offence whatsoever. The noble Viscount wondered why it was necessary that records should be kept. Perhaps we might ask: why should records be kept for game or salmon? It is, of course, to prevent the unlawful sale of those products.
Again, I agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard on the question of a close season for stags. My noble friend was worried that there was a different season; but the situation is different. On the Continent, the close season for stags is very similar to that which I believe is proposed in this Bill. The reason is that the deer in the Lowland areas are in sheltered woodland and good ground, and therefore their stags will recover very much more quickly after the rut. However, the Red Deer Commission are not altogether such a thoughtful body in this respect as the noble Lord would have us believe, as they will permit many wretched Highland stags which, as the noble Viscount said, are in a thin, poor and smelly condition, to be killed in the winter. Indeed, I am ashamed to say that half the stags shot in Scotland are shot out of season and in the condition described by the noble Viscount. I would suggest that a great deal of that killing is brought about not to protect crops but by the desire to make money out of those animals. Therefore, I would disagree with my noble friend the Duke of Atholl on that point, although I certainly agree with the rest of what he said. In England, where the proposed seasons will be longer and the circumstances different, there is no reason why the sale should not be banned shortly after the season closes.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was worried about crop protection. Twelve years ago, I myself could not possibly have seen how enough deer, and particularly roe does, could be killed on my ground each year in the required time with a rifle. I have since learned that in fact one can shoot with a rifle far more deer than one should do to secure the right number for a cull. It is partly a
148
matter for education, and that is why a five-year period of grace has been put into the Bill. I think my noble friend who has just spoken was wondering why there should be a five-year period; it is to give an opportunity for people to educate themselves more than they are in a position to do at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has told me that he has had to leave in order to catch his train, and he has asked me to make his apologies on that account. I hasten to do so, and I know that your Lordships will be sorry that he has had to leave because, as we all know, he is particularly knowledgeable on any subject connected with wildlife. I believe he is particularly worried about the explosion of the deer population in certain areas. We both feel it is desirable that the Government should perhaps have some advisory body on deer—that has been mentioned by several other speakers—and possibly also some body to which a farmer with a deer problem could turn for advice. The Bill would do a great deal to stop the appalling cruelty about which we have heard so much today, and accordingly I strongly commend it to your Lordships.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say what is his figure for the number of stags shot out of season in Scotland?
Lord BURTON: My Lords, unfortunately, I left in a hurry and I omitted to bring the exact figures. But if I am not mistaken—and I may well be wrong—there are about 10,000 or 12,000 shot in season. The noble Lord who has been on the Red Deer Commission will probably know the figure better than I do, but I believe that a total of 25,000 stags are shot each year, which means that as many are shot out of season as in season.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, if my noble friend checks his figures, I think he will find that under 10 per cent of the stags shot in Scotland are shot out of season.
Lord BURTON: I may be wrong, my Lords.
10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dormer, on his maiden speech. He raised a good many points with great economy of words, and that always endears one to your Lordships' House. I shall try to emulate him this evening in putting the Government's view with regard to the Bill of my noble friend Lord Northfield. Let me make it perfectly clear at the beginning that the Government welcome this Bill as a means of strengthening the law against cruelty to deer. Having said that, I am bound to draw your Lordships' attention to a number of features some of which are not acceptable to the Government, and others of which ought to be scrutinised most carefully, which I imagine will be done in the usual processes of the Committee stage.
My noble friend Lord Northfield explained clearly the provisions of each clause, so I do not think any useful purpose will be served by my going through the clauses. I think I can be of most service to your Lordships by listing those ways in which the Bill sets out to achieve its aims, which we believe are, for want of a better word, misguided, and we would feel impelled either to attempt to remove or to amend in the Committee stage. I refer, in particular, to the provision in Clause 22 which would apply the Bill to the Crown, but would not authorise proceedings to be brought against Her Majesty in her private capacity. As your Lordships know, it is unusual for any Bill to be expressed to bind the Crown, and the Queen's consent must be signified in such cases before it may reach the Statute Book. My understanding of the matter is that the intention of the Bill's Promoters and supporters is to ensure that the Crown's servants—in particular, officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Forestry Commission—observe the law, especially as to the season, time and manner in which deer may be killed or taken. The Deer Act 1963, which is the present law, does not bind the Crown and the suggestion seems to be that, as a result, Crown servants feel free to ignore it. I can say that, as a matter of public policy, that is not so.
If I put this matter in rather strong terms, it is because we feel it unthinkable
150
that a Crown servant, acting in his official capacity, would be instructed, or encouraged for that matter, to ignore the law of the land. If, on the other hand, he went off on a frolic of his own, he would be liable to prosecution the same as anyone else. We feel that it is not right to bind the Crown in this way. No other modern piece of animal legislation carries a provision of this kind, and we sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Northfield will feel able to look at this, because it would be a pity if this Bill was in some way jeopardised on its journey to the Statute Book by insistence on the retention of Clause 22. Of course, I leave that to my noble friend. The Government are not—
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to interrupt? I refrained from interrupting throughout the debate, and I hope that I have been behaving myself. But will my noble friend check on what he said about no other modern Act binding the Crown? Will he have a look, as I suggested in my opening remarks, at the provisions in Scotland which are not very old and which do, in fact, bind the Crown?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will certainly look and will take advice on this matter, but that is the information which I have been given. The Government are not convinced that a case has been made out for control over the sale and purchase of venison, the provisions for which occupy seven clauses making up Part III of the Bill. We appreciate that such statutory control exists for Scotland, and we acknowledge that it seems to work smoothly there.
It is important to remember that the management of deer in that country is under the control of the statutorily established Red Deer Commission and that control over dealings in venison was introduced some years ago after the creation of the Commission as a means of providing that body, for management purposes, with information about the number and location of deer killed outside the larger estates. It was not designed primarily as a means of controlling illegally taken deer, and I would suggest to your Lordships that only firm evidence of a widespread and serious mischief can

151
justify the system of control provided for in the Bill, involving as it does the need for traders to keep detailed accounts available for inspection by local authority officials and the police on pain of prosecution and a fine of up to £500 per carcase. The Government do not believe that a case has been made out for the creation of what might be seen by some people as yet another category of people paid from the public purse to police an accounting system which the determined poacher could, in the view of the Government, evade without too much difficulty of detection.
Another feature of the Bill which, as the sponsors will know—and it was dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—has caused the Government some concern is the provision in Clause 4(b) which makes it an offence unlawfully to enter or be
"on any land in search or in pursuit of deer with the intention of taking, killing, injuring or driving deer."
I am sure that this provision will not have escaped the notice of those who at certain times of the year enter or are on land for just that purpose. The Government's concern is more particularly with the consequence of this provision. Live deer at present, like other wild animals, do not belong to anybody unless they are reduced to captivity—for example, in a deer park. Clause 4(b) would seem to say, in effect, that the deer become yours once they enter upon your land. The result seems to be that if landowners consequently lawfully kill deer they are the only persons who can enjoy the profits from the sale of venison. It is true, of course, that it is already an offence to poach game—a word, by the way, which in law does not cover venison. But poaching offences were created long ago with the deliberate intention of creating a property in game. The only poaching offence in relation to wild deer, confined to certain Royal forests and estates and one or two other places, was repealed by the Theft Act 1968.
May I say a brief word about the penalties provided for under the Bill. There is to be, for all offences, a single range of penalties which are set out in Clause 16. There can be a fine up to £500, imprisonment for up to three
152
months, or both a fine and imprisonment. The Government believe that the level of the maximum fine is right. Indeed, there is provision in the criminal law, which is still under the scrutiny of your Lordships' House, for the maximum penalty under the present law to be increased, as your Lordships know, to that very figure. The Bill before us goes a little further than that, however. The fine may be imposed in respect of each deer in respect of which the offence is committed. There are precedents for this approach in recent legislation, notably the Badgers Act 1973 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Acts 1975. However, it should be remembered that we are speaking about a maximum of £100 and about animals and plants much more in need of protection, some people would argue, than deer.
A blanket approach of this kind to all offences created under the Act would create both uncertainty, and, in the view of the Government—and the Government may be quite wrong about this—an injustice. I wonder what would be the position of the man who enters land stalking a whole herd of deer? In matters of this kind we must look and advise what some of the difficulties may well be. There will clearly be some dispute among witnesses about the size of the herd, which would significantly affect the size of any fine which might be imposed. The man might well contend that he was not in fact pursuing the herd but only one deer, presumably the largest.
It is worth, too, considering the case of the properly licensed dealer in venison who has failed to keep a record of a considerable number of lawful purchases. The Government will certainly seek to amend the penalty provisions—and I must put the Government's point of view—in order that the punishment might fit the crime.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. I have no doubt he is aware that a fine per animal is already provided for in the game laws and in the badgers conservation Act.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I thought that I in fact said that. If the

153
noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow I think he will find that I said that. I hope that what I have said today will not be dismissed by your Lordships as being a lot of carping criticism, or that I have been ungracious in any way. It is part of the duty of the Government to look at these things and to express what they think. They are not always right, and your Lordships in your wisdom may decide otherwise at the Committee stage. I repeat that the Government applaud this Bill in general and, if I may be permitted to do so, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Northfield on the persuasive way in which he has argued for a reinforcement of the present law. But in matters of legislation we ought not to be blindly over-enthusiastic in our attitude or mindless in our obligation when we come to consider questions of this kind.
I hope that the House and the sponsors of the Bill will take note of the reservations I have expressed today on behalf of the Government, and I believe there will be a good chance that this measure will emerge from Committee in a form better suited to achieving its aim of reducing the amount of cruelty inflicted on wild deer. This is the hope of the Government. I know it is the expressed intention of my noble friend Lord Northfield, and as I said at the beginning of my remarks we approve this Bill, with the exception of the comments and observations that I have made.
10.14 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not inflict another long speech upon your Lordships. I wish to start by thanking noble Lords most warmly for the constructive, kind, indeed generous remarks they have made from all parts of the Chamber about this draft of a Bill to protect deer. I should particularly like to thank those noble Lords—if my calculations were correct, there were 12 out of 16—who gave almost unqualified support to the Bill. I hope this will have some impression on the Committee stage and that we shall not be too easily deterred, as I suggested in my opening remarks, from some of the main principles; not too easily forced into compromise. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Burton, who has kindly offered to help me with the Committee stage, and
154
the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who have been particularly persuasive because of their particular knowledge, their own skills and experience of the deer and its habits and the need for control in a dignified and proper manner. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage we can deal in detail with most of the points that have been raised.
I should, secondly, like to thank even more warmly than I did at the beginning Mr. Hotchkis of the Deer Society. The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, was very correct, if I may say so, in paying particular tribute to him; I think he deserves the warm appreciation of all of us who care for this kind of measure for the work that he has done, not just now or recently but over many years, with immense dedication and enthusiasm. Thirdly, I would offer my own congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dormer, on his maiden speech. As my noble friend said, he said so much in 11 minutes—I know he was making great efforts to be brief, as these occasions demand. He said so many things that I became envious when I looked at how little I had said in more than twice that length of time. I was particularly grateful for what he said about the consultations he had had with local police about some of the powers suggested in the Bill. That is the sort of information which is very helpful and contributed a great deal to the case for the Bill. I hope he will join us in all the later stages of the Bill. Then, I was particularly glad, too, that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was able to take part. He is the author of the 1963 Act. It was so very warming to have his commendation of a Bill replacing his own some 14 years later.
Finally, before I deal with one or two points, may I join with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to this extent. I was slightly sorry about some of the remarks in the leading article in The Field this week. I hope that it will not in any sense be regarded as a Party issue just because somebody with a Labour tag on him introduces this Bill. I join the noble Earl in making that point. I think there was a misunderstanding. I do not think The Field meant to suggest that there was a Party battle; it just misunderstood the situation. I am sure that this can

155
be quite quickly forgotten. Certainly I do not have a very wild Party tag on me, if that is any help to the situation.
My Lords, may I now deal with two or three points before I sit down? First, of course, we want to consider all the possible suggestions for amendment at Committee stage, and I will not try to deal with them all now. But I would mention one or two things. First of all, may I say to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that this business about the sawn-off shotgun really was a red herring. What he has to do, if I may suggest it to him, is to look at the definition in the last Part of the Bill about the use of a slaughtering weapon. He will then see that this is not an open invitation.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, it is not that definition which he wants to go for; it is the 1968 Act. That regards a weapon for certain purposes as being adapted for a certain purpose.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I am sure we shall argue it in Committee. I think the noble Earl will find it is a red herring in the sense that it could in no sense be an open invitation for the proliferation of sawn-off shotguns. That is the point. In other words, this provision was put into the Bill to meet a very limited demand from the stag hunting community to have this recognised as a legitimate weapon for one very small purpose in one very small part of the country. In no sense could this do great national harm. In that sense, I think the point was a red herring.
Before I come to the major point, the only one that I want to deal with in detail, which is about the issue of the shotgun, may I say something about the Government case. Here I must restrain myself, but I am tempted after no less than 26 years in Parliament simply to say: do Governments never learn? Year in, year out, I have watched cold water poured on Private Members' Bills from Government Dispatch Boxes, only to find after some months of persuasion that Governments are actually taking them on and shepherding them through. Perhaps in
156
some cases two or three years are needed before they finally realise the situation; but then, without even an apology, they come along, take the Bill, and proudly see it through. Do they never learn?
My noble friend said that this is a very good Bill, that the Government are all in favour of it but that they would love to emasculate it in Committee. I have heard that said about Private Members' Bills for a quarter of a century, year in, year out, and then seen the Government sooner or later capitulate on many of them. I wish that they would try to learn this much: that it is not the case that Private Members—after consultations as widely undertaken as this, over as many years as this, with so much crashing evidence—will come lightly to your Lordships' House to inflict legislation on it. They come only because the evidence is overwhelming. In this case the cruelty is blatant, and there is an obvious need for an expansion of control over the sale of venison—which is the point the noble Lord made—in order to stop the poaching.
Why could they not at least have recognised that this matter is now a public scandal on a scale that means some slight departures from present legislation, and come some of the way with us? It is my Badgers Bill of 1966 all over again. The Home Office case has had to be put by a Minister—notwithstanding his charm and his personal good will towards us all. It is the old business of the Home Office never learning until the very last moment that public opinion must be taken into account and that blatant cruelties must be remedied, even if that means departures from the accepted law of the moment. I shall be no more angry than that—perhaps that is enough.
I turn to the main point of argument—the shotgun versus the rifle. I was heartened by the fact that 12 out of 16 of your Lordships, who kindly spoke in this debate, wholeheartedly supported the Bill and the gradual suppression of the use of the shotgun on deer. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will reflect that there is, so to speak, a three-quarters majority of speakers already in favour of doing something quite significant about this issue.
The noble Lord said that we must show that the farmers, whose case I understand,

157
are showing irresponsibility—those were his words. With respect, I do not have to show anything of the sort. I do not have to prove that kind of case because it is not the kind of case that I am making. We very seldom in Legislatures have a clear-cut case where we are able quite easily to show that something needs to be done. Our job is to weigh up the balance of argument—the advantages and the disadvantages of a particular form of action through legislation. In this case we know that there are responsible farmers who are not using the shotgun improperly. We know, on the other side, that some farmers—perhaps a small minority—plus a large number of poachers use it and make it their own weapon. The balance of argument that we have to assess is whether the disadvantage for the respectable, reputable farmer is outweighed by the cruelly of the remainder and the need therefore for legislation. That is all I have to prove. I do not have to prove that farmers as a whole are irresponsible. I have to prove the balance of argument.
I want to make one or two suggestions. First, the noble Lord will know that many reputable farmers would never use a shotgun on deer. The noble Lord is not backed by the whole farming community in this matter. Many reputable farmers refuse to tolerate the shotgun being used on deer and have already taken to the rifle. The noble Lord must also know that reputable bodies, such as the Forestry Commission, would never tolerate this sort of thing, and are trying to set a public example. Is their experience, their guidance and wisdom not to be set in the balance against the other point of view? Does he not also realise that many farmers are already letting their stalking, a very valuable asset, and reaping a considerable income from that by putting it out to people who do it properly? I am not saying that those people should have a monopoly; I am saying that many farmers who do not want to use a shotgun are willing to put the work out. Deer control societies are spreading, and help enormously in particular areas.
There are two final points. I think we shall be able at Committee stage to suggest better evidence about the view of the police. I do not want to refer directly to discussions that took place some years ago, but I can say that in consultations with the police it became clear at that stage that
158
they preferred the disabilities, the disadvantages, of a greater use of rifles to the continued indiscriminate killing by shotguns. Once again the balance of argument was being assessed, and in the case of the police I hope that we shall be able to prove even more definitely that, when faced with that challenge of the balance of argument, they will come down on the side of saying that the disadvantages of one outweigh the disadvantages of the other.
I end with one figure on this point. I wonder whether the noble Lord who is so worried about this issue knows the figures produced from checks made by the Deer Society. I do not know whether they were made by themselves or by people with whom they made full contact. The figure they have given me is that if you make a check on deer shot today by rifle and examine them—they have apparently done this with other people who have made these checks—you now find that 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the deer shot by rifle already contain in their bodies small shot. In other words, we know that indiscriminate peppering is going on. This is a figure which alarms me considerably, and must lead me to say in the end that if there are figures like that which can be proved, then the case for continuing with the shotgun is itself shot to smithereens. I hope that the noble Lord will check on matters like this.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in saying that we must reach agreement with the NFU. But we cannot reach agreement with them unless there is give on all sides. I hope he is not going to say that the NFU, in striking a balance of argument as I have been trying to illustrate, must have it all their own way. That is the point in the end. If they are willing to sit round a table and say, "We admit the cruelty involved and we are willing to find a way of reducing that cruelty through the use of the shotgun that will lead to its eventual outlawing", then I am sure we shall find that way. But they have to come over that first hurdle of agreeing that the level of cruelty involved is such that the need to outlaw must finally be conceded at some date. We can then make progress. I hope that the noble Lord will join with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in urging that there

159
must be give on all sides if this agreement that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned is to be reached.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord realises to what my remarks were being directed. In this instance I fully supported him, and said so I think quite fulsomely, on the cruelty issue. My concern is that what is admittedly an unsatisfactory state of affairs should not be made into an even worse state of affairs by a legislative nightmare. That is what I was concerned about, not the actual aspect of the cruelty.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. I hope that in the Committee stage we can reach agreement about this. I want to make it clear that the case on the other side is so strong that we cannot easily be expected to compromise, in view of all the expert and other opinion that wants to outlaw the shotgun as quickly and as reasonably as possible. It is in that situation that I hope we shall reach agreement.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, was kind enough to give a great deal of advice from Scotland and I welcomed it in the sense that it may well be the case—I am thinking aloud—that we need some form of advisory committee attached to the Bill which would then be comparable in some way to the Red Deer Commission. That might provide a clue as to how we could then outlaw the shotgun, because the body might advise on that as progress is made in that direction. I hope we can join with the noble Viscount in hoping that we could bring the Scottish and English close seasons into line. I join with one noble Lord who said that perhaps the Scots might have to move on this, not the English, as we might be more up to date on the matter.
Looking at the Bill as a whole, it forms a total pattern. It simply says that various methods must be outlawed; that, because of the scale of it, we must also control the sale of venison; and that we must, to give the police real powers of enforcement, make the entry on to land to poach deer an offence. Those are three cardinal issues to which we shall come time and again, in addition to the argument about shotguns. I hope we can stick to those
160
and try to get them right in terms of the balance of advantage, and do what is reasonable for the farming community.
In that spirit, I assure noble Lords that, despite the hotness of some of the remarks about the Government's case, I shall in Committee be extremely reasonable. I repeat my suggestion that we might now allow a considerable period before Committee during which wide-ranging consultations can take place in order to get an agreed Bill. I hope the Government will join in some of those consultations, will not hold against me some of the hard words I have said, and will themselves be willing to show a little give in the consultations in order that we may obtain an agreed Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROE DEER (CLOSE SEASONS) BILL
10.33 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I shall be very brief. The Bill to which we now turn is a simple measure designed to deal with the close season for the buck and roe deer. That has already been included in the previous Bill we were discussing, so what it amounts to is that these two Bills form a race to the Statute Book. I think the only other point I need make is that, given the limited objective of the Bill, the Government do not wish to raise any objection; in the short time that we have had it we have been unable to pinpoint any drafting ambiguities, and thus all I need do now is to commend the Bill to the House.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are prepared to have consultations about possibly bringing Scottish and English law into line on this point, seeing that they are about to give the Bill a fair wind? Can he say what are the views of the Department of Agriculture and the Scottish Office on this matter?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know what discussions, if any, have taken place, but the intention is that the Bill should operate from 1st November this year, which is the beginning of the close season for the animal that it is designed to protect. I should have to find out whether any consultations have taken place, or whether they are necessary, but beyond that I cannot go at this stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.] INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with; Ordered to lie on the Table; Bills committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
  FARM VEHICLES: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
  FARM VEHICLES: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
  THE JUDICIARY: STATISTICS
  THE JUDICIARY: STATISTICS
  PUBLIC BODIES
  PUBLIC BODIES
  SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
  SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
  COHO SALMON OVA
  COHO SALMON OVA