Sitting of 25 January 1977

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

    Admiralty Compass Observatory
    Miss Joan Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue a detailed statement explaining the savings on the defence budget envisaged as a result of the proposals concerning the Admiralty Compass Observatory in Slough.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): We shall be giving the staff and trade union sides of the Whitley Council our latest estimates of these savings as part of the consultation process.
    Miss Lestor: I thank my hon. Friend for the careful attention that he has given to me on behalf of my constituents in relation to the closure of this establishment in the Beaconsfield division. Does he agree, first, that it would appear that the consultative document that was issued about this establishment was not consultative, in that the decision had already been taken and, secondly, that the absence of any financial statement about the savings supposed to take place from what was to happen to the Admiralty Compass Observatory led some people to believe that transferring the work to private industry was not a defence cut at all?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. The first part of her question put the position fairly, and I would not dissent from it. We think that it is sensible to wait until we have the revised figures, which we
    1150
    hope to have some time next month, before publishing them.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Minister of State, by the time that I see him at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow, have these or the provisional figures about this observatory in my constituency? It will be difficult for me even to formulate the representations which I wish to formulate unless I know how the Ministry of Defence thinks that it will save money by switching orders from its own establishment to outside industry.
    Dr. Gilbert: The cut-back is related to the requirement imposed on the Ministry of Defence to reduce its total number of employees. Certain painful decisions had to be taken, some of them at fairly short notice. I shall endeavour to be as helpful as I can when the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to see me tomorrow, but I cannot tell him, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), what the up-to-date figures will be.

    NATO (United Kingdom Forces)
    Mr. Trotterasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the Government's latest defence cuts will mean a reduction in Great Britain's commitment of forces to NATO.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): It is impossible to be precise at this stage, but, as I have stressed repeatedly, we intend to keep the effect on our front-line contribution to the Alliance to the absolute minimum.
    Mr. Trotter: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed to preside over a policy which runs our forces below the bedrock minimum for our security? If these cuts can be made without damaging our security, why were they not made before?
    Mr. Mulley: The Conservative Administration made three cuts in 1973. In real terms, we are spending less than we should be spending next year. I think that, not only in defence, but in many other areas, we would all like to spend more in terms of public expenditure. However, we do not get much encouragement from the Opposition Benches to that end.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: I admire my right hon. Friend's resolution about keeping front-line troops in Germany. When will the long-standing wrangle between us and West Germany over support costs end? Surely we cannot keep talking about it and not have a new agreement?
    Mr. Mulley: We are anxious to have a new agreement, but I cannot say today when that will be possible. At the end of Question Time today the Prime Minister intends to inform the House of his discussions with the West German Chancellor and his colleagues over the weekend.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Surely the Defence Secretary knows that the distinction which he and his predecessors have tried to draw between the front-line and support arms is entirely bogus. Will he stop using it?
    Mr. Mulley: It is not bogus. There are quite a number of worthwhile and useful economies which, in any event, we would seek to make by using modern techniques—for example, in the stores and other support facilities in this country. I think that any Administration would wish to go along with such economies. Although the deferment of building, and so on, is sad, we cannot in one year do everything and make up for the neglect of many years. These matters are less essential than maintaining our front-line forces.

    Northern Ireland (Armed Forces' Special Payment)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will increase the special daily payment made to members of the Armed Forces serving in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): No, Sir.
    Mr. Gow: Is it not the case that since this special payment was introduced on 1st April 1974, its true value has been eroded by more than 50 per cent., and that a daily payment of 79p would now be required to bring it up to the level then decided by the Government? Does not the Minister owe it to our soldiers in Ireland to bring the payment up to the purchasing power that it had when first introduced?
    Mr. Brown: It is true that bringing it up to its purchasing power when first introduced would mean that it would have to be 80p. However, having said that, I should add that the pay of the Armed Forces is governed by the Armed Forces Review Board, which is an independent body. We accepted all its recommendations last year, and they did not include a recommendation to increase this allowance.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent declaration by the NATO Ministers Defence Planning Committee on the first-use of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Mulley: At their meeting in Brussels on 9th and 10th December the NATO Foreign Ministers emphasised that the member States of the Alliance could not, in the event of their being attacked, renounce the possible defensive use of any of the means available to them.
    Mr. Allaun: It is not clear that if NATO launched nuclear missiles first, it would mean suicide, because of immediate retaliation?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that the NATO Alliance has any intention of indulging in aggressive action at all. The question, which is not a new one, is whether the renunciation of the first use would or would not assist us in our deterrent posture, and the member countries of the Alliance have decided that it would not.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the Secretary of State aware that the more that the Government continue policies of cutting away at our conventional forces the more likely it makes the thing that worries the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), which is a first strike by this country in nuclear arms, the only way out?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that for 30 years we have accepted that we cannot conduct the defences of this nation entirely on our own. We are part of an Alliance, in terms of both nuclear and conventional capability. As I have said at some length, we are playing and shall continue to play a full rôle in that collective defence.

    Service Hirings
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Service hirings are currently occupied by ex-Service men or their families.
    Dr. Gilbert: Ten, Sir.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister realise that a large number of Service hirings are from time to time occupied by families who have nowhere to live, and that it is the fault of the local authorities of origin from which the Service families come, which do not take proper note to Circular 54/75, issued by the Department of the Environment, which asks local authorities to give sympathetic consideration to families who come from their areas? Will the Minister seek to work with the Department of the Environment to revise that circular and try to give better home prospects to families who come from their areas?
    Dr. GilbertIf there are any particular cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind I shall be only too happy to look into them. The Ministry of Defence keeps in close contact with local authorities in cases where there are problems about ex-Service men having to give up hirings to which they are no longer entitled. However, I am not aware in general of many problems, although, as I have said, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind I shall be happy to look into it.
    Mr. Newens: Bearing in mind the appalling hardship and nervous strain that is imposed on Service families who are subjected to this state of affairs, is it not totally unjustified that in many cases my hon. Friend should have to seek a warrant for possession before local authorities are prepared to rehouse? In those circumstances is it not absolutely essential to issue another circular to replace Circular 54/75?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am always happy to look into points raised by my hon. Friends, and I shall be very happy to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, As I say, at present only 10 Service hirings are being occupied by ex-Service men and their families.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: It is a bigger problem.
    Dr. Gilbert: I am certainly happy to look into any aspects that have not been drawn to my attention.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other NATO Defence Ministers about the latest defence cuts.
    Mr. Mulley: As I explained to the House on 12th January, I have already informed NATO, through the Secretary General, of the defence budget reductions. We shall discuss the outcome of our study on 1977–78 as soon as it is ready. For 1978–79 there is time to consult NATO fully and I have undertaken to do so at an early and formative stage in our study of the measures required.
    Mr. Blaker: Will the Secretary of State now kindly answer the question put to him a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew)? Is it not perfectly clear that every time we cut our conventional forces in Europe we make it more likely that at an early stage of a future conflict we shall have to resort to nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Mulley: I have made it clear that we stand by the commitment that we have to maintain BAOR at its present strength unless and until it is possible to reduce it as a result of a success in the multilateral force reduction negotiations that are taking place, so we have no intention of reducing our conventional forces assigned to NATO on the central front.
    Mr. Dalyell: When my right hon. Friend attends the Cabinet in order to discuss devolution on Thursday morning, will he suggest that in the referendum there could be a question such as "Though it is regarded as absolute operational nonsense by NATO, do you favour a tartan navy, a tartan army and a tartan air force?"?
    Mr. Mulley: I have not yet seen the Cabinet agenda for Thursday, but I doubt very much whether the question of a tartan navy, army and air force will be among the items that we shall be discussing. However, I am aware of my hon. Friend's point of view. I think that it would be very unwise if devolution were

    1155
    to go so far as having separate defence forces for the component parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his answer just now—that there is no intention to reduce our conventional contribution to NATO—means that there will be no further cuts in the logistical support for the Rhine Army, which has already been seriously deprived of its ability to do its existing job by reason of the cuts already made?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not accept the suggestion that the Rhine Army is not in a proper state of readiness should it be called upon to perform its task. It is well recognised that we contribute in quantity and particularly in quality to the defence forces of NATO. Obviously, in every field of endeavour those concerned would like things more up to date, and more of this and that, but I think that we compare quite favourably with most NATO countries in the nature of our contribution.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Wearying though my right hon. Friend may find the task, will he continue to try to educate Opposition Members to the simple proposition that no country can be militarily strong if it is economically and financially weak?
    Mr. Mulley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that the economic strength and industrial regeneration that the Government seek to achieve will also play a very important part in our contribution to the Alliance.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is it not quite clear that the Secretary of State gave no proper notice to the NATO Defence Ministers meeting that he attended that cuts in defence expenditure were to be made? Will he admit that he assented to a communiqué that said that NATO forces should be maintained and not reduced, and further, did he not agree, as soon as he came home, to cutting defence, which he had agreed not to cut? How can he possibly justify that behaviour, not only to our Allies but to this House?
    Mr. Mulley: I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman before that the discussion of these matters did not take place in the normal discussion of the Defence Planning Committee. In my recollection there has never been a com-
    1156
    muniqué issued by NATO after such a meeting, or any report of the Military Committee of NATO, that did not express dissatisfaction with the present level of forces and, quite properly, the need, on military grounds, for an increase. The right hon. Gentleman must have seen them year after year when he was in office.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus.
    Mr. Mulley: There are no plans to alter the current level of British Forces in the sovereign base areas in Cyprus.
    Mr. Townsend: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that Britain's presence in Cyprus is welcomed by both the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community and is invaluable to the United Nations peacekeeping force on the island? Does he further appreciate that our NATO Allies are greatly concerned that Britain may he contemplating reducing its role in this exposed southern flank?
    Mr. Mulley: I have told the hon. Gentleman that we have no plans for altering the current level of our forces stationed in Cyprus. I went there for a few days early in January and visited all the units. As the hon. Gentleman says, I sensed that our presence was welcomed by both communities in Cyprus.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is an important link between the fact that we have forces stationed in Cyprus and our status as a guarantor power of the Geneva Agreement? Will he assure the House that in moving towards some sort of agreement on Cyprus our forces and our presence on the island can play a part in reassuring both sides?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend tempts me to go into the realm of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I am sure that all parts of the House would like to see a settlement of the Cyprus problem, but the responsibility for that lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

    1157
    Affairs, and questions on policy should be addressed to him.
    Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he recognises that nothing would do greater political damage to the unity of NATO than for Britain to leave the sovereign base areas, with all the consequential grounds for potential disagreement between the Greeks and Turks as to who should take over those areas?
    Mr. Mulley: It is a very strong statement to say that nothing could do more damage than a particular course of action. However, as I have already made clear, I attach importance to our presence in Cyprus in present circumstances.

    BAOR
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures available for the number of British troops in Germany, the number of German civilians employed and the balance of payments cost; and what progress has been made in obtaining adequate offset arrangements from the German Government.
    Mr. Mulley: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 14th December.
    Mr. Roberts: In view of the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister and Helmut Schmidt, indicating that an offset agreement is likely in the next two or three months, will my right hon. Friend assure the House, and make it clear to the German Government at the same time, that there is no possibility of our accepting anything like the whole or the great bulk of the costs?
    Mr. Mulley: I have explained to the House and to my hon. Friend before that it is not the practice for the Ministry of Defence to take the lead in such negotiations. As I have already stated, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to make a report to the House on the talks that took place with Chancellor Schmidt over the weekend. I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's report at this stage.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the value of the NATO Alliance, of which Britain
    1158
    is a part, is immense in that we are able to station troops in Germany and train them there, and that that cannot necessarily be measured purely in terms of a sterling-deutschemark offset?
    Mr. Mulley: I accept, as I have said previously, that our presence in Germany is part of the collective NATO defence. In any event, offset agreements in the past have been only a part, or a small contribution—nevertheless, a helpful contribution—to the foreign exchange aspect that is our particular problem.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in just under a decade the foreign exchange costs of the British Army of the Rhine have increased tenfold? Does he believe that it is an appropriate way of sharing the burden of the Alliance that the member country with the largest balance of payment deficit should pay £500 million across the exchange to the member country with the largest balance of payments surplus?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend has put the position very clearly. Our special problem is foreign exchange costs, which will be the basis of any settlement that, I hope, will be forthcoming.

    Travel Warrants
    Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the issue of free travel warrants to Service personnel.
    Dr. Gilbert: The issue of free travel warrants to Service personnel is a longstanding entitlement which, as far as leave travel is concerned, was reaffirmed in the 1969 report of the National Prices and Incomes Board. We have no plans to change the current entitlement.
    Mr. Pattie: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that it would have an adverse effect on Service morale if at any time in future free travel warrants were to be withdrawn, or even taxed?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the impact of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975 on the question whether warrants should be subject to tax. Discussions are continuing with the Inland Revenue. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

    Housing Stocks
    Mr. Grocottasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will appoint a committee of inquiry to examine his Department's management of its housing stock.
    Dr. Gilbert: No, Sir. I am satisfied that steps are being taken to dispose of surplus accommodation as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the hon Gentleman reconsider his reply, in view of a number of disturbing facts that have emerged in response to questions that I have put to him in recent months? Does he agree that it is deplorable that it should be regarded as normal for 13 per cent. of Ministry of Defence houses to be empty at any given time? Does he further agree that it is an affront to the homeless that a number of the houses have been empty, on his admission, for over four years and that local inhabitants, whom I tend to believe, say that they have been empty for as long as eight years?
    Dr. Gilbert: I think that my hon. Friend is slightly misinformed. It is right that 13 per cent. of the stock is vacant at present, but that is not considered normal. We consider about half that proportion to be adequate for normal management requirements. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that some MoD properties have been lying vacant for many years, but our problem is that some are in isolated situations and it is difficult to find purchasers for them, whether private individuals or local authorities.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which a small number of Service careers are ended by furniture being dumped on the street is nothing less than a scandal? I appreciate recent reassurances that only Ministers will give orders to take such action, but does the Minister accept that the only real way of dealing satisfactorily with the problem is to ensure that the local authorities of origin accept their responsibilities for families who come from their areas?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have no difficulty in accepting the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. One difficulty is that sometimes a hiring has been taken over
    1160
    by the Ministry to meet a short-term shortage, and the owner of the hiring may want vacant possession, to which he may be legally entitled. In those circumstances there is no alternative, unfortunately, but to ask the people who are in the property to leave. I recognise the difficulty in these cases. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any particular cases, I shall be happy to look into them.

    NATO Defence Ministers
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to meet NATO Defence Ministers.
    Mr. Banksasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Secretary-General of NATO.
    Mr. Mulley: I expect, as usual, to meet the Secretary-General and my colleagues at the NATO ministerial meetings. The dates for the next meetings have not yet been fixed, but I hope it will be possible for one to be arranged next month.
    Mr. Luce: In view of the warnings from the Secretary-General of NATO, General Haig, and now this week from Vice-President Mondale, that the position of NATO in relation to the Warsaw Pact is weakening and that the Allies must pull their weight in the Alliance, will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity at his next meeting with the Defence Ministers to assure them that Britain will play its full part in defending the West, even if that means reversing the three defence cuts of 1976?
    Mr. Mulley: The next meeting, which I hope will be arranged next month, will be arranged at my request because I want the Alliance to come to an early decision about the most urgent military requirement, namely, to have an airborne early warning system against the possibility of surprise attack. The fact that we have taken the lead in this matter is an indication of the contribution that we are making to the Alliance.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Ministers of the other member countries of NATO.
    Mr. Mulley: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on

    1161
    13th December, except that I met Herr Leber yesterday.
    Mr. Goodhew: Should the right hon. Gentleman not take early measures to meet these defence Ministers in view of the statement made by the Vice President of the United States in which he was reported to say that President Carter is
    "committed to the NATO Alliance"—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Goodhew: I am reading President Carter's words—
    "and wants to make it a more effective fighting force and deterrent in the face of continuing growth in Soviet military power".
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not here when I pulled up another hon. Member for quoting at Question Time.
    Mr. Goodhew: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that President Carter is on record as saying that he wants to make the NATO Alliance a more effective fighting force and a deterrent, in view of increasing Soviet armaments. The President has also said that he is anxious to help with investment if the European Governments are prepared to follow him. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to follow the United States President, and will he tell the Defence Ministers so?
    Mr. Mulley: I take every opportunity of meeting my colleagues in NATO. I think the question was directed at a collective meeting of the Defence Ministers. I shall certainly wish to renew my acquaintance with Dr. Brown at the earliest opportunity, but since he has been in office for only five days it has beeen a little difficult to see him so far. I remind Opposition Members that, as I recollect, President Carter also talked about substantial economies in his defence budget.
    Mr. George Rodgers: When my right hon. Friend meets his fellow Defence Ministers in NATO, will he urge that they do not lightly reject the proposition from the Soviet bloc that members of the NATO Alliance and Warsaw Pact should sign an international agreement that no nation will be the first to use the nuclear weapon? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this has created some
    1162
    interest in this country and that many people entirely reject the notion that we should use this weapon as a first strike? To reject the proposition entirely would be a great propaganda victory for the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Mulley: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present when I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). This is not a new proposition. As I said, it would not be right to enter into a categorical commitment of that kind, because it is necessary for NATO to retain its option, although there is no question whatever of NATO initiating any aggression against the Warsaw Pact or anyone else.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Bearing in mind that reducing the impact of air attack upon the civilian population increases the strength of a country's defence posture, will the Minister ask his ministerial counterparts when he meets them why the Soviet Union is devoting so much attention to building large underground shelters, why the Chinese are doing the same, and what is the lesson for this country and its Western allies?
    Mr. Mulley: These questions are under study within NATO. To a limited extent arrangements are made in the NATO infrastructure programme for such provision, for example in airfields and other key installations.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to sign an agreement not to be the first to use nuclear weapons we would have to strengthen our conventional forces to such an extent that my hon. Friends would turn pale at the prospect of what they would have to pay?
    Mr. Mulley: It is important that NATO should retain a substantial conventional capability, but at the same time it is necessary in present circumstances for the three levels of defence forces—conventional, theatre nuclear and strategic nuclear—to be retained. The proper way to get disarmament is by international agreement on the lines that the United States Administration is pressing in SALT and that NATO is seeking to achieve in the mutual balanced force reductions negotiations in Vienna.
    Mr. Churchill: Is the Secretary of State aware that on 8th December he lent his name to a defence communiqué on behalf of the NATO Defence Ministers to the effect that the Ministers, including himself, concluded from that meeting that there was a need for real annual increases in defence expenditure by allied Governments? Within one week the right hon. Gentleman was at the Dispatch Box announcing cuts. Whom does he think he is fooling?
    Mr. Mulley: I know that the hon. Gentleman is taking a great interest in and studying defence. He should read the communiqués that have been issued over a number of years and recall that Conservative Ministers put their names to communiqués in which it was said that there was a need for 60 divisions in NATO although we are nowhere near getting them. We would all like to increase the strength of NATO. As a collective defence organisation it is growing in strength every year, not least from the improved equipment that is available, and we are playing our part by modernising our forces.
    Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce). Will the right hon. Gentleman give our NATO partners through the Secretary-General, a cast-iron guarantee that we shall not have any more cuts in our level of contribution to NATO without balanced force reductions with the Soviet bloc?
    Mr. Mulley: I have made clear that it is our intention to sustain our contribution. A good deal of misunderstanding takes place because, as the House expects we quite properly give all our figures on a basis of constant prices, while Supplementary Estimates take care of wage and other price increases during the year. But a lot of the figures of other countries are given just at the current rate and there are no adjustments during the year.
    This is an area where we are naturally not doing as much as we should like, but we are still making a substantial contribution to NATO. Talk of an absolute guarantee, cast iron and all the rest, is not the kind of language that serious and responsible people can take on board.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend find time to have talks with the new Secretary for Defence of the American Administration to see whether they can jointly fulfil President Carter's inauguration pledge to do all that he can to rid this planet of nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Mulley: I very much welcome President Carter's firm commitment to the Alliance, which we heard about today. Along with my hon. Friend I very much hope that the new Administration, both in the SALT talks and in Vienna, will give a new impetus to arms limitation and disarmament. That is the way to deal with the very serious problem to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

    Defence Lands
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence lands in view of his new proposals for defence expenditure; and if he envisages any further selling up of land proposed for release by the Nugent Committee on Defence Lands.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: It remains our policy to retain only land needed for defence purposes and to dispose of surplus property.
    About 17,000 acres of the 22,500 acres that the Government agreed should be disposed of, following the report of the Defence Lands Committee, have been passed to the Property Services Agency and are in the course of disposal.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he appreciate that many environmental groups are still disappointed at the rate of progress in the disposal of surplus Service lands?
    Mr. Brown: It is fair to say that environmental groups will always be disappointed at the rate at which we dispose of our land. Nevertheless, since 1st April 1972, Ministry of Defence land holdings have been reduced by about 31,000 acres. A further 20,000 acres are with the Property Services Agency for disposal.

    Arms Sales
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the sale of armaments to Iran.
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy regarding arms sales to countries outwith the NATO Alliance.
    Dr. John Gilbert: It is Government policy to consider sales of defence equipment to particular countries in the light of all the political, military, security and financial factors involved and our obligations to our allies.
    Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the continued and planned sales of such massive quantities of armaments to a Government such as this sadly strengthens our image in the world as a purveyor of armaments to any and every military dictatorship? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this quantity of armaments disturbs the balance of military power in that part of the world and stimulates even greater purchases of armaments by other poverty-stricken Governments in that part of the world, to the detriment of their peoples?
    Dr. Gilbert: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's first premise, that the Government supply arms to any and every military dictatorship. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that this country fully observes its commitments under the United Nations embargo covering the sale of arms to both Chile and the Republic of South Africa.
    My hon. Friend raised some wider questions. I have considerable sympathy with his view that we would all prefer less developed countries—and, in fact, developed countries—to spend less of their national wealth on armaments and more on goods that are of more peaceful use to their inhabitants.
    As my hon. Friend will be aware, President Carter only yesterday said that Vice-President Mondale will be discussing arms sales on his trip to Europe. It would be premature of me to comment any further at this stage.
    Mr. Cook: I accept my right hon. Friend's last remark that it would be premature to comment, but can he assure us that the approach from Vice-President Mondale, resulting from President Carter's statement that he intends to give priority abroad to the sale of arms to third world countries, will receive a sympathetic response from the Government?
    Dr. Gilbert: It is not for me, without notice, to commit the Prime Minister but I should be very surprised if my right hon. Friend did not receive all Vice-President Mondale's constructive suggestions with a hearty welcome.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Surely the only criteria to be applied in these cases is the immediate security of the United Kingdom. Is it not the case that the refusal of arms sales to countries for doctrinaire reasons, regardless of what the United Nations may say, damages employment prospects for many of those in the industries concerned?
    Dr. Gilbert: It is true that if the arms trade were to cease there would be employment consequences in the short run for this and every other arms-producing country. On the other hand, those countries would have more money to spend on other things to which one would hope that the firms producing armaments would be able to switch their production.
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of sales of arms by Great Britain to countries in the Third World over the past decade.
    Dr. Gilbert: The total value of defence exports from the United Kingdom has in current prices risen from about £150 million in 1966–67 to an estimated £700 million in 1976–77. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to give details of sales of defence equipment to specific countries or groupings of countries.
    Mr. Newens: Is it not appalling that when the people of the Third World are so desperately poor and in need of the means of production we should specifically promote to them the means of destruction? If we accept the economic arguments pure and simple, are we not in the same position as the people who would sell arms to gangsters and terrorists?
    Dr. Gilbert: As my hon. Friend is aware, it is the right of every sovereign State to buy armaments for its defence. I share my hon. Friend's concern that so many less-developed countries see fit to spend a proportion of their exiguous wealth on armaments rather than on more

    1167
    productive goods for the benefit of their inhabitants.
    Mr. Tebbit: Could the Minister persuade the East European and Communist bloc countries to do a little less exporting of arms? For example, fewer Czech rifles in Ulster might be conducive to greater peace within the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Gilbert: We should all welcome a reduction in the arms trade, in whichever direction.
    Mr. Cook: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one-third of the £700 million to which he referred is accounted for by arms purchased by Iran? Is he aware that at a recent congressional hearing it was said that Iran had more tanks, more aircraft and more helicopters than any other country outside the two super Powers? Is it in the interests of stability in that region for such an enormous military super Power to emerge there?
    Dr. Gilbert: One consideration that Her Majesty's Government take into account in approving arms sales to any country is whether the arms would serious jeopardise the balance of power between the countries in the area involved.

    CHANNEL ISLANDS
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the Channel Islands.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will visit the Channel Islands.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Skinner: Did my right hon. Friend see a recent report in The Sunday Times suggesting that £1,000 million is lost in the financial year to the United Kingdom taxman by tax evasion through the Channel Islands? Did he see a recent report that Spillers—the bread and biscuit group—had raised £11 million on the pretext of investing in new plant and machinery and had used the money to set up a company in the Channel Islands to evade the profit levels set by the Price Commission? Should not these loopholes be closed immediately? In his new rôle as economic supremo, will he not take
    1168
    on the task himself, as the Chancellor has not?
    The Prime Minister: I always look to my hon. Friend for accuracy in these matters, so I must repudiate once again the last part of his supplementary question. Tax avoidance and tax evasion are serious matters. I agree with my hon. Friend that they are not admirable devices and that the persons who carry out evasion or avoidance are not to be admired. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is constantly considering the possibility of closing loopholes and has taken several steps in this direction, for example, on capital transfer tax. I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Roberts: In view of the special relationship between the Channel Islands, Britain and the Crown, will my right hon. Friend initiate negotiations with the Governments concerned to try to close the loopholes by which thousands of people and many British companies are dodging British taxes? During those negotiations, will my right hon. Friend also bring forward a matter that I have raised with the Home Office concerning Channel Islands prisoners who are in British gaols? They are separated for long periods from their families and are imprisoned because of the medieval laws which operate in the Channel Islands.
    The Prime MinisterI take note of what my hon. Friend says about discussions with the authorities in the Channel Islands, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is free to take what legislative action he thinks right. My recollection, from a former office I held, is that as the Channel Islands have few facilities for holding prisoners we offer them facilities from time to time. I shall bring the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, although his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) today asked a supplementary question about the Channel Islands, where the level of unemployment is about 2 per cent., this time five years ago he was busy disrupting Question Time in the House of Commons because the then announced level of unemployment was

    1169
    unacceptably high, although it was two-thirds of the level of unemployment announced today. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the figures announced today illustrate the failure of all his economic policies and demonstrate once again that the Labour Party is the natural party of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I can only admire the humbug of hon. Members who cheer that question, when I recall that the policies they have been pressing upon the Government would at least double the present level of unemployment. As for the nature of the problem, I agree with the right hon. Lady that the total is not one that should be tolerated. But I repeat what I have often told the House, that I do not think it is possible that the figure will be reduced for some time. As long as we are trying to squeeze inflation out of the economy, this is unfortunately one of the consequences that we must face. However, the right hon. Lady should assist in these matters by explaining to the country that if we are to overcome inflation difficult measures must be taken. The Government intend to continue to take them.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The fact is that it is the Labour Government's refusal to take the appropriate measures earlier that has led to large unemployment now. Is the Prime Minister aware that he may run away from responsibility but he cannot run away from the facts?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of running away from the facts. The right hon. Lady shares considerable responsibility for the present level of unemployment.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Rubbish.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady was a member of the Administration which allowed the M3 figure to rise to unprecedentedly high levels. That has been working its way through the economy for some years. The right hon. Lady knows it. That figure has now been reduced. It is coming down fast. That is why we can look forward with some confidence to a considerable improvement in our economic prospects, to increasing exports, to a better balance of payments position, and to the regeneration of British industry. All that will lead to more employment.
    Mr. Heffer: Without in any way indulging in the humbug we hear from the Opposition Benches, may I say that my right hon. Friend must be aware that on the Labour Benches and in the Labour Party in the country there is a deep and growing concern about the level of unemployment? When will the Cabinet get down to dealing with the question of unemployment by introducing, for example, public works schemes, policies of import substitution and much else? We cannot tolerate the present level of unemployment for much longer.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that genuine concern about the matter is felt throughout the country. The Cabinet and I certainly share that concern and feel it very deeply. A number of measures have been introduced, such as the youth employment subsidy, the job creation scheme, work experience projects and schemes for apprenticeships. All these have helped. I was looking at the figures the other day, It is reckoned that during this year such measures will assist about 200,000 young people. I cannot promise my hon. Friend the party, the House or the country that unemployment will be substantially reduced, whatever palliatives are introduced during the next few months. I cannot avoid saying that. It must be understood. I ask the country to have patience. The economic situation is steadily improving, and the improvement will continue.
    Mr. Prior: Was not the February 1974 election fought on the slogan "Back to work with Labour" and was not the October election of that year fought on the basis that the Labour Government had got unemployment moving down? Therefore, why does the Prime Minister have the humbug to try to cast the blame on to someone else?
    The Prime Minister: What I did was to suggest that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition should share the responsibility. I did not cast it off on to her; I said that she should share it, and she should. So should the right hon. Gentleman, because he was a member of the same Administration. It is true that the February 1974 election was fought on the slogan "Back to work with Labour", and within a matter of days my right hon.

    1171
    Friend the then Secretary of State for Employment—the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—had got the miners back to work.

    DEFENCE CHIEFS OF STAFF
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Prime Minister when he next intends meeting the Defence Chiefs of Staff.
    The Prime Minister: If the House will permit me, I should like to express my deep regret at the news of the death yesterday of the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Andrew Humphrey. The answer to the hon. Member's Question is that I see the Chiefs of Staff from time to time in the course of normal Government business.
    Mr. Marshall: The whole House will wish to be associated with the Prime Minister's remarks, in view of the tragic death of the Chief of the Defence Staff yesterday.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to pay tribute not only to that distinguished officer but to all other holders of the office and to reaffirm that his Government—indeed, any Government —regard their prime duty as the defence of the realm?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is certainly my very strong view, but the matter must also be seen in conjunction with our relations with our NATO Allies. None of us is an island unto himself in these days. I should like to repeat the view expressed by Chancellor Schmidt yesterday that although the build-up of Soviet arms is a matter for concern it may be that in the future the Soviet Union will attain parity in strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union exceeds us in conventional weapons, but it would be wrong to panic, because at present the balance is still maintained, and I believe that the security of the West is still in good shape.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: When my right hon. Friend meets the Chiefs of Staff will he explain to them that over the past three years our defence commitments overseas, especially in Western Germany, were equal to the loan that we have just had to obtain from the International Monetary Fund, with all its conditions, and that over the next 12 months the balance
    1172
    of payments cost of our military commitments overseas could rise to £1,000 million? In the light of his efforts to try to secure an offset agreement, which have failed, will my right hon. Friend also tell the Chiefs of Staff that we can no longer afford the economic burden of military commitments overseas?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that that would unnecessarily weaken the defence of the United Kingdom. The presence of British troops in Central Europe as they are today is not only a source of stability to Central Europe but a means of an extended protection of our own islands. Therefore, I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my other right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to express the same regret as the Prime Minister has expressed about the death of the Chief of the Defence Staff, who was a very brave, very distinguished and very able officer.
    The Prime Minister said that there was no need to panic about the Soviet defence forces. We are not talking about panic but Vice-President Mondale said yesterday that America would build up her NATO forces provided her European Allies were prepared to do the same. Will the Prime Minister now assure the House that lie is prepared to match America's resolve?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly want to discuss the matter with Vice-President Mondale when he arrives, because I wonder how it would be reconciled with the proposals to reach a new strategic arms limitation agreement with the Soviet Union, which I assume would have the effect of reducing expenditure—I trust that it would—and with the need, as I see it, to try to put some fresh life into the negotiations on mutual balanced force reductions that have hung fire for two years in Vienna. This seems to me the better course for us to follow, because it is the view of a number of us in the NATO Alliance—not merely myself; I know that Chancellor Schmidt shares this view—that the strain of the Soviet Union's present build-up of arms, in terms of its economic strength, must be considerable, and both of us should seek to relieve ourselves of these strains.

    MOSCOW
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Moscow.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Ridley: Nevertheless, does the Prime Minister recall the Helsinki Agreement, when the Russians agreed to limit their arms build-up and to increase the freedoms of their citizens? When will the right hon. Gentleman publicly rebuke them for having done the reverse in both cases, as he has just admitted?
    The Prime Minister: I leave public rebukes to the hon. Gentleman. In my view, that is not the best way of dealing with the Soviet Union in these matters. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, it is."] That is a difference of opinion. As far as I can see, the Opposition's policy on these matters in relation to the Soviet Union seems to be to cut off trade, to have an arms race and to reduce political contacts to a minimum. I do not believe that any of that makes sense.
    Mr. Whitehead: In the formal or informal contacts that his Administration will be having with the Russians in the run-up to the Belgrade Conference, will my right hon. Friend tell them that they should not be misled by certain Right-wing circles' misuse of Russian dissidents who have recently left the Soviet Union into feeling that there is not deep discontent and disenchantment in this country at the continuing persecution of dissidents in the Soviet Union?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that that is well understood by the Soviet leadership. Although some Members of the Opposition believed that we yielded up more than the Russians in the Helsinki Agreement, I believe that the reverse is the case. It will be much more difficult for the Soviet Union to live up to its undertakings in relation to Basket III than it is for the West to fulfil its undertakings under the Helsinki Agreement. This, of course, will be a matter for serious discussion when we go to Belgrade.
    Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole nation will
    1174
    regret the loss of the Chief of the Defence Staff—a fine airman and a loyal servant of his country—and that the House will wish to convey its sympathy to Lady Humphrey?
    What did the right hon. Gentleman mean in his television broadcast last night with the Federal German Chancellor, when he declared that building up armaments must be as much a strain on the Soviet Union as it is on us, bearing in mind that the Soviet Union is spending three times the NATO average on defence and that Britain is unilaterally reducing its defence expenditure? What did he have in mind?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member's figures are correct—I do not know that they are—and the Soviet Union is spending three times as much as we are, I should have thought that it followed automatically that the strain would be three times as great.
    Mr. Newens: If my right hon. Friend does have contacts with people in the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia, will he make it clear to them that many of us on the Government Benches who are proud to proclaim Left-wing and Socialist ideas utterly deplore the treatment meted out to the signatories of Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, as well as to Soviet dissidents?
    The Prime Minister: I was asked a question about this matter last week and I should be very happy to repeat at any time what I said then.

    WEST GERMAN CHANCELLOR (TALKS)
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the visit of the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 23rd to 24th January. This was one of the series of regular six-monthly visits between the British and German Heads of Government.
    Chancellor Schmidt was accompanied by Herr Genscher, Vice-Chancellor and Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Apel, Federal Minister of Finance, Dr. Friderichs, Federal Minister of the Economy, and Herr Leber, Federal Minister of Defence. On our side the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign and

    1175
    Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Defence took part. We began with a general discussion among all Ministers followed by a series of bilateral talks and then we came together again for a final session. This pattern worked well, and the Federal Chancellor and I agreed to repeat it at our next meeting.
    The talks covered a wide range of international and Anglo-German bilateral matters. I expressed to the Chancellor the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government for the support which the Federal Government have given us in recent weeks in connection with the IMF loan and the "safety net", both of which have contributed greatly to more stable conditions in the international money markets.
    Much of our talks was concerned with the present world recession and how we should approach the series of international meetings which are in prospect over the next few months. We were agreed that a properly prepared meeting of leading industrialised countries would be helpful in co-ordinating our policies for bringing the world out of recession.
    Britain's prospects for recovery in 1977 are based on growing exports and I emphasised the importance we attach to continuing expansion in the economies of the world, including those of the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan, as a means of generating greater expansion and more employment in the rest of the world.
    We reviewed the present position of the negotiations between the industrialised countries and the developing countries in the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. We also discussed our relations with the Soviet Union and the preparations for the talks that will take place in Belgrade this summer to follow up the agreements reached at Helsinki.
    On defence matters, we welcome the declared intention of President Carter and of the Soviet Union to seek a new agreement on strategic arms limitation and agreed that the Vienna negotiations on reducing conventional arms should be given a new impetus.
    We did not attempt to reach a final agreement on the question of offsetting the cost of stationing our troops in Ger-
    1176
    many, on which our two Governments hold different positions. The Federal Chancellor pointed out that similar arrangements with the United States had already been brought to an end. Our discussions will continue and we are both confident that we shall with time reach a conclusion on this matter.
    Our joint interests with the Federal Republic of Germany cover many areas —in the European Community, in NATO and more recently in the Security Council of the United Nations. I am glad to report that in all these fields our relations are close and in good repair.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his courtesy in always reporting to the House the results of these conversations. However, we should like the reports to be a little more informative sometimes. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions. The first is about defence. He says that he has not reached or attempted to reach a final agreement on offsetting costs, yet the last one expired in March 1976. Will he undertake to have no reduction in our forces in BAOR except in the context of a mutual and balanced force reduction agreement in the meantime?
    Second, as the right hon. Gentleman has discussed the economic position with the Federal Chancellor, may I ask whether he discussed with him why our own index of industrial production has risen by only 3 per cent. over the last year, while Germany's has risen by 9 per cent., that of the United Sates by about 8 per cent. and Japan's by about 11 per cent? There is expansion in the world but we are not getting it here. Did the Prime Minister discuss why our performance is so much worse than theirs?
    Third, what did the right hon. Gentleman say to the Federal Chancellor about the prospects of direct elections here?
    The Prime Minister: I would wish to be as informative to the House as possible, but when there are joint discussions with other Heads of Government there has to be a certain reticence in what is said afterwards. However, I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Lady says.
    As for the reduction in our forces in Germany, as a matter of policy it is certainly not the Government's desire to

    1177
    reduce such forces, for the reasons that I gave in an answer just now. We also have treaty obligations on this matter which are well understood and which were entered into by the Earl of Avon many years ago. There is, therefore, no intention of reducing our forces pending any discussions or agreements on mutual balanced force reductions in Vienna.
    I do not think that the right hon. Lady will expect me to give a short and concise answer to her question about why the United States and the Federal Republic have done better. One reason which certainly stands out is that their expansion has been export-led. That is certainly true of the Federal Republic and of Japan. That is why it seems to us that some expansion in the internal German economy might help to increase exports elsewhere. As I said earlier today, it is our intention now, and we are working on it—this is one of the reasons why we cannot have domestic reflation—that exports should be in the lead for our recovery, too, so that it is soundly based. That means having to withstand a great deal of pressure for easy reflation, which would be simple to do but would upset and offset many of the things that we should be tackling.
    As for direct elections, we discussed Community matters but we did not discuss that matter in particular. However, the Government's intention still stands.
    Mr. David Steel: In discussing with the Federal Chancellor the relative success of the German economy, was the Prime Minister able to make any assessment of the contribution to it which has been made by the system of industrial partnership which we ourselves, as an occupying Power, helped to introduce into Germany at the end of the last war? If so, does not the right hon. Gentleman now regret that the terms of reference and membership of the Bullock Committee were so rigged as to produce such an unsatisfactory report as we shall all receive officially tomorrow?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we had some discussion about industrial democracy or industrial partnership, because it has had considerable success in the Federal Republic—as I believe it will have here.
    1178
    As regards the Bullock Report, there is no point at this stage in jobbing back to the terms of reference. I have never seen a report that has been so criticised, attacked and described prior to its publication. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to read it first—or he may have already done so —before he asks me further questions.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Prime Minister reveal how much offset the German Chancellor is prepared to offer to this country against the £500 million a year that we are spending across the exchanges on BAOR? Has not this drain continued year after year? If West Germany will not pay up, why cannot we do as the French have done and reduce by 10,000 the 55,000 men we have in Germany?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I cannot reveal how much the German Chancellor has offered, because we have not yet reached the stage of discussing figures. The position of the German Government is clear. They wish to bring the matter to an end because they feel that certain political taints are attached to this occupation which they very much resent. I understand that attitude, as I am sure we all do.
    On the subject of whether we should follow the action taken by the French, I must remind my hon. Friend that the French have never had an offset agreement and have never secured any payments from the Federal Republic for these costs but have borne them year after year. Therefore, there is a big difference between their situation and ours. They do not have a duty that requires them to maintain a certain number of troops, whereas we do.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Did the Prime Minister discuss with the German Chancellor the arrangements and procedures for "crisis control" within NATO? I am referring to the prevention of war rather than the situation that exists after the outbreak of war. Is the Prime Minister aware that General Alexander Haig recently said that he was not satisfied with the security of communications or with "crisis control"?
    The Prime Minister: I did not discuss that matter with the German Chancellor,

    1179
    but our Ministers of Defence had discussions. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will table a Question on that topic to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Cant: In view of the underlying improvement in our balance of payments situation and the fact that we are now supported by massive loans, does not my right hon. Friend feel it possible to ask the German Chancellor whether Britain could reduce its minimum lending rate by a further 2 per cent. to prevent the crippling of investment by local or central authorities in this country?
    The Prime Minister: That is an ingenious supplementary question, but we did not discuss either minimum lending rates or base rates. I am sure that my hon. Friend was pleased to see that base rate was reduced today by 1 per cent. I trust that that will be the beginning of a trend. There is no doubt that last year interest rates hampered industrial development, especially in small businesses. It is Government policy as soon as it is prudent to do so to see that interest rates are reduced.
    Mr. Baker: Is it not clear that the Prime Minister did not find time yesterday to discuss with the German Chancellor the subject of direct elections to the European Assembly, which are likely to take place in other European countries in May or June next year? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to introduce the Bill providing for direct elections sufficiently early in the present Session to give it a reasonable chance to get through Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: That proposal was in the Queen's Speech, and the Cabinet is now considering when a Bill should be introduced.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he was able to take any initiative in talks on the reprocessing of nuclear fuels? Does he feel that we are any nearer to agreement with Germany in a joint European approach to President Carter, not only on the centralisation of reprocessing plants but on the subject of the international transportation of nuclear materials? Does he not think that a European initiative with President Carter is now possible?
    The Prime Minister: We had some discussions on the processing and commercial arrangements in respect of nuclear fuels, which is a most important matter. My hon. Friend is correct to focus on the problems and dangers that can be associated with them. Our policies and those of the Federal Republic are close in these matters, but we did not discuss the particular problem of the internationalising of transport arrangements or of centralising them. My hon. Friend can take it that there will be serious discussions with the new United States Administration so that we can achieve a concerted policy.
    Mr. Walters: Did the Prime Minister discuss with the West German Chancellor the situation in the Middle East? Bearing in mind that for many years there has not been a better opportunity than now exists to achieve a settlement, should not Western Europe be playing a much more active role in achieving that settlement? If no settlement is reached and another war results, will not Western Europe suffer more than anybody else, apart from the confrontation countries?
    The Prime Minister: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is very much in our minds as to the dangers that might arise from any inability to settle the Middle East situation. We discussed what possible helpful steps might be taken by the Community or any one member of it. I prefer not to go into any further detail now.
    Mr. Anderson: Did the subject of our mutual images of each other arise in the discussions? Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of the West German Government and population concerning the daily diet of war films served up on our television screens? If so, will my right hon. Friend use all his influence to ensure that a proper realistic image of today's Germany comes across to our population?
    The Prime Minister: This matter arose only in the course of the television discussion involving the German Chancellor. The Chancellor did not raise the matter with me as a subject of high policy. He expressed on television last night the irritation felt in Germany about some of these films. I tried to explain that we have repeats of old films and of old

    1181
    trends. I am told that the trend on television at the moment is towards the 1920s—and I think that I can certainly qualify on that score. These matters go round in circles. I hope that the German Chancellor has not taken the matter too seriously, because it does not represent the underlying attitude of the British people.
    Several Hon. Members rose
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another major statement to follow, together with other business. Therefore, I shall call two further speakers from each side. I call Mr. Crouch.
    Mr. Crouch: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what appears to be a good relationship with the German Federal Chancellor? Will he use that growing friendship to persuade the Chancellor to receive people from this country, principally trade unionists and employers, to explain to them the basis of industrial democracy as practised in Germany, which is one of co-operation and does not involve handing over control to one side or the other?
    The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. There was such a meeting last July between the Federal German Chancellor and members of the Bullock Committee, including those who signed both the majority and the minority reports. I accept that the principle of industrial democracy, if it is to be permanently based, must arise from agreement between both sides. I shall be striving for such a principle in whatever discussions follow the Bullock Report.
    Mr. Fernyhough: From what my right hon. Friend said, it would appear that the Federal German Chancellor was somewhat upset at the raising of the question of offset costs. When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chancellor, will he remind him that last year the German Government came to a good agreement with the Americans concerning United States forces stationed in Germany and that if matters go that far with us we shall have no quarrel with the Chancellor?
    The Prime Minister: The Chancellor was not upset. He explained his position and I explained ours. As I recollect it,
    1182
    the agreement with the Americans last year was a final and conclusive agreement on the sum of $61 million. I am not able yet to say whether that would be a satisfactory ending to the problem as far as we are concerned.
    Mr. Marten: As the balance of trade deficit of about £460 million in 1976 with Japan has led to talks with the Japanese in which they have been asked to restrict exports from that country, and as there is a balance of payments deficit amounting to some £900 million with the Germans, is the Prime Minister following the logic of the Japanese situation and asking the Germans to restrict their exports?
    The Prime Minister: The logic of that situation would demand that the Japanese were as open to receive our exports as are the Germans. This is a serious matter. I take the view that the expansion of the internal German economy would be one way in which we could hope to improve our exporting prospects. I pressed that view on the Chancellor.
    Mr. Dalyell: Did the Federal Chancellor express any curiosity about our country's constitutional problems, especially when he has 17 million Bavarians and Franz Josef Strauss? Did he comment on the demand of nationalist Members on the Opposition Benches in this House and of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for separate Scottish seats in the Council of Ministers and on the Commission?
    The Prime Minister: We did not discuss these particular matters but, in view of my hon. Friend's concern about it, if the Chancellor raises the issue at a future date I will unleash my hon. Friend upon him—and God help both of them.

    RHODESIA
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Rhodesia.
    As I told the House on 14th December, I authorised Mr. Richard to adjourn the Geneva Conference and to undertake intensive consultations in Southern Africa with a view to laying the foundations for an agreement on an interim Government. In particular, I asked him to develop with

    1183
    the parties some new and positive ideas, including our ideas on the direct rôle which Britain would be read to play in the transitional period.
    Following Mr. Richard's first round of consultations, we set out what we had in mind in a document, copies of which have been placed in the Library. This document was given to each of the Geneva delegations, the four African front-line Presidents and Mr. Vorster.
    The suggestions in the paper did not constitute a cut-and-dried British plan. Nor were they presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. They were intended to provide a serious and detailed basis for negotiations and were open to amendment and modification in the light of those negotiations.
    But in our view these proposals represented a reasonable way forward. They were designed to meet the concern of the nationalists that the transfer to majority rule should be rapid and irreversible, and of the white Rhodesians that it should be peaceful and orderly. They would have led to the ending of the war and the lifting of economic sanctions. They were supported by the American Government, and would have set the stage for an international trust fund to help develop the Rhodesian economy and give financial reassurances to Rhodesian Europeans. They would have provided a basis for a prosperous, independent and non-racial Rhodesia.
    It was, therefore, with a deep sense of disappointment that we learnt yesterday that Mr. Smith, alone of the parties, had rejected the ideas which we had put to him, even as a basis for further negotiation. Mr. Smith claims to have left the door open for further negotiations by ex-pressing his readiness to implement the five points put to him by Dr. Kissinger in September last year. But it was clear from an early stage of the Geneva Conference that the nationalist delegations could not agree to accept these proposals as a basis for negotiation. That was why we put forward our own ideas, which, we believed, offered a reasonable way of bridging the gap between the parties.
    Mr. Smith has claimed that our proposals would have led to chaos and Marxist rule. But if there is such a risk, it is much more likely to be created by his
    1184
    rejection of these proposals. He has once more shown his inability to face reality.
    We have to accept that this present round of discussions is at an end. We now need—all of us—to take stock and to make a cool appraisal of the new situation. I have instructed Mr. Richard to remain in Southern Afria for a few more days to disuss these latest developments with some of the parties. He will then return and report to me with a full assessment of the attitudes and expectations of those concerned.
    Yesterday's events represent a serious setback to all our hopes for peace in Rhodesia. We must now give intensive study to any options which may still remain open to us in this new situation, for our goal remains a peaceful and orderly transfer to majority rule in Rhodesia.
    Mr. John Davies: Does the Secretary of State realise the deep sense of misgiving with which his statement has been heard by the House? Is he aware that the very important document to which his statement referred was not available in the Library until 3.25 p.m.? This gave us very little opportunity to study this lengthy and complicated document.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our growing anxiety about the events has been matched by the discretion with which we have endeavoured to treat the problems we all face? I must tell him and ask him to recognise that we on this side of the House feel that the Government's handling of these matters has been both dilatory and ineffective. We think that a unique opportunity was offered by the Kissinger initiative, and we believe that the inconclusive nature of the Geneva Conference and the apparently inadequate authority given to the principal spokesman for this country in these matters has led very much to the situation we face today.
    We are deeply disturbed at the way in which the statement simply discards the original basis of the Kissinger negotiations. After all, that basis embodied what constituted a great breakthrough—the acceptance within a reasonable time of majority rule, coupled with major safeguards for all Rhodesians, black and white.
    Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what he proposes to do next? A cool reappraisal does not seem to us to

    1185
    meet the needs of the case. Before Christmas he made it clear that in the event of the situation developing in a way which was not satisfactory he would be prepared to visit Africa himself. Is that now his intention? Could he also assure us that the visit of Vice-President Mondale will be used to try to define a line of policy which will bring to an end this terrifying period of uncertainty, with all its implications for Rhodesians and Africans as a whole?
    Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Gentleman's first point was that our handling of this matter has been dilatory. But after 11 years of a problem which has baffled both Labour and Conservative Governments alike it would have been absurd to expect a solution in 11 days, or even 11 weeks. It was clear that, whatever happened, the negotiations would be long-drawn-out and extraordinarily complex, and that has turned out to be the case.
    As to discarding the Kissinger proposals, I should point out to the House yet again that these were offered only as a basis for discussion, and they were not acceptable to any of the nationalist delegations. There was no question of the British Government discarding them. The notion that there was a Kissinger deal is not on. The only deal which could be made would not be between Dr. Kissinger and Rhodesia, or between the Anglo-Americans and the Rhodesians, but between the white and black Rhodesians. No one else could possibly make a deal.
    The right hon. Gentleman's third point was about my going to Africa. A week ago I thought I would go in early February, because it looked as if our proposals would meet with preliminary acceptance from everyone as a basis for negotiation. A week ago I did not expect the sudden rejection by Smith, which has knocked it on the head. What I do now is a matter for discussion after Mr. Richard comes back. Of course the Rhodesian situation is a matter which will be discussed with Vice-President Mondale—the subject will certainly be on the agenda—but it is wrong to expect that we can devise quickly and simply a new approach in a matter of minutes.
    Mr. Thorpe: Since this is, I believe, the sixth attempt to reach a settlement with Mr. Smith, some of us are not so naive as to think that one merely puts sensible proposals to him and that one then immediately gets a durable settlement. Some of us would wish to pay tribute to the tireless efforts of Mr. Ivor Richard.
    Is there not the difficulty, which might be a lesson for the future, that the Kissinger proposals never were a basis for negotiation? To Mr. Smith they were an unamendable set of proposals; to the Africans they were a set of proposals to which they were not a prior negotiating party. Is that not a recipe for disaster?
    If Mr. Smith now tries to cobble together a collection of chiefs and tries to call that genuine partnership, should we not bear in mind that the Pearce Commission, which was a totally independent Commission, made it clear that that arrangement would enjoy no credibility among African opinion in Rhodesia? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Smith wishes to keep the Marxists out of Rhodesia but that he is going the best way about inviting them in? They will not necessarily be Africans and they will certainly be armed.
    Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening tribute to Mr. Ivor Richard. I should like to endorse everything he said about Mr. Richard's strong and determined efforts to achieve a settlement. It is clear to me that no one could have done better than he has done in this situation.
    I strongly agree that if Mr. Smith attempted to reach some kind of internal settlement with a collection of chiefs, that would carry no credibility outside. No settlement to the Rhodesian problem that does not carry credibility outside has any hope of being durable.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's third point that if this is now the final break in negotiations it hugely increases the possibility of Marxists participating in the conflict, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they will be armed and not necessarily from Africa.
    Mr. Arthur Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend yet again not to get

    1187
    further involved in the Rhodesian problem? Does he not agree that the Rhodesian question is essentially a matter for the statesmen of Southern Africa, particularly if bloodshed is to avoided? With this end in view, would it not be best for the President of Zambia and the Prime Minister of South Africa once again to convene a conference of all interested parties in order to try for a peaceful settlement? My right hon. Friend will know that many of us have had little faith in the instant diplomacy of Mr. Kissinger and that we believe that Mr. Ivor Richard was given an impossible task.
    Mr. Crosland: The temptation not to become involved in Rhodesia is great for almost all hon. Members. There has been no great inter-party difference on this point. The reason why we became involved, first in calling the Geneva Conference, then in chairing it and then in sending Mr. Richard to Africa, was that it became absolutely clear last September and October that unless we were to become involved at that point to this extent no negotiations of any kind would take place. Like the majority of hon. Members, I take the view that we had a moral and constitutional obligation at any rate to get involved to the extent that we have done.
    Mr. Maudling: Before the Geneva Conference, Mr. Smith reached agreement with Dr. Kissinger on definite proposals which would bring majority rule within two years. That enormous step forward was warmly welcomed by the British Foreign Office. Did Mr. Richard make any serious attempt to get the agreement of the conference to those proposals? Is it not true that the breakdown of the conference is in no way the fault of Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Crosland: One thing at least is certain. It is that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in this matter over the last few months would have brought the negotiations with Mr. Smith to an end far more quickly than they have ended, because it was only last July that the right hon. Gentleman was advocating a resumption of sovereignty by Britain over Rhodesia. This is something that would have been wholly unacceptable to Mr. Smith.
    1188
    We have discussed the status of the proposals again and again. What was proposed and accepted, and welcomed by me, was that the proposals should be the basis for subsequent discussions. That was the only basis on which they were accepted, and this has been made clear again and again by Dr. Kissinger and myself.
    As to what happened in Geneva, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these proposals—the so-called five points—were circulated almost on the first day of the conference and were rejected by the nationalist delegations at the conference. At a later stage in Geneva the conference chairman explicity invited Mr. Smith to present the five points as a subject for discussion and to explain them. He declined to do so.
    Mr. Hooley: Is it not now clear that the major obstacle to a settlement in Rhodesia is Smith himself? Is it not also clear that there is no point in further negotiations with that individual? Is it not now important that the British Government should closely concert their future policy with the four front-line Presidents and make the maximum use of international bodies to bring pressure on Smith?
    Mr. Crosland: I agree that we must concert any future policies with the frontline Presidents, though not only with them. Others are centrally involved. We should seek to secure, as we have done so far, the maximum degree of support we can from international bodies. In that connection let me mention that the countries of the Community, whenever consulted on our initiatives in the last few months, have given us full and definite backing.
    Mr. Powell: What is the reason, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, why for over 11 years one British Government after another have fallen into a series of gross but predictable and predicted misjudgments over Rhodesia? Is it not time, even now, that we broke out of the dream that we have a moral and constitutional duty to do that which we have no power to do?
    Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in this matter and certainly, particularly in the last few months, has constantly warned the House

    1189
    and me personally that the course we were adopting involved responsibility without power. I was absolutely clear that that was the case and that that was a risk. Nevertheless I, like the majority of the House, thought that it was a risk that any British Government at that moment ought to take, even though there was throughout the possibility of failure.
    Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend consult the new American Administration of President Carter with a view to securing much more effective sanctions and economic pressure designed to bring down the Smith Government?
    Mr. Crosland: I have no doubt that all these matters will be discussed with the Vice-President when he visits this country at the end of the week and, subsequently, with President Carter.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us on the Opposition side think that during the course of the negotiations too much attention has been given to the views of the front-line Presidents, the Patriotic Front and the guerrillas and too little to the views of moderate Rhodesians of all races in that country? Will he now, therefore, consider proposing a referendum in Rhodesia to determine the first black Minister of an interim Government?
    Mr. Crosland: Conservative statesmen over the decades have taught us that foreign policy must rest not on pipe dreams but on the brute facts of any given situation. One of the facts in this situation—some people like it, others do not—is that the front-line Presidents and the Patriotic Front exist and that no settlement which does not command their assent has the slightest hope of being durable. That is simply a fact.
    As for the referendum, I say "No" if what is meant is an instant and rapid referendum. Most of the black African parties in Rhodesia have been banned there for many years and they have had no opportunity for campaigning or for grass-roots activity. That is why any election, not a referendum, must take place after these parties have had adequate time for campaigning at grass-roots level.
    Mr. Whitehead: In contradistinction to what was said by the last questioner, does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Smith has yet again disappeared down a bolt-hole, not out of respect for moderate opinion of all races but out of fear of his security chiefs and the entrenched hardliners among the white Rhodesians?
    Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that all of us on this side pay tribute to what Mr. Ivor Richard has done, not least the conversations in which he took part in South Africa, because, whether we like it or not, Mr. Vorster may be the only man who can persuade Mr. Smith to come to his senses?
    Mr. Crosland: I prefer not to speculate as to the reasons why Mr. Smith broadcast as he did yesterday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that the South African Government have a key rôle to play. That is a basic fact. If, after Mr. Richard returned home, it seemed that a visit would be helpful, I would have no hesitation in paying it.
    Mr. Blaker: Has the Secretary of State considered that both Mr. Smith and the Rhodesians might be less reluctant to accept a direct British rôle during transition to majority rule if the Labour Party had not over the last few years consistently adopted such a hostile and hectoring tone towards them? Since it will be necessary to achieve the agreement of the whole white population if there is to be peaceful transition to majority rule, will the Secretary of State do his best to see that that attitude is altered in future?
    Mr. Crosland: Mr. Smith's régime has for the past 11 years been an illegal one, and illegal régimes justify a certain amount of hostility.
    Mr. George: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that we on this side endorse the efforts that have been made by the Government to bring about peaceful transition to majority rule, and that there is overwhelming support for Mr. Richard's efforts? Does he agree that blame for the failure of the discussions must be fairly and squarely placed upon Mr. Smith's shoulders and that the prospects of all-out race war in Southern Africa have become more a reality as a result of Mr. Smith's statement yesterday?
    Mr. Luce: Does the Secretary of State agree that at the end of the day only the

    1191
    Africans and the Europeans of Rhodesia will be able to avoid the path towards mutual self-destruction? Will he consider a co-ordinated Western approach to warn the Soviet Union and the Cubans that they must keep out of the dispute, otherwise the consequences for East-West relations could be serious?
    Mr. Crosland: That danger is one of the dominant factors in the present situation. I do not doubt that there will be close and intensive discussions about it, particularly with the United States Administration. The additional danger has been created by Mr. Smith's rejection of our terms.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members do not agree that the racialist Government of South Africa have a large part to play in the matter, and that the South African Government are as brutal and racialist as the Rhodesian Government? Are not coloured peoples in those two countries fighting for their human liberty? No matter what the Tories say, is there any point in asking Mr. Vorster, who should set his own house in order democratically, to advise Mr. Smith and other racialists on how to set their house in order?
    Mr. Crosland: The Government have repeatedly made clear their views about the internal policies on the African régime of apartheid. But we have to face facts, and the fact is that the South African Government will, whether we like it or not, have an important part to play in the solutions to the problems of Southern Africa.
    Mr. Fell: Did not British Governments ignore Rhodesia almost completely until the Central African Federation was set up? Did we not knock the Federation on the head and kill Sir Roy Welensky's efforts? Does the Secretary of State agree that since then our history in Rhodesia has not been something to be proud of and that this latest action will be known as the great double-cross?
    Mr. Crosland: The early actions of which the hon. Member complains were taken by a Government of which he was a keen supporter. They were the actions of a Conservative Government, not a Labour one. I do not accept the latter
    1192
    part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Most hon. Members, with a few exceptions, of whom the hon. Gentleman is one, take the view that over the last 11 years successive Governments—and not only Labour Governments—have sought to find a solution to the outstanding racial problem of Southern Africa. I see nothing disgraceful in the attempts that have been made by successive Governments to find that solution. Total passivity would have been disgraceful.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Have we now passed the point of no return in relation to any possible negotiated peaceful settlement? If so, will my right hon. Friend now invite leaders of Zimbabwe national parties here to discuss the future with him? Does he agree that, if we are to avoid a long-drawn-out and bloody conflict, resolute and quick action will have to be taken—including force either on our own behalf or through the United Nations?
    Mr. Crosland: I do not think that the use of force on our own behalf—that is to say, the despatch of British troops to Rhodesia—is a practical possibility. I certainly would not rule out any possibility in the future. But politicians, Foreign Secretaries and Opposition spokesmen should be reluctant to accept the notion that we have reached a point of no return. We are playing for such high stakes in Southern Africa that we should not rule out in advance any possibility of resumed negotiations in the future.
    Mr. Dykes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the conference collapsed for two separate reasons: the rejection by front-line Presidents of moderates from the black side, and Mr. Smith's latest rejection? Would it be right to do the antithesis of those two things: to encourage moderate opinion in Rhodesia, through the ANC and Bishop Muzorewa, and the white Rhodesians, other than the Rhodesian Front Party, to have some sort of get-together with joint United States and United Kingdom chairmanship?
    Mr. Crosland: I do not think that I can entirely accept the first of those two reasons for the breakdown of the conference, because we have made it clear to everyone in Southern Africa that, in spite of the front-line Presidents' support being given to only the Patriotic Front, if the conference reconvened the Government

    1193
    would expect it to do so with the same number of African delegations as before—some of whom do not constitute part of the Patriotic Front.
    Mr. Lee: Does not the latest impasse demonstrate the folly of not putting down by force the original act of treason in 1965? Would it be a good idea for Britain to convene and ultimately substitute a de jure Government of Zimbabwe in exile comprising as many representative Southern African leaders as the Secretary of State can convene?
    Mr. Crosland: The answer to the first part of the question is 'No", and the answer to the second part is that it is a lot too early to propose such a long-term solution.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does not this particularly tragic debacle illustrate forcefully the extraordinary mess made by politicians who have no personal experience of the situation in Southern Africa and who have little understanding of the events that produce political solutions in that part of the world? Surely 4½ million Europeans in Southern Africa will not dance on their own coffins simply to satisfy members of the Labour Party, hon. Members and other legislators who have a concept of Southern Africa that has been proved to be ludicrous in the rest of Africa during the past 10 years, a concept defined as majority rule, but with little relevance to the realities of the situation in that part of the world?
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman appears to be an extraordinary relic of the nineteenth century in the ideas he has expressed to us. If there is a mess in Southern Africa now, it has been made not by hon. Members or by the British or American Governments but by the Governments in Southern Africa who have failed to recognise, as Mr. Macmillan said a long time ago, that there was a wind of change abroad.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, irrespective of the views of the Patriotic Front, the Kissinger proposals entirely conformed with what the right hon. Gentleman put to the House last year? Given that, would it not at least have maintained the Government's integrity if he and Mr. Richard had fought for those proposals
    1194
    in Geneva rather than abandoning them and bringing forward proposals which differed from both the view he had expressed to the House and the Kissinger proposals and, therefore, had no chance of being accepted by the régime in Salisbury?
    Mr. Crosland: When the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to examine our new proposals in detail, he will see that they are not wholly inconsistent with the Kissinger five points. I strongly agree with the editorials in today's Financial Times and The Guardian which said that there were no fundamental differences between the two sets of proposals. There are differences of detail but no fundamental differences.
    One activity which would have been pointless would have been to go on talking about the Kissinger proposals when it had become clear that they were not acceptable to the nationalist delegations. Pursuing proposals that were acceptable only to the nationalists would also have been a waste of time.
    When the hon. Gentleman studies our proposals, he will see that they offered a genuine possibility of agreement between the parties and included assurances to both parties.
    Several Hon. Members rose
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two more hon. Members.
    Mr. Goodhew: As it is clear from experience of majority rule in Africa that the local people tend to divide on tribal lines, would not Mr. Richard have been wiser to have tried for a deal with Bishop Muzorewa, who has the vast majority of Africans behind him, instead of hobnobbing all the time with Joshua Nkomo, who ratted on the 1961 constitution under pressure from the front-line Presidents, and Mr. Mugabe, who is nothing more than a terrorist and has no popular support in the country?
    Mr. Crosland: Mr. Richard has seen Bishop Muzorewa as often as he has seen any other African leader. He cannot be accused of talking only to the Patriotic Front leaders. However, it is no use the hon. Gentleman wishing away facts that he does not like as if they did not exist. The Patriotic Front and the front-line Presidents exist, and any notion of a

    1195
    solution that does not take their existence into account is a pipe dream.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Do not the right hon. Gentleman's answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) and St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) amount to granting a veto—on the grounds of realism—to the terrorists in Africa on any proposals for a settlement? If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for new options, will he consider one which he has neglected—that is, reasonable proposals which balance the interests of the British and the Africans in Rhodesia? Could he not exercise a little pressure on the African nationalists to accept such a plan instead of always concentrating abuse and pressure on Mr. Ian Smith, who is probably fairly anxious to accept reasonable proposals?
    Mr. Crosland: I have no desire to impose a veto on anyone. The only veto exercise so far is that of Mr. Smith in his broadcast yesterday, and I wish that he had not exercised it. We have attempted no particular pressure; we have desired only to achieve a settlement which is acceptable to both sides. I hope that when the hon. and learned Member studies our proposals he will share my view that there was no case for Mr. Smith's rejecting them even as a basis for further negotiation.
    Mr. Forman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help hon. Members who have been puzzled that in this long exchange following the Foreign Secretary's statement so many questions seem to have rested on the apparent differences in substance or emphasis between the British proposals that were deposited in the Library at 3.25 this afternoon and the Kissinger proposals that were made available to us last year? As the protector of the interests of the House, could you not ensure that Whitehall Departments deposit valuable and important documents relating to our exchanges much earlier so that we may form sensible views on the basis of having read the full evidence?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks to extend my powers. I fear that the decision of the Government on when to deposit documents is not a matter for me.

    QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
    Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) raised a complaint of privilege in regard to an article published in the Sunday People on 23rd January. I have considered this matter carefully and I am satisfied that it is a proper case for me to allow a motion relating to it to have precedence over the Orders of the Day.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In 1968, the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege said that the House should be
    "slow and reluctant to use its penal powers to stifle criticism or even abuse … however unjustified it may appear to be."
    In particular, the Committee thought the penal jurisdiction of the House should never be exercised
    "in respect of complaints which appear to be of a trivial character or unworthy of the attention of the House."
    Those recommendations have never been acted upon, but in its first report this Session the Committee of Privileges asked that they should be referred to it for review in the light of the experience of the House since the earlier report. The Government have tabled the necessary motion to give effect to that request, but until the recommendations of the Committee are before the House and a decision is reached and in view of your ruling today, Mr. Speaker, I think it incumbent upon me, in accordance with precedent, to move.
    That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
    Perhaps I could add, in conformity with the suggestion made by the Leader of the House in such circumstances, that I think that it would be in the interests of the House as a whole if there were no further debate on the subject now.
    Mr. Francis Pym: The House would not wish to try to anticipate the conclusion of the Select Committee on the matter referred to it. However, in view of the Committee's last report, which arose out of a matter referred to it not long ago, it would be helpful if the House could make progress with what the Leader of the House has mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman

    1197
    has tabled a motion, but it is "below the line" and I hope that he will give us the opportunity of making progress at long last on a matter which is of some importance to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

    BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS
    Mr. Grylls: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing an important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
    "the resignations, announced today, of the three senior executives of the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders and the failure of the Government to deal constructively with the problems of the shipbuilding industry."
    The matter is specific because, much as we should have disliked it, British Shipbuilders would have been set up by now had it not been for the stubborn and doctrinaire attitude adopted by the Secretary of State for Industry in refusing to drop the nationalisation of ship repairing companies.
    The matter is important for two reasons. Following the resignation of Mr. Graham Day, the chief executive, on 9th December and now the resignations of the three senior executives, there is to all intents and purposes no proper Organising Committee. In addition, many firms in the shipbuilding industry and, perhaps even more important, many jobs are now seriously at risk because the Government are not taking action. There is also the Government's obdurate refusal to use the Industry Act, which specifically provided for Government aid to shipbuilding firms when necessary.
    The matter is urgent because I understand that the Government are preparing contingency plans to set up a holding company for existing State-controlled firms. This is being put forward as an alternative to nationalisation. If this is so, all hon. Members will want to debate those alternative proposals urgently.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) gave me notice this morning that he would be seeking to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
    The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the
    1198
    purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
    "the resignations, announced today, of the three senior executives of the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders and the failure of the Government to deal constructively with the problems of the shipbuilding industry."
    I have given thought to the matter and have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

    UNEMPLOYMENT
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
    "the unemployment statistics announced today".
    The unemployment statistics announced at lunchtime today were the first accurate unemployment figures for three months.
    The matter is specific. In the United Kingdom there are now 1,448,000 people out of work, which is an increase of 77,000 in only one month. Including the 500,000 jobs which the Government claim to have saved, the underlying figures of unemployment show that basic unemployment has risen by more than 1,300,000 in three years.
    The matter is important because more than 1,200,000 people have been out of work for four weeks or more, which is 700,000 higher than three years ago.
    The matter should be given urgent consideration because in the last three years the Government have been asserting that their policies would avoid exceptional increases in unemployment. These latest figures show that the Government's assertions, policies and administrative actions have all failed.
    The matter comes within the scope of ministerial powers, and the Secretary of State for Employment or the Prime Minister could have made a full statement and answered questions earlier this afternoon. One of them should have chosen to do so, but neither chose to do so.

    1199
    I seek to apply for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 so that the House may discuss this matter urgently.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) gave me notice this morning that he proposed to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
    The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
    "the unemployment statistics announced today".
    As the House knows, I am not invited to comment on the importance of an issue or whether it should be debated. All that I have to decide is whether the matter should take precedence over the Government business as set down, and I follow the practice of my predecessor in this regard where we are dealing with a very grave and continuing problem.
    I therefore have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

  BILLS PRESENTED
    ROE DEER (CLOSE SEASONS)
    Mr. Jasper Morepresented a Bill to amend the Deer Act 1963 with respect to close seasons for roe deer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4th February and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
    DEER (NIGHTLY CLOSE TIME)
    Mr. Jasper More presented a Bill to amend the Deer Act 1963 with respect to nightly close times: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4th February and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
    SALE OF VENISON
    Mr. Jasper More presented a Bill to make provision for controlling the sale and purchase of venison: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4th February and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

    COMPANIES (AUDIT COMMITTEES)
    4.34 p.m.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to directors of companies; to make provision with respect to the appointment and functions of non-executive directors, auditors and audit committees in major public companies; to require the preparation of certain data and estimates for consideration by audit committees; and for connected purposes.
    The House has been very indulgent to my campaign since 1969 to secure reform of company law to give statutory effect to the concept of the management audit. I believe that public opinion is ready to accept legislation of this kind, in the interests of good management and efficiency of the big companies in the private sector of the mixed economy. I also feel, from correspondence I have received in recent months, that professional opinion strongly supports the recommendations contained in my Bill.
    The Bill proposes that companies employing 1,500 people or with assets of not less than £5 million should employ at least three non-executive directors. This is not a controversial proposal because the great majority of such companies already have one or more non-executive directors. But the Bill possibly breaks new ground by providing that non-executive directors in the larger companies should be required to perform a particular statutory function.
    The Bill provides that companies employing not fewer than 2,000 employees or with assets of £10 million—which includes the 700 largest publicly-quoted companies—should appoint three non-executive directors to an audit committee of the board. The auditors would have a right to attend the committee and also to convene the committee.
    In proposing the concept of an audit committee I am guided by established Canadian and United States practice. I understand that it is now generally accepted in companies quoted on the New York Stock Exchange that a subcommittee of the board should be appointed to carry out the functions of the audit committee. The directors of the New York Stock Exchange intend to make it obligatory after June 1978 for
    1202
    companies quoted on the New York Stock Exchange to have such a committee.
    I would also like the Bill to include provision in regard to the preparation of data on current performance and forward estimates as required by the audit committee. Clearly, if the audit committee is to do a responsible job it must have the necessary information to enable it to assess future profitability of the company and its ability to pay its debts as they fall due. Of course, the preparation of current data and forward estimates is normal practice in almost every large company, although sometimes it is not carried out as meticulously as might be desirable.
    The functions that I would give by statute to the audit committee are that it should meet at least twice a year, it should examine the financial statements before they are issued to the shareholders, it should report formally to the board on its meetings, it should make recommendations on the choice of auditors and should publish a statement with the balance sheet confirming, first, that the data necessary to assess the company's position had been provided as required and stating, secondly, whether in its opinion the board had duly considered its reports. I consider that the publication of such a statement would enable the members of the audit committee to exercise reasonable discipline within the company to ensure that its opinions were attended to properly.
    I would stipulate that in no circumstances should members of the audit committee release confidential company information. But should any member of the audit committee feel obliged to resign because of any special circumstances, he should report his reasons publicly.
    I recognise that hon. Members will be concerned that my Bill might in some way be in conflict with the recommendations of the Bullock Committee which are becoming generally known and, I believe, are to be published tomorrow. In fact, my recommendations are not in conflict with what I understand the Bullock Committee seeks to recommend, nor are they subsidiary. I am trying to bring in a reform in a somewhat different area, namely, in the supervisory functions of the board, and what I seek to do is not in conflict with the provision for strong

    1203
    statutory regulations in regard to employee participation. I recognise fully the importance of the move in that direction. My Bill is not in conflict with it. Indeed, I believe that if, as a result of the changes which are to come in company law, we were to see a number of fresh faces in the board rooms of our large companies, they would welcome finding the audit committee as established practice so that they would be able to look to the auditors to provide impartial professional guidance.
    Some of my colleagues, I know, wonder whether it is necessary to legislate or to legislate yet. Of course, many companies may wish to introduce audit committees without the compulsion of legislation. Some of our largest companies have already done so. Whether or not the House is willing to accept my Bill, I foresee a rapid expansion of the practice of appointing audit committees in future years.
    But the House should remember that limited liability gives certain privileges to publicly quoted companies and that they must therefore be ready to accept legislation so that the weaker companies are brought up to the standards already established in the best.
    I know that others are concerned that the people to operate audit committees may not be available in sufficient numbers. I do not believe that. British industry produces a surplus of competent, well-trained executives with suitable experience in middle life. Given the opportunity, I am sure that such people would readily be able to prepare themselves for a second career in the rôle of non-executive directors with these
    1204
    duties. Nevertheless, I should be prepared to recommend that my Bill should not be given statutory effect until, say, 1980 to enable all concerned to prepare themselves for their rôles and to study the etiquette of competent performance of the audit committee's job.
    Those are the outlines of the Bill which I seek to introduce. It has all-party support. I do not believe that it is controversial in a party sense. However, I believe that it would be a useful step forward in safeguarding shareholders, assisting employees and aiding the efficiency of British companies. I trust, therefore, that the House will give me leave, once again, to introduce this Bill.
    Qustion put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Kenneth Baker. Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. John Cope, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Edward du Cann, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. R. A. McCrindle, Mr. Tom Normanton, Mr. John Pardoe, Sir John Rodgers and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

    COMPANIES (AUDIT COMMITTEES)
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to directors of companies; to make provision with respect to the appointment and functions of non-executive directors, auditors and audit committees in major public companies; to require the preparation of certain data and estimates for consideration by audit committees; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th January and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL
  Further considered in Committee [Progress, 19th January.]
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 2

  THE ASSEMBLIES
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I should like to ask whether you will be good enough to reconsider your selection of amendments today, in particular the enormous group to which we come first and which is linked with Amendment No. 50. There are about 40 amendments and amendments to amendments in that group, but they do not all deal with exactly the same subject. They deal with two major matters and a few less major but obviously important matters.
  Of the two major matters the first is proportional representation and the method of electing to the Assemblies. The second is the size of the Assemblies in both Scotland and Wales. I should think that the Committee would infinitely prefer first to have a substantial debate confined to proportional representation and then to turn its mind to the other major matter—the size of the Assemblies.
  As these amendments are selected, those matters are mixed. I appreciate that there is some difficulty possibly from your point of view, Mr. Murton, because Amendment No. 50 refers to the size of the Assemblies. However, I do not think that alters the fact that the Committee really wants first to debate in depth proportional representation and then to turn its mind to the size of the Assemblies.
  It seems to me that the best way to achieve that result effectively would be to subdivide this enormous group of amendments. By my calculations, there are eight amendments relevant to proportional representation, over 20 amendments relevant to the size of the Assemblies and about eight amendments dealing with other significant but less major
  1206
  matters. If it is not possible to divide the amendments in that way, I hope that we may somehow debate proportional representation as a complete subject before turning our minds to anything else. I should have thought that the Committee would prefer to have a division of this enormous block of amendments.
  Will you also consider a separate vote on Amendments Nos. 525, 526 and 537? I dare say that other hon. Members will make requests for separate votes. I say that without prejudice to the request that I made earlier for a division of this block of amendments so that we may deal with the matter in what appears to me to be a more orderly manner.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to reply to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) at this stage. I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order which he intended to raise. I shall endeavour to explain the position.
  Amendment No. 50, on which the debate is founded, which includes Amendments (a) and (b) and 37 other amendments, not only deals with the method by which the initial and subsequent elections are to be conducted, but affects also the numbers of the membership of the Assemblies. All the other amendments in the group relate to one or other of these matters. After the most careful thought, I have been unable to find a way of separating any of them out for separate debate which would not run the risk of the repetition of arguments used in previous debates.
  Secondly, the Committee will have observed that Amendment No. 50 itself involves the omission of three subsections of Clause 2. Were this amendment to be agreed to, the majority of the amendments in the group could not be called since that part of the text to which they relate would have disappeared.
  It seems to me that, before coming to a decision on Amendment No. 50, the Committee should at least be able to discuss some of the alternative schemes proposed. If, however, Amendment No. 50 is defeated, there are a number of amendments in the group on which it would be perfectly possible to have

  1207
  separate Divisions. I shall be willing to receive representations about such amendments and I shall announce my ultimate decision to the Committee before calling the next group of amendments for discussion.
  Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's specific request, I shall agree to separate Divisions on Amendments Nos. 525 and 526. However, I am advised that Amendment No. 537 falls with Amendment No. 525.
  With the best will in the world, I do not see how the Chair, having called a Member, could confine him to speaking to a limited aspect only of the amendments under discussion. This is a Committee. The fact that a Member has spoken once does not prevent him from later rising again to catch the eye of the Chair.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton, of which I have given you notice. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that during last Wednesday's proceedings there was a good deal of discussion on points of law relating to the powers of this Parliament on issues such as housing and education in relation to the Scottish Assembly. On that occasion, some of us raised the question whether there should not be a statement from a Law Officer to clear up the position purely on points of fact.
  I have had a characteristically courteous letter from the Lord Advocate—who is present today—saying,
  "In the course of last Wednesday's proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill various questions were raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and yourself among others about the respective legislative competencies of Parliament and of the Scottish Assembly in relation to devolved matters, and you asked if there might be a considered statement on the matter by one of the Law Officers. I am taking this up with my colleagues and shall write to you again on the matter."
  The Lord Advocate has done us the courtesy of being present. I understand that today it might be very difficult to make a statement on what are necessarily extremely complex matters. However, I put it to you, Mr. Murton, that it is a bit difficult for the Committee to go further in the proceedings unless hon. Members are clear about these difficult matters of law.
  1208
  Reflecting upon what happened during the passage of the European Communities Act, I think that the Lord President might well agree that there is an argument for having a Law Officer almost continuously present, as indeed the former Solicitor-General was present, to clarify these very difficult and complex matters of law, without which clarification we cannot really proceed to meaningful discussions on so many subjects. Have you, Mr. Murton, had any request from the Lord Advocate?
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have received no request from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to make a statement. In any event, the matter appears to me to be one for debate. Should it arise during the course of discussion of a relevant amendment, no doubt a Minister will wish to reply to any points that may have been made.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I hope that you will not think it amiss if on a ruling of such great importance hon. Members put further points to you. I am reverting to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym).
  You, Mr. Murton, have been good enough to indicate to the Committee that you would select for Division amendments which relate to one of the separate issues which are bound up together in the amendment which is to be put as the main Question before the Committee. Of course, that enables hon. Members to indicate their opinion on that subject in the Division Lobby. However, as you will appreciate, it does not touch what is at least an equally important matter —the conduct of a debate and the possibility of a subject being thrashed out in debate in the Committee and the Committee then proceeding to a Division upon it.
  May I put this point to you, Mr. Murton? We are in this difficulty in that it so happens that Amendment No. 50 is the first in order upon the Notice Paper and therefore, if selected at all, falls to be debated first. It undoubtedly contains at least two matters that do not hang together, because, whereas for the purposes of proportional representation some

  1209
  variation in the size of the Assemblies might be desirable and even necessary, the question of the size of the Assemblies is one which can be completely separated from the method of election.
  The difficulty that the Committee is in arises because, through no particular fault of the hon. Members who drafted and tabled Amendment No. 50, the Committee, in accordance with your ruling, is debarred from having a rational debate upon a single subject and will be forced to go backwards and forwards between subjects which are not integrally connected.
  We of course understand that, under the normal proceedings of the House of Commons in Committee, if matters are disposed of on any grounds, if a part of a Bill fails to stand part on any ground, no other matters relating to that part of the Bill can be ventilated during the Committee stage and that those words, as you have explained, have fallen. However, I do not think that you can regard it as satisfactory, Mr. Murton, that we are unable to devise a means whereby two of the major subjects on this whole question of the new Assemblies—namely, the size of the Assemblies and the method of election—cannot be properly debated on their own merits.
  I draw here upon a dictum that many of us associate with the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President, who over and over again has lauded to the House of Commons the ability of the House of Commons to achieve that degree of flexibility in its proceedings that will enable it to do what it wants—to conduct the debate in the way in which it wants. I do not think that there can be any doubt that it would be the wish of the Committee to address its mind separately to the method of election and to the size of the Assemblies as separate issues.
  I am therefore appealing to you, Mr. Murton, to recognise that we have here not a matter that is restricted to just this amendment—important though it is—but a matter that relates to the efficiency of the proceedings of the House of Commons in Committee. I should like to inquire whether you are prepared to consider allowing the debate on Amendment No. 50 to proceed and for those who are discussing it to cover the whole
  1210
  ambit, but, nevertheless, to provide a means of reserving the debate upon the other question or questions involved.
  In particular, Mr. Murton, you will be aware that there is a procedure whereby in putting a Question part of the amendment which is being put to the Committee can be withheld from the Question. I believe that I am right in saying that in putting a Question the Chair is not obliged to put the whole of the Question at the same time but need put only part of it, reserving the other part for subsequent debate. I would ask you whether by that or any other means it is possible for the Committee not to be placed in this self-defeating situation of being obliged to debate together two subjects that are inherently separate from one another.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton, which was so ably put by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It seems to me, with respect to you, Mr. Murton, that there is a distinction between these two sets of amendments. The amendments on proportional representation carry a change in the size of the Assembly purely as a consequence of adopting a different electoral system. They are not primarily designed to discuss the question of the optimal size of the Assembly.
  The second series of amendments deals with the size of the Assembly given that the existing method of selection proposed in the Bill is adhered to. That is quite a different matter.
  Some hon. Members may wish to support proportional representation, taking the size of the Assembly in consequence as written in. However, if that is defeated, they may wish to take a different view, given the system proposed by the Government, of what would be the appropriate size of the Assembly.
  Moreover, perhaps I may say, with respect to the right hon. Member for Down, South and you, Mr. Murton, that there is a certain logical consequence in this, because if Amendment No. 50 is carried, that determines the precise numbers of the Assembly and there is no point in going on to debate its size. One could amend it to increase the number of added Members, or otherwise, but that

  1211
  is a secondary element. It follows logically on whether the first amendment is carried.
  I would therefore plead with you, Mr. Murton, in the interests of a clear-cut debate, to allow us to debate first those amendments on proportional representation as a block.
  The Chairman: The argument that was advanced earlier is indeed the ruling that I have given, and I explained the difficulties of the situation.
  Turning to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I am afraid that what he proposes is virtually impossible. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the matter has been gone into with the greatest care to find some means by which it would be possible—if I may use an unparliamentary phrase —to unscramble the amendment that appears first in the selection. I assure the Committee that everything has been done that could be done to attempt to do that.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I think that the Committee realises, Mr. Murton, the difficulty in which you are in and the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself. We are discussing two major constitutional factors in the Bill. Whatever view any right hon. or hon. Member may take, they are of major importance. In the framing of constitutions for different territories for which Parliament has been responsible the matters that are lumped together in 40 amendments have in the past been treated with great seriousness. There have been long debates and separate discussions.
  It is possible that we shall have a long-drawn-out debate—indeed, a ragged debate—taking place until the early hours of the morning. If the Leader of the House were a cynic—I am sure that he is not—he would say "Thank God we have got rid of that. All the constitutional matters are out of the way. We do not need the guillotine if we can have matters lumped together in this way." I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not take that view. I am wondering whether we cannot have some self-denying ordinance, to which I should be
  1212
  the first to offer myself as a sacrifice, without in any way challenging your selection, Mr. Murton.
  I am wondering whether we can agree to have a major debate on the electoral system that is to be used and to have a vote at 12 o'clock midnight or 1 o'clock in the morning, thereby going to bed fairly early, and tomorrow debate the matter of size on the assumption that the first amendment falls. It seems that the Leader of the House is always asking others to be reasonable about the allocation of time. I understand that he has even had discussions on these matters. Here is an opportunity to put him to the test and to ascertain what his judgment is in this respect.
  I believe that I have put forward a modest proposal that will help you, Mr. Murton, without in any way contesting your ruling. First, I suggest that we debate the electoral system that should be used and, secondly, that we debate the size of the constituencies tomorrow. If anyone tells me that these are not matters of major importance and that they do not demand one day each, his concept of what is constitutionally important is very different from mine.
  I believe that these are matters of vital importance. If my proposition is accepted, there is the prospect that we shall have civilised and meaningful debates. With great respect, Mr. Murton, and without challenging your selection, we shall have a hotch-potch of a debate as matters stand. The debate will go backwards and forwards and the vote, in the end, will not really mean very much.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I understood you to say that it would probably not be possible to have a separate vote on Amendment No. 537 because of its relationship with Amendment No. 525 or Amendment No. 526. If that is so, it means that we should be unable to vote on the size of the Welsh Assembly because we should have taken a decision about the size of the Scottish Assembly. We have warned the House about that sort of difficulty—
  The Chairman: Perhaps I should explain that Amendment No. 525 paves the way for Amendment No. 537.
  Mr. Edwards: With great respect, Mr. Murton, I seek to complete my submission. Amendment No. 525 deals primarily with the Scottish Assembly whereas No. 537 is explicitly directed towards the Welsh Assembly. This is precisely the difficulty that we have warned would come from muddling Scotland and Wales in one Bill.
  If it is impossible to debate proportional representation and the size of the Assemblies separately—we have already expressed our views about that—it will be equally unsatisfactory if we are unable to vote separately on the size of the Welsh Assembly and the size of the Scottish Assembly.
  I hope, Mr. Murton, that you will consider this matter again and seek to find a way out of the difficulty.
  The Chairman: Amendment No. 525, as I understand it, cuts out Wales.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton, I suggest that the logical way of trying to unscramble the difficulty facing the Committee is to try if possible to move from the general to the specific. Amendment No. 59, standing in the names of my Plaid Cymru colleagues and myself, would facilitate such a move. It deals with the subject in the most general context. It states that election to the Assembly should be by a system of proportional representation. The amendment has been selected and, presumably, is in order.
  I accept that inevitably there would have to be further amendments thereafter to specify what system of proportional representation would be necessary. However, if the Committee had the opportunity to demonstrate whether it wished to have such a system, it would then have the maximum possible opportunity to decide in which direction it wished to go. If Amendment No. 50 is taken first, the whole system of proportional representation may be cut out. I personally happen to agree with Amendment No. 50, but I accept that there are Members on both sides of the Chamber who, while agreeing to proportional representation as a system, would not go along with all the detail set out in the amendment. There are some amendments that would cut out Wales, and as a decision has already
  1214
  been taken, on a previous clause, on whether Wales should stay in the Bill, I submit that such amendments are out of order.
  Further, Mr. Murton, I draw your attention to the fact that we are not discussing two issues. Amendments Nos. 521 and 522 relate to the proposition of having more than one Assembly in Wales and Scotland. That underlines the need for treating the amendments separately.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I wish to make two brief points, Mr. Murton. First, I suggest that the grouping of amendments is primarily a matter for the convenience of the Committee. I think that you will agree, Mr. Murton, that the views that have been expressed from both sides of the Chamber suggest strongly that if the Committee were able to consider separately the size of the Assembly and method of selection it would be for its convenience.
  As you indicated, Mr. Murton, as we are in Committee there is nothing to stop Members from trying to speak twice. Presumably they could speak the first time on the method of election and the second time on the question of size. If that course were taken and Members were to confine themselves to the method of election for the first few hours, and if the debate were entirely on that matter until, for example, 11 o'clock, it would not be totally unprecedented for a Government Whip to move, "That the Question be now put". If the Committee were to decide accordingly, it might find itself obliged to vote on the size of the Assemblies without any debate having been undertaken by Members on either side of the Chamber. Clearly that would be undesirable.
  The Chairman: First, I answer the last part of the point of order of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). Whether to accept a closure motion is entirely for the occupant of the Chair. The Chair ensures that justice is done in Committee. The only suggestion that I can make to try to help the Committee—I am sure that the Committee understands my sincerity when I say that it has been faced with difficulties—is that if the Committee desires in the earlier part of the debate to emphasise matters relating to proportional representation, so be it, but the one thing the Chair cannot do is to prevent other

  1215
  matters that are related to it and grouped with it from being discussed by individual Members if they so desire.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Taking into account what you have just said, Mr. Murton, surely it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the two subjects were discussed separately. I have tabled three amendments that bear on the size of the Scottish Assembly. As far as I am concerned, it does not matter a row of beans how the Scottish people choose their own Assembly, but we now have before us matters that are separate. Clearly some Members do not agree with the present proposals and want a full and separate debate on elections to the Assembly.
  In respect of your earlier ruling, Mr. Murton, it would seem that Amendment No. 50, to all intents and purposes, is a new clause. It completely rewrites the whole principle of the clause but has been tabled as an amendment. If such amendments are to lead to the grouping of a large number of amendments, surely they will offer a blocking procedure for the Opposition, who may wish to debate separate items of principle separately. As I understand it, surely it is for the convenience of the whole Committee that we can debate separate subjects separately and show an element of common sense.
  The Chairman: It would not be possible to introduce a new clause if a clause on the subject had already been agreed to and was part of the Bill.
  Mr. George Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Further to your ruling a moment ago when you said that it would be quite in order for the Committee to emphasise the arguments on proportional representation in the earlier part of the debate, may I ask what the position is of many of my hon. and right hon. Friends who have a view to put on both matters? If we are fortunate enough to catch your eye in the early part of the debate, and if we are conscientiously trying to keep our remarks brief by confining ourselves to the issue of PR, should we then desist from commenting on the size of the Assembly, safe in the knowledge that we are likely to be called later, or should we make the most of it and make all the observations that we wish to make?
  The Chairman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair could not and would not put pressure upon any individual Member to curtail his arguments, be they on PR or any of the other amendments. I would emphasise again that I shall give full and sympathetic consideration to the matter at the appropriate time should hon. and right hon. Members desire separate Divisions on specific amendments.
  Mr. Francis Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I took a little advice before asking for separate Divisions on the amendments that I mentioned earlier. I was advised that there would be no problem about a Division on Amendment No. 537. I hope, Mr. Murton, that you will reconsider that together with any other representations that you receive. It will have been quite clear to you from these interventions how much importance the Committee attaches to these two separate and, although related, distinct subjects.
  As the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) stressed and as we on the Conservative Benches agree, they are two separate and major matters. I am sure that the Committee will wish to emphasise the PR argument at the beginning of the debate. I hope that at a later stage, if it is convenient, one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be able to intervene with advice and comments on the size of the Scottish Assembly and that in due course another of my hon. Friends will put the same arguments about the Welsh Assembly.
  That is the way in which to deal with matters of this kind if we are to take them in one chunk. It would be easier if they were separated. If they are not to be separated I hope, Mr. Murton, that you will appreciate that there will be two interventions during the course of this inevitably long debate before we finally come to a conclusion on Amendment No. 50 if, indeed, we are to proceed with that amendment.
  The Chairman: Perhaps I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that if any hon. Member on either Front Bench should rise at any time during the debate, he is likely to catch my eye. I cannot give a specific undertaking with regard to

  1217
  Amendment No. 537, but I promise to give the matter serious consideration.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), Mr. Murton. Let me press you to consider again the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, which was that it would be possible to take Amendment No. 59 as the lead amendment and divide the debate as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish. I would also take the opportunity of asking whether there is any possibility that the Lord President himself will be afforded the opportunity of intervening at this juncture.
  5.15 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I am happy to try to assist the Committee if I can. The situation facing the Committee is that you, Mr. Murton, have announced a selection of amendments and some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have raised criticisms or doubts or questions about it and asked whether that selection could be reconsidered.
  It is not a question for the Government at all. If the Government had any way in which they could assist in the matter, they would be glad to do so. I do not say this in a critical sense, because I know why it has been done, but the problem arises from the comprehensive form and manner of Amendment No. 50. You had to select that amendment, Mr. Murton, and that influences the whole situation. It is not the responsibility of the Government. It is not the Government's decision that it should have been a comprehensive amendment of that character, or that it should have been put down in that form.
  I think that what you have said is quite clear, Mr. Murton. We must carry on the debate on that basis, but certainly in the form in which we have debates throughout the whole of this Committee we shall be eager to assist. It is not possible for the Government to overcome the problem arising from the ambitious nature of Amendment No. 50.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. One
  1218
  difficulty I find is that the order of selection says that we shall discuss Clauses 1 and 2, then Schedule 1, and then it goes on to other clauses. Among the list are not only amendments dealing with Clause 2, but No. 146, which relates to Clause 5.
  The Chairman: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. It does indeed, because they are consequential.
  As the Committee knows, the next amendment is No. 50. With it we are taking the two amendments to it:

  (a), in line 6, leave out '14' and insert '24'.

  (b), in line 8, leave out '50' and insert '60'.

  We are also to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 521, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Scottish Assembly' and insert 'three Scottish Assemblies'.
  No. 55, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'Assembly' to the end of line 10 on page 2 and insert
  'the members of which shall be the persons who shall have been elected for the Assembly constituencies specified in an Order in Council under the provisions applied by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (provided that no such Order shall be made unless a draft thereof shall have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament) and there shall be one member for each of such constituencies.'
  No. 522, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Welsh Assembly' and insert 'two Welsh Assemblies'.
  No. 59, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
  'election to which shall be by a system of proportional representation'.
  No. 523, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
  'as set out in the schedule (Assemblies)'.
  No. 61, in page 1, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert
  'The members of each assembly (House of Representatives) shall be those members of Parliament sitting for constituencies in the areas over which the assemblies are granted control'.
  No. 524, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'initial'.
  No. 525, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'each' and insert 'the Scottish'.

  1219
  No. 368, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'Assembly' to end of line 23 and insert:
  'shall be persons elected by each district and regional council in Scotland and by each district and county council in Wales'.
  No. 66, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'be' to end of line 23 and insert:
  'constituted from one representative from each district and regional council in Scotland, and from one representative from each district and county council in Wales'.
  No. 526, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 23 and insert:
  'and there shall be one member for each such constituency'.
  No. 73, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'respectively' to end of line 23 and insert:
  'and there shall be one initial member for each 20,000 or part thereof of the electorate for the area'.
  No. 371, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'respectively' to end of line 23 and insert:
  'and there shall be one member for each of those areas'.
  No. 74, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'be' to end of line 23 and insert:
  'one initial member for each of these areas'.
  No. 460, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'be' to end of line 23 and insert:
  'only one member for each such constituency'.
  No. 75, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
  No. 77, in page 1, line 21, leave out '125' and insert '150'.
  No. 78, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.
  No. 546, in page 1, line 23, at end insert:
  ',together with 50 additional members for the Scottish Assembly elected by the process set out in Schedule (Election of additional Members) to this Act.'
  No. 537, in page 1, line 23, at end insert:
  '() The members of the Welsh Assembly shall be returned for the areas which, at the time of their election, are local government districts, and there shall be one member for each of those areas of which the electorate is between 50 and 150 per cent. of the electoral quota, two members for each of those areas of which the electorate is between 150 and 250 per cent. of the electoral quota, three members of each of those areas of which the electorate is between 250 per cent. and 350 per cent. of the electoral quota and in the
  1220
  case of areas of which the electorate is above 350 per cent. of the electorate the number of members shall be the nearest whole number to the number obtained by dividing the electorate by the electoral quota.
  () In the case of any area of which the electorate is below 50 per cent. of the electoral quota the Boundary Commission for Wales shall submit a report to the Secretary of State for Wales recommending an area with which that area shall be merged.
  () Sections 2(4), 2(5) and 3 of the Act of 1949 (notice of proposed report of Boundary Commission and implementation of recommendations in report) paragraphs 3 and 4 of Part III of Schedule 1 to that Act (notice of proposed recommendations and local inquiries) and section 4 of the Act of 1958 (procedure) shall apply in relation to a supplementary report made under this Schedule and a recommendation made or proposed to be made in such a report; and in those provisions as they apply by virtue of this paragraph references to constituency shall be construed as referring to Assembly areas and references to electors as references to electors for the Assembly.
  () Subsections (2) and (3) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (attendance of witnesses at inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry held in pursuance of Subsection().
  () For the purposes of determining the number of members to be returned to the Assembly, areas merged pursuant to the provisions of subsection (), () and () shall be treated as a single area.
  "Electoral quota" means the number obtained by dividing the electorate (as defined in this subsection) of Wales by 50.
  "Electorate" means the number of persons whose names appear on the relevant registers of local government electors last published before this Act comes into force, the relevant registers being those for the area concerned.'
  No. 527, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
  No. 438, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'other'.
  No. 439, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'constituencies' to 'specified' and insert to be'.
  No. 86, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 4.
  No. 547, in page 2, line 4, at end insert
  'elected by the Alternative Vote'.
  No. 442, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
  '() Each vote in the election in each Assembly constituency shall be a single transferable vote, that is to say a vote—

  (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the

  1221
  candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

  (b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

  (i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

  (ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates'.

  No. 89, in page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
  No. 261, in Schedule 1, page 70, leave out lines 1 to 30 and insert—

PART II

  DIVISIONS OF SCOTLAND AND WALES INTO ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES
  6. Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one region or islands area in Scotland or in one county in Wales.
  7. The number of Assembly members for each region or islands area in Scotland or county in Wales shall be determined by the number of assembly quotas to the next whole number above contained in the electorate of the region, islands area or county.
  8. Where the number of assembly members for a region, islands area or county is seven or fewer, that region, islands area or county shall be an Assembly constituency.
  9. Where the number of assembly members for a region, islands area or county is eight or more, that region, islands area or county shall be divided into two or more Assembly constituencies, provided that:—

  (a) no such Assembly constituency shall have fewer than four members or more than eight members, and

  (b) as far as practicable each such Assembly constituency shall have five, six, or seven members, and

  (c) as far as practicable the ratio of Assembly members to electors shall be the same in each such Assembly constituency.

  10. In dividing a region, or county into Assembly constituencies, no district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another, except insofar as may be necessary to meet paragraph 9(a) above.
  11. A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application 9 or 10 of this Schedule—

  (a) if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of an Assembly constituency, appear to them to render the departure reasonable; or

  (b) if, taking account, so far as they reasonably can, of the inconvenience resulting from alterations of Assembly constituencies, and of any local ties which would be broken by such alterations, a departure appears to them desirable.'

  No. 265, in Schedule 1, page 70, line 6, leave out 'near' and insert
  'nearly equal in its number of persons as the number of persons in'.
  No. 267, in Schedule 1, page 70, line 13, leave out '125' and insert '150'.
  No. 268, in Schedule 1, page 70, leave out lines 31 to 37.
  No. 271, in Schedule 1, page 71, leave out lines 15 to 28.
  No. 146, in Clause 5, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
  '(1A) Subject to subsection (5) of this section where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant party priority list as prepared at the preceding election under the provisions of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of Schedule (Election of additional members) to this Act such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy as required by the standing orders of the Assembly concerned.'
  No. 275:

Schedule

  ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
  1. No candidate shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless he stood as an adopted candidate of a party which secured 5 per cent. or more of the total vote validly cast at the election concerned.
  2. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:

  (1) The number of additional members to be returned at the election concerned shall be ascertained in accordance with section 2 of this Act.

  (2) Priority lists of the eligible adopted candidates of each party shall be prepared in the order of the relative success of those candidates at the election concerned measured by the percentage of the total votes validly cast obtained by each such candidate in the constituency for which he stood at the election concerned.

  (3) The valid votes cast at the election concerned for all the eligible adopted candidates of each party shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum of the number of adopted candidates of each party returned as constituency members at that election plus one.

  (4) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall be compared and the first person to be elected an additional member shall be the first candidate on the priority list of the party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.

  (5) The calculations made in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall be repeated after

  1223
  adding the additional member elected in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph to the denominator sum of the party of which he was an adopted candidate.

  (6) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph shall be compared and the next person to be elected an additional member shall be the first candidate on the priority list of the party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.

  (7) The remaining additional members shall be elected one by one by application of the same system of calculation and election as is prescribed in the preceding sub-paragraphs of this paragraph.

  (8) In this paragraph "party" means a political party whose principal objects include the adoption of candidates for election to the Scottish Assembly or the Welsh Assembly or both as the case may be.

  3. Notwithstanding any redrawing of constituency boundaries for parliamentary elections under the provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 and subject to any regulations prescribed by either Assembly under the provisions of subsection (4) of section 2 of this Act the number of constituency seats shall not fall below 71 for the Scottish Assembly and shall not fall below 35 for the Welsh Assembly to the intent that at that point at which any such redrawing would but for the provisions of this paragraph cause the number of constituency seats for members of either Assembly to fall below these minima then the Assembly concerned shall prescribe regulations for redrawing the boundaries of the constituencies or its members so as to provide for not less than 100 seats in total for members of the Scottish Assembly and not less than 50 seats in total for members of the Welsh Assembly such regulations to be enacted by a Scottish Assembly Bill in the case of the Scottish Assembly and by instrument in the case of the Welsh Assembly.
  4. Any Scottish Assembly Bill enacted under paragraph 3 of this Schedule shall be subject to the powers of rejection contained in paragraph 5 of this Schedule and any instrument enacted by the Welsh Assembly under paragraph 3 of this Schedule shall be subject to the powers of revocation contained in paragraph 6 of this Schedule and until any such Bill or instrument shall come into effect the constituency boundaries prevailing at the immediately preceding ordinary elections shall be the effective boundaries for succeeding ordinary elections of each Assembly.
  5.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly under the provisions of this Schedule or section 2 of this Act would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole he may lay the Bill before Parliament together with a statement that in his opinion it ought not to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council.
  (2) A Bill laid before Parliament under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall he subject to the same powers of rejection and procedures as a Bill laid before Parliament under subsection (1) of section 45 of this Act.
  6.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that an instrument made by the Welsh Assembly under the provisions of this Schedule or section 2 of this Act would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole he may by order revoke the instrument and any such order may contain such consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
  (2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph revoking an instrument shall be subject to the same limitations and procedures as are contained in subsections (2) to (4) inclusive of section 47 of this Act'.
  With Amendment No. 275 we are taking the three amendments to it:

  (a), in line 4, leave out '5 per cent.' and insert '2 per cent.'.

  (b), in line 5, at end insert:

  'or whose party obtained more than 20 per cent. of the total votes validly cast in each of five constituencies'.
  (c), leave out lines 35 to 62.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I have been listening to the points of order and I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said. It may have been easier to debate this matter without specifying which system of PR should be used in the Assemblies. But hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that the first thing Ministers, including the Lord President, would have said was that the Assembly is due to start within "X" months and that the amendment in principle made proposals which would not work in practice, which were not clear or sufficiently specific. Ministers would have asked: "How can we decide on a principle until we know whether it will work?" They would say "Of course we all like nice principles but we cannot accept this amendment and carry it through in the limited time scale available before the Assembly is due to start and be elected".
  The Government have themselves taken the view that an interim system is necessary for reasons of time. They have proposed an interim method which involves accepting the present constituencies on the ground that they cannot be re-drawn on a single-member basis in time for the first elections. The Government are taking the view that there has to be an interim system for the first election and then, given that we adopt the single-member system, they will subsequently re-draw the Scottish constituencies for the second and succeeding elections.

  1225
  That explains the problem that faces those of us who want to bring in a proportional system for the two Assemblies. It explains the detailed method set down in the amendment. It also explains the particular choice of method. The method we chose was not necessarily the best one. We chose a method which could be easily introduced and comprehensively worked within a matter of 18 months purely for the first elections.
  Hon. Members will notice that the amendment makes quite clear that the subsequent electoral system is a matter for the Assemblies to choose. They may discuss and propose it and this Parliament would naturally have the authority and right to endorse whatever they put forward.
  Different hon. Members in this Committee prefer different forms of PR. Some are addicted to the particular method advocated by the Liberal Party. A rather different method is advocated by the Scottish National Party. There is nothing to stop these methods being discussed and adumbrated by the Assemblies. There is nothing to stop the Assemblies bringing forward any of these procedures and, if they have majority support in the Assemblies, putting their preferred system before this House for endorsement.
  I hope that hon. Members will accept that the way in which the amendment was drafted was to make it entirely practical. It proposes a system which can easily be introduced for the first election within a short time. It is one that requires no bureaucratic or other changes in the arrangements for elections.
  I hope that hon. Members will allow me briefly to explain the system although I have no doubt that they have looked at Amendment No. 50 and the new schedule—Amendment No. 275—which sets out the details. The method involves exactly the same procedure as at present in the 71 Scottish seats and the 36 Welsh seats. For each of them, there is a normal vote with normal candidates, on exactly the principle that is followed now, with the normal number of members elected directly to serve in the two Assemblies. Then the chief returning officer for each area adds up the total number of votes given for each party. Any party getting less than 5 per cent.
  1226
  of the total is disqualified. For all parties with over 5 per cent. of the votes the number of members that they succeed in getting elected is divided into the number of votes, and additional members are distributed one by one to get the fairest feasible proportion between votes cast and the total number of members.
  The result would depend for its accuracy on the total number of additional members. We have discussed total numbers, and the number we propose is a topping up of 29 members for the Scottish Assembly and 14 members for the Welsh Assembly, making round totals of 100 in Scotland and 50 in Wales. I shall not argue the case for any specific total number. The hon. Member for Caernarvon thinks that the number for Wales is too small and there is a great deal in that.
  This system, which is basically the West German system of topping up to achieve proportionality—the additional member system—could be applied straightforwardly. One marked difference between what we propose and the German system is that the additional members, instead of being nominated by the parties or coming from any party list, would be chosen from among the defeated candidates who have the highest proportionate support in the election in their constituency. Every candidate who is added in will have fought the seat and have been identified with a constituency but will have missed election by the narrowest margin.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintonsh) developing his argument in Committee, or is he speaking on a point of order?
  The Chairman: I was under the impression that I called the hon. Member to move the amendment. I hope that that is what he is doing.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I ask your guidance, Mr. Murton. I am trying to explain the amendment—
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is moving his amendment.
  Mr. Mackintosh: There is an interesting semantic distinction between moving and explaining.

  1227
  I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 1, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert:
  '(2)(1) There shall be a Scottish Assembly and a Welsh Assembly the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified by or under this Act.
  (2) At the first ordinary elections to each Assembly a constituency member shall be returned for each of the areas which at the time of that election are constituencies for parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales respectively together with 29 additional members for the Scottish Assembly and 14 additional members for the Welsh Assembly (to the effect that at an ordinary election at the passing of this Act 100 members would be returnable to the Scottish Assembly and 50 members to the Welsh Assembly).
  (3) The additional members shall at the first ordinary elections be elected by the process set out in Schedule (Election of additional Members) to this Act.
  (4) Following the first ordinary elections each Assembly may review the suitability and fairness of the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act and may make such regulations amending that system as each Assembly shall prescribe which in the case of the Scottish Assembly shall be by Bill and in the case of the Welsh Assembly shall be by instrument which shall in the first case be subject to the powers of rejection and in the second case to the powers of revocation contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule (Election of additional Members) to this Act and pending any such amendment the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act for the first ordinary elections shall apply to succeeding ordinary elections.
  (5) To the extent that assembly constituencies continue to be defined geographically by reference to constituencies for parliamentary elections (whether under the provisions of this section or pursuant to any regulations made by either Assembly under subsection (4) of this section) no redrawing of the boundaries of constituencies for parliamentary elections whether under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 or any other enactment shall cause the number of constituencies for each Assembly to fall below the minima set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule (Election of additional Members) to this Act.'
  May I now go on to explain the amendment, Mr. Murton?
  The Chairman: Certainly, as long as the Committee is aware that the hon. Gentleman is moving it.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I apologise.
  The Chairman: I must apologise because I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that he was moving the amendment.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I assure you, Mr. Murton, and hon. Members, that I am
  1228
  on my feet for no other purpose than to move the amendment. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding.
  I should like to finish my explanation of the method in the hope that my explanation will help hon. Members who might have criticisms of it. Taking for comparison the results of the last General Election in Scotland, the result under the system I propose would be that, whereas in the election the Scottish National Party with 30 per cent. of the votes won only 11 seats, under this method it would get 29 seats. The Liberal Party, which received 9 per cent. of the votes, would get seven seats. The Conservative Party, with 24 per cent. of the votes, would get 23 seats. The Labour Party, with 36 per cent. of the votes, would still retain 41 seats. The proportionality is very close. The larger the topping-up number, the closer would be the proportionality.
  The system requires no change in voting practice or voting habits. It requires people to vote in exactly the same way as they do now, and necessitates only half an hour's calculation by the chief returning officer when the final results are in to produce a proportional system where the widest error would be a mere 5 per cent. That is the system proposed in the amendment.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: What happens to the other 29 members? Do they freelance and cavort about on their own, or are they attached to a particular constituency? I foresee difficulties.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am coming to all these matters. That is why I am explaining the amendment. I shall deal with that point of detail. This is why it would not be possible to do what the hon. Member for Caernarvon wishes to do and have a general argument for proportional representation. That is the kind of argument that is brought in by people who are worried about the operation of particular systems.
  If I may deal first with the arguments of principle for proportional representation, I shall go on to detailed objections of the kind raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller).
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I should like to know who will select the additional 29 members. Will they be

  1229
  selected by the local party or by a central body?
  Mr. Mackintosh: I have just explained that to the Committee. I apologise if my explanation was not clear. The additional members are chosen from the defeated candidates with the highest proportional vote for their party. I am sorry if that is not clear. The man who loses by the narrowest proportional margin is first on the list for the topping-up members. The man with the second narrowest margin is second on the list for the topping-up members. These members will all have been selected by the normal selection procedure for constituencies.
  Mr. Haffer: It is gobbledegook up to now.
  Mr. Mackintosh: It may be gobbledegook, but it is an explanation of how it will be done. My hon. Friend took a long time to think that one over. I am glad to hear his comment after reflection.
  I propose to deal with points of principle and then go on to the details. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) might be able to follow my explanations if he stopped talking to his friends.
  I have gone round the House of Commons talking to hon. Members about the proposal. The chief objection I have heard is not an objection to the principle of proportional representation. It is an odd objection that goes like this. Hon. Members have said to me that they were doubtful about the system not because it lacked merit but because it might be so good in Scotland that we might have to have it in Westminster and, as they did not want it in Westminster, they did not want to try it anywhere else.
  The adoption of a system of this kind in Scotland need have no immediate relevance to the Westminster electoral system, because we must choose the electoral system appropriate to the political structure and the political situation in each country. I am prepared to argue with anyone that the present method of election in a two-party system in the United Kingdom when 97 per cent. of the population voted for one of the two major parties was proportional enough.
  1230
  All systems of election are proportional. There is no totally disproportional system. The first past the post system when 97 per cent. of the population voted either Labour or Tory had great merit. It produced clear-cut Governments and put clear-cut responsibility in the hands of one Executive. The people knew where they were, because they could either keep the Government or throw them out at a subsequent election.
  5.30 p.m.
  For years I have advocated the case for the existing system of election given that the voters only vote for one of two parties. But in Scotland and Wales we do not now have a two-party system. Let us look particularly at Scotland, where we have a three-and-a-half- or a three-and-three-quarters-party system. [An HON. MEMBER: "Five."] We have three major parties and several minor parties. Instead of a fairly close proportionality between votes cast and results, which we have in a two-party system with our present electoral method, there can be bizarre results if we apply the first past the post system where three major parties have roughly a third of the electorate each. For the past three years the Scottish National Party, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have all been varying around 30 per cent. of electoral support in Scotland. There have been times when one has dropped as low as 25 per cent. and another has risen to 35 per cent. to 36 per cent.
  I am sure that all hon. Members have noticed that another constitutional innovation of the Bill, which in a sense I welcome because it strengthens the Assemblies against the Executive, is that of a fixed-term Assembly. There is no getting rid of an Assembly by a General Election if anything goes wrong. Had there been a General Election under the present electoral system for the Scottish Assembly any time in the past three years, there would have been an absolute majority for the Scottish National Party in certain months, but the Labour Party or the Conservative Party would have had an absolute majority in other months, although none of these parties would have gained more than 37 per cent. of the votes cast.
  That is the straight fact. It is the fact now, because the Labour Party received

  1231
  36 per cent. at the last election and an absolute majority of all Scottish seats. That is what will be repeated if we reproduce the British electoral system under a three-party or three plus two or three minority party system in Scotland. That is why I ask hon. Members to think about the matter very carefully. We want an Assembly that inspires confidence among the people of Scotland.
  I do not know whether other hon. Members have done the same thing, but I have been round Scotland preaching the virtues of devolution and an Assembly. I have come across person after person and organisation after organisation on the Left and on the Right, and among the anti-nationalists and pro-nationalists all of whom say "Suppose any party gets its nose ahead of the others under the present electoral system and they will have an absolute majority for four years. Is that a recipe for stability, confidence and satisfactory government? It is a lottery." We cannot found an Assembly on an electoral system which is fundamentally a lottery.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend agree that behind these fine phrases is the fear of many people, including many in our party, that with the first past the post system the Scottish National Party might win an absolute majority? Is it not the case that one cannot defeat its aspirations or the incursion of any new party into the political system by fancy franchises of this kind?
  Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend is completely wrong on this. It is greatly to the credit of SNP Members that they support the amendment. The point is that under proportional representation no one can gain a majority in Scotland or Wales without obtaining 50 per cent. of the votes, something which is very rare. Since the war it has happened only in 1955. A party that gains that percentage of the votes is entitled to a majority. What we are arguing is that a party is not entitled to an absolute majority on 35 per cent. to 37 per cent. of popular support.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: In that case, given the practical necessity to have a Government, Executive or supervising authority of some description, is not my hon. Friend offering the real power to a secondary party that could not gain a
  1232
  substantial part of the poll but whose support is necessary in terms of seats in the Assembly to give the predominant party a majority? Is that democratic?
  Mr. Mackintosh: I hope to answer all these points in the course of my speech. They have already occurred to all those who support the amendment.
  If we have this system in the Scottish Assembly, it will force the Assembly Government to be one of two things. First, they could be a coalition. I do not find that idea disgusting. I find it far more satisfactory and stable to run a Government with the backing of two parties which have come together than to run it with a party which has only minority support imposing its views on the majority. To require majority support, I suggest, is a far more democratic approach.
  But there would not necessarily be a need to form a coalition. All that is necessary is for the minority party with most support in the country to rule in a manner which brings it support in the Lobbies from members of other parties. [Interruption.] An hon. Member chortles, but that is how this Government are existing. For the present Session there is not one major measure that they will carry without the support of some Opposition Members. Does that invalidate the work the Government do? Will this Bill be a less satisfactory devolution Bill because it will need Opposition Members to pass it? The same will be true of any major measure when a Government's support falls to a certain level. I find nothing unsatisfactory about that.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: My hon. Friend was very frank on the weakness of his argument, with which I hope to deal later. No coalition could be formed on the basis of his figures—41, 29, 23 and seven—unless the Labour Party were to have a coalition with the Tory Party or the Scottish National Party. If it were a question of a quid pro quo, what would my hon. Friend offer the SNP for its support—independence? My hon. Friend's structure will ensure that a party must always operate as a minority Government. Have the experiences of the past year at Westminster suggested that such an Assembly would be a strong Assembly?
  Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend defeats his own argument. Under the figures I have given, there are three possible governmental arrangements with a majority. I am sorry if my hon. Friend's mathematics are such that he cannot add three sets of figures together. If he adds them up correctly he will see that three Governments are possible under this arrangement. Which is better, co-operation between two parties—
  Mr. Buchan: Which two?
  Mr. Mackintosh: I would give any two—
  Mr. Buchan: Name them.
  Mr. Mackintosh: The Conservative Party could work with the Scottish National Party, and the SNP could work with the Labour Party, with which it has many affinities, for certain objectives. Or, if the problems of resisting independence were the crucial issue, Labour and Conservatives could vote together. [Interruption.] I am trying to explain that any co-operation would be based on the free will of the parties. It could be withdrawn if certain measures were not acceptable to a majority of the Assembly.
  All the arguments against the amendment are suggesting that a fortuitous majority, with only 35 per cent. of the community behind it, is preferable to the co-operation of two major parties which carry a majority of the country with them. That is an extremely unsatisfactory argument. It is being argued that having a minority Government who can enforce their will on the majority is preferable to parties working by agreement in the interests of the major part of the community.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question rather than impose a view. I understood him to say that his views on the subject had changed because the two major parties—the Conservative Party and the Labour Party—between them no longer obtained such a high proportion of total votes cast. Is that, and that alone, the reason for his change of view? Is he saying that if the previous situation had continued, with the two main parties receiving 80 per cent., 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of the
  1234
  total votes cast, he would prefer the present system?
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is confusing the English situation, or the United Kingdom situation, with the Scottish situation. If, in the United Kingdom situation, the two major parties poll between them about 95 or 97 per cent. of the support, the proportionality between the outcome in this House and the outcome in votes cast is sufficiently close for issues of justice to be unimportant and for the other issues which my hon. Friends have raised, of direct choice of a Government, to become uppermost.
  But if in the United Kingdom the Liberal Party, instead of, as in 1974 getting 5 or 6 million votes, got 8 or 9 million and the votes for the other major parties dropped from 11 million to 8 or 9 million and we had the Scottish situation of three major parties running neck and neck, I should be converted to proportional representation for the United Kingdom.
  Once again the point of which I am unable to convince my hon. Friends is that with such a situation, the result of a General Election becomes fortuitous, a lottery. In a fixed-term Assembly, people would have four solid years under a Government of a minority, chosen because at the moment when the election was held there was a backwash of opinion one way or the other. It does not alter the argument which way the swing of opinion would go. It would be equally unsatisfactory.
  Nothing would be more dangerous for the Assembly than for it to attempt to carry through legislation when it was clear to the Scottish and Welsh people that 65 per cent. of the electorate had not supported the party bringing it in. That is the major argument for a proportional system.
  I now turn to the minor points of detail affecting this proposal which we have put forward, and I hope to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride. On the system that we are describing, the additional members would not be attached to a constituency. They would be members without a constituency, but they would represent in the Assembly all those people who cast votes for defeated candidates.

  1235
  If hon. Members would consider a constituency like mine they would see that my opponent usually comes within 1,000 or 2,000 votes of winning. The people who cast votes for the Conservative candidate in my constituency have no one representing them and they may feel that their votes are totally wasted.
  In this situation, the point is that all votes cast, even in constituencies where one of the other sides wins, still counts towards producing the total representation in the Assembly. Therefore, even political activity of defeated candidates would matter and the person casting the vote for a loser would still have someone representing him.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has not the hon. Gentleman exposed the fallacy of his own argument by saying in effect that in his constituency he represents only those who vote for him and that the Conservative voters are not represented? Surely it is his job in this assembly to represent all his constituents?
  Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman knows that I make the usual speech when I have won a seat and say that I will represent them all—and of course I do. But the point that I am making is that, under the system I propose, those who voted for the Conservative in my constituency or for the Labour candidate in constituencies where the Conservative won would not feel that registering their vote had left their opinion on how the country should be run ineffective or unuseful; it would have helped to contribute to the membership of that party in the Assembly.
  I am sorry if I did not make this clear, but this is the point in any proportional system since it helps those who vote for certain parties, particularly those which come second in a wide variety of seats, to feel that their political activity is worth while and that they are properly represented in the broader sense in the Assembly,
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Would my hon. Friend allow me?
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of clarification—
  Mr. Mackintosh: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: We now have it clear that the 29 members would be freelance for the four years of the Scottish Assembly. At the end of the four years what happens to those 29 members? Do they present themselves for election for particular constituencies and, if so, how is that effected?
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Mackintosh: The position is that they would have to be selected for reelection and that, in order to be additional members, they would have to stand again and seek nomination and come sufficiently close to the winner for the system which I have described in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton to apply to them once again. They would have to be selected and to fight a seat and they would have to do well.
  In the German situation, where this system works, members of the Bundestag on the list who are added in—the Germans have a larger number for toppingup—work hard at representing broader issues and broader interests. Then they seek to stand for winnable seats as a result of their performance in Parliament. That has proved a perfectly acceptable system in that country.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a question of clarification rather than argument, what kind of relationship will the 29 topping-up members have—not so much with high policy issues but in the day-to-day work which every one of us does with the Department of Health and Social Security or the Department of Employment—with the constituents of other members who have been elected?
  Mr. Mackintosh: Their relationship would be precisely the same as that of defeated candidates now. They would have no access to Ministers. [Laughter.] I am explaining how the position has worked in other countries where this is done—
  Mr. Nick Budgen rose
  Mr. Mackintosh: May I finish one ex-planation before I am asked for another?
  The relationship to the constituencies would be that of defeated candidates, because that is what they would be. They

  1237
  would have no right to operate otherwise. Hon. Members on both sides are accustomed to candidates—
  Mr. Budgen rose
  Mr. Mackintosh: May I finish one point at a time?
  Mr. Budgen rose
  The Chairman: Order. I must protect the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). He is trying to argue his amendment. Many interesting points are being put to him, but he must be given the opportunity of answering them one by one.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful, Mr. Murton. It is only out of courtesy that I am trying to answer one intervention before taking the next. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is next on the list.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: He is No. 29.
  Mr. Mackintosh: As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows, he has a defeated candidate in his constituency who is active politically and who works around the seat. The situation under the system I propose would be exactly the same except that that person would be a member of the Assembly. But he would not be entitled to speak or act in individual cases for individuals. The convention—
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Nothing would stop them.
  Mr. Mackintosh: Nothing would stop them, but nothing stops them now, except the convention that Ministers deal only with the sitting Member. That convention would still apply, so the position would be in no way different.
  Other countries have worked this system—[Laughter.] I know that hon. Members think this is laughable, but they defend the case for worker-directors from the German example, so they are willing to quote precedent in other countries. They must be prepared to discuss the way these things are operated in other countries.
  Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend knows that all of us in our constituencies are faced with defeated candidates, aspirant
  1238
  candidates and others. Those people have no right of access. Nevertheless, if people were elected by the topping-up procedure precisely because they represented the aspirations of many who felt—so my hon. Friend says—that they were not adequately represented by the sitting member, people would for precisely that reason go to the alternative figure. There would therefore be two members, whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, for one constituency. He has not answered that point.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am sorry, but I have answered precisely that point—
  Mr. Whitehead: One cannot deny them the right of access.
  Mr. Mackintosh: This system would be different only in kind from the present one. I spent two years as the prospective candidate for a constituency with a Conservative Member—
  Mr. Whitehead: But my hon. Friend was not the Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Mackintosh: No, I was not, but the fact remains that at that time the people I represented came to me—and why not? Why should not people go to a rival politician? The Government in the present Bill are proposing two members per constituency. The problem would then arise, to which of the two do people go particularly when one may be from one party and one from another? The Government's proposal allows for two members and thus for competition between them as to whom will take up different cases.
  Hon. Members know that in the United States, where an area is represented by two Senators and one Representative, there is competition among them—they are often from different parties—as to who will serve the constituents. Is that so dreadfully unhealthy? What is wrong with having another politician to whom people can turn? I see nothing objectionable in that.
  The idea that this system would be a disaster is based on the contention that it would make things more awkward for sitting members. Most of us here remember the days when we were prospective candidates and ran around constituencies saying, "That chap in Parliament is doing nothing for you. I am working like mad on your behalf."

  1239
  Incidentally, under the system that I propose there will be a great incentive for people who just lost but who became members under the topping-up procedure to try to get elected for safe seats. They will not want to hang around, particularly in marginal seats. But if they did hang around, I do not think that there would be anything undemocratic about that.
  Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage these topping-up members being full-time politicians and thus at the Assembly five or six days a week? If they will be full-time members but with no constituencies, will he explain how they will keep in touch with opinion generally unless they have some regular constituency responsibility?
  Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Member does not understand the system. They will be full members of the Assembly in every way. Countries, such as West Germany, which operate the system satisfactorily find it suitable and parliamentarians find it possible to keep in touch not just via constituency letters but by living in the country and listening to arguments made by the general public.
  One advantage of this system is that it allows people in marginal seats, who fight the seat and are narrowly defeated of having a chance to sit in the Assembly and of showing what they can do. In the area I know, many of the best candidates are sometimes in the marginal seats. It does no harm to give a chance to people if they have the will to win. If the balance of party fortune turns against their party, they may still continue in the activities as a representative, though not for a particular seat. The most likely result is that they will subsequently find safer seats rather than those with which they have been identified.
  Mr. Kinnock: In regard to the people who are fighting the second time round, so to speak, there are occasions when members contribute to the loss of seats because of their incompetence as representatives, whether those seats be represented by Tory, Labour or SNP candidates. Under the system advocated by my hon. Friend, even though those people are defeated because of lack of confidence in their abilities, they will be permitted to remain Assembly men under the topping-up system. It is not just a
  1240
  question of relationships within the constituency. We are talking of a quasi-Scottish Government. Is it not conceivable that such a Government could be composed of toppers-up and therefore elected by nobody in particular?
  Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend fell below his normal level in that intervention. Who can tell, when a Member is defeated narrowly, whether that defeat is due to a swing against his party or is a matter of the Member's competence? It is impossible to tell.
  Mr. Kinnock: In that case he would not be selected.
  Mr. Mackintosh: In that case under the system I am proposing the person concerned would not be re-selected and therefore could not fight again. My hon. Friend misunderstands the situation. A decision between political swing removing a member and for incompetence is difficult to make in any system. We know there are many Members of Parliament who may not be as competent as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) but who are selected time and again under our present system.
  On his second point my hon. Friend knows that anybody who seeks to form a Government in any political party must allow for geographical representation. It would be inconceivable in forming a Scottish Government not to choose a Highlander, somebody from the West Coast, and somebody who is identified with the interests of other areas. In suggesting a Government only of added members, my hon. Friend produces a point so hypothetical and ridiculous that it is impossible.
  Occasionally we in the House of Commons have searched for somebody to be a Member of Parliament with special qualifications and have found difficulties in so doing. For instance, what will be needed in the Assembly is at least one first-class lawyer. Lawyers often stand for marginal seats and are defeated. I am not making any comment about the present Law Officers but we have known tricky occasions in both parties where no MP is available with adequate legal qualifications.
  I have tried to answer the objections lodged by those who criticise the system I am proposing. This system has been

  1241
  practised in other countries in a sensible way, and I make no apology for making a slightly longer speech than I intended because I have had to deal with various interventions.
  I come to the concluding important point in this argument. What worries very many hon. Members is the fact that this proposal involves an innovation. We are a profoundly conservative country—and that applies particularly to my hon. Friends below the Gangway. They are terrified and embarrassed at change. They are wedded to an electoral system which is purely historical and which has no intrinsic justification. They are horrified at the thought of anything different, any innovation.
  What also horrifies people in this country is the possibility of two different systems being pursued in one country. But that is the essence of devolution and that is what the spirit of devolution is about. A different system may benefit one part of the country because the conditions and the political system there is different.
  I hope that the Committee will bear in mind the advantages of a different electoral system for areas with a different political structure. As I have said, I find in Scotland people who have said "We do not like the idea of an Assembly because we do not know what it involves, but proportional representation would make it much more stable and acceptable". I hope that we shall include in the Bill a provision which, in this way, will increase public confidence and which, I believe, has the support of the majority of people in Scotland and Wales, a provision which will thereby vastly improve the whole devolution experiment.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I support the amendment, and I hope that it will not be felt that because so many amendments have been taken with Amendment No. 50 proper debate on this issue will be made difficult.
  I wish to add to what was said by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). We were bound to show that our system could be practical in present circumstances, and we did not know when we tabled our amendment what other amendments
  1242
  would be tabled, or indeed how the Chair's selection would go.
  This amendment seeks to introduce a system that is more proportional than our present system has become, or indeed than that proposed in the Bill. I find it difficult to defend a system that has the result of producing an Assembly that does not reflect the wishes of the voters. It appears to be the object of the present system to do just that.
  The object of the present system seems to be to arrive at a rough approximation of opinion in the country and to provide the Government with a stable majority. This works reasonably well when there are two parties in the political sphere and when those parties have more or less the same ideologies. In the past, when Governments changed, the policies did not change so deeply. Therefore, we had the value of the continuity necessary for industry, politics and social purposes. But we do not now have two ideologically similar parties. We have six parties at least, and some of them are rather far apart.
  I believe that the present system is not working well. The result is that because there is an unpredictable situation when Governments change, Governments legislate hastily and in a partisan way. They legislate on the supposition that probably they will lose the next election. It also means a reduction in the influence of the Legislature. Members on the Government side, except in exceptional cases, are hesitant to vote against their party lest they are saddled with the responsibility of bringing down their Government and causing a subsequent election.
  6.0 p.m.
  In Scotland neither of the two requirements for the first past the post system exists. For a start, there are not two political parties but four at least. Secondly, their ideologies are not close but far apart. Therefore, the first past the post system could bring grave dangers for the future.
  On the other hand, the difficulties which exist in introducing a measure of greater proportionality into this Chamber do not exist in Scotland and Wales. For example, there are no vested interests of hon. Members who fear the loss of their seats, and there is no Government

  1243
  finding no flaws in the system by which they have been elected.
  Who knows who will win the election in Scotland? The latest opinion poll shows that the Conservatives are marginally ahead, but, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has just pointed out, a tiny preponderance of votes can give a large majority of seats. I suppose that 36 per cent. or 37 per cent. would be enough if luckily distributed round the country to provide a substantial majority in the Assembly.
  One only has to look at the recent result in Quebec where Le Partie Québecois had 40 per cent. of the votes and got 60 per cent. of the seats, even though an opinion poll showed that only 20 per cent. of the voters wanted independence.
  Also I remind the Committee that in India the unparliamentary things that have taken place recently—and I make no comment about that for it is not my purpose and I do not know enough about it—have been done on a minority vote. The Congress Party never had a majority of votes in India. The swing that will take place in the elections in Scotland and Wales may well be wider because of the proposals for two or even three members to sit for each constituency. I realise that at the next election the system will be changed, but merely partitioning constituencies will not avoid the result of wide swings.
  The objections to proportional representation are the usual. The first is that it leads to a proliferation of parties. On the contrary I believe that our parties basically exist because they fit a need. In the United Kingdom at the moment we have six parties—three national and three traditional.
  Mr. Powell: No.
  Mr. Kershaw: I do not see this situation altering very much as a result of the events of the next few years whatever system we decide on. We can guard against a proliferation of parties by the system of PR that we advance. The well-known 5 per cent. of the votes that applies in Germany is one way of making sure that tiny parties do not insert themselves. This method of controlling the number of people who get in on tiny votes is a matter not of theory but of practice in other systems.
  1244
  One of my right hon. Friends went to Holland and was unfavourably impressed by the fact that there were 16 political parties in that country. This is due to the system in Holland. The whole of that country is one constituency and anyone who can get 450 signatures on one piece of paper is entitled to call himself a political party. Having stood for election, he need get only two-thirds of 1 per cent. of the national vote. There is no method by which the Dutch can stop a lot of people from standing for Parliament, and in the past parties consisting of only one person having been represented in the Assembly. In Denmark there is very little discouragement given to smaller parties standing. Nevertheless, this has not prevented Denmark from having the highest standard of living in Europe.
  Another objection to PR is that it would lead to a permanent coalition, inhibiting action. On this side of the Committee we have a great reverence for a statesman who once said that England—and in this case substitute Scotland—does not love coalitions. That is true. Coalitions forced on unwilling partners by events—economic disaster or war—have not been very popular and they have always disappeared quickly after the crisis has passed. While a forced marriage always is unpalatable, we are told that marriages of convenience often result in connubial bliss. If a coalition is the election platform on which a party has stood, the electors know where they stand, and that is an entirely different cup of tea.
  Furthermore, PR does not necessarily prevent a party obtaining 50 per cent. of the vote. If it can acquire 50 per cent. it should have the power. I do not see why we should basically object to that. I do not see why we should be shy or reluctant about allowing the voters to have this system, especially as they have been warned of all its consequences.
  The PR method has been described at length and it is too difficult for me to outline it here. In this amendment we propose that the Assembly should have 100 Members in Scotland and 50 in Wales topped up with an additional 29 and 14 members respectively. Some hon. Members are bothered by the fact that there will be two members for some constituencies, and even three in others. I do not think that this is necessarily a terrible

  1245
  thing. We have all probably been candidates in a constituency where our opponent is the sitting Member, and we have sought to draw attention to our superior merits compared with the man in charge. We have all tried to write to Ministers about something in that man's constituency, and I hope that we have all received a brush-off, because this is unconstitutional. But it is certainly not unprecedented under our present system.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is there not a difference between giving the brush-off to an unsuccessful candidate and giving the brush-off to a person who, although unsuccessful, is, nevertheless an Assemblyman and a member of the Parliament?
  Mr. Thorpe: Surely the short answer to that is that if one hon. Member seeks to raise a matter in another's constituency, or if a candidate seeks to do the same thing, he will get a wigging from the sitting Member and the Minister probably will not answer the letter.
  Mr. Kershaw: The distinction is between a personal question and a general and political question. The top-up man in the Assembly has just as much right to put his point of view on general matters, but if he tries to intervene in personal matters, he will not be able to do so.
  PR is easy to understand and quick to put into operation. That is important because the Government do not want to delay. Also the system will cost nothing extra.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The hon. Member has just said that proportional representation is easy to understand. A few minutes ago he said that it was extremely difficult to explain the system to the House. Is that not precisely why we should not adopt it? One of the great principles enunciated time and time again for the successful operation of democracy is that the machinery of election and the system of selection of a Government should be intelligible and intelligent. The biggest denunciation of PR is that it is not even intelligible to us, so how must it appear to people outside?
  Mr. Kershaw: It appears that I spoke badly and failed to make myself clear.
  1246
  To the voter the system I propose would be as simple as the existing system. The voter does exactly what he does now. Even if the system was more complicated, we should not forget that other countries do not find it difficult to master the far more complicated systems of PR. If PR can be operated in Ireland and other countries I do not see why we should not be able to adopt it.
  I said that I would come to the additional calculations of how Members are chosen. I will not go into the mathematics because if the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian cannot explain it, I dare say that no one else can. An explanation is set out with mathematical precision, however, and is very easy for anyone to understand, in Schedule 2 on page 52 of the Blake Report, which was commissioned by the Hansard Society.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend said that the present system did not reflect the wishes of the voters. Earlier he said that it was not what the voters wanted. How does he know? Is he not taking unto himself the assumption that people who vote with a protest vote, which is a legitimate course of action at an election, should be deprived of the right to register a protest vote? Is he also saying that he will decide what they should do with their vote?
  Mr. Kershaw: No, I am saying that if only 35 or 38 per cent. of the voters want a certain Government it is unfair on the majority in the country that it should get a Government which is utterly repugnant to it. In the past when we had only two parties the Government of the country was not utterly repugnant to those who voted for the loser. Also with only two parties no one can cavil at the proportionality of the vote. However, he can cavil when there are six parties here and four parties in Scotland and the seats cannot be proportional.
  Even with our system there has never been a majority of votes in the United Kingdom in favour of one-party Government since the turn of the century. Only in Scotland has there been a majority for one party, and that was in 1955. I am saying that the system of voting should reflect how the people vote on the only occasions they get to say anything about the way things are done.

  1247
  I concede that the numbers in the Assembly as proposed in the amendment may be too few to carry out the duties which people now have in mind for the Assembly. Therefore, it is perhaps necessary that in subsequent years we take another look at that. This system is only for the first Assembly and could be altered later, but it is important to have a system which can be quickly put into effect. I dare say that if the Assembly is as active as some of the parties which will be voted to it wish, it should have more members, and there would be no difficulty in adding to them.
  I urge those of my hon. Friends who are against any devolution and who feel that if they support proportional representation it will be the thin end of the wedge to consider that it appears likely that some measure of devolution will be found—by this Bill or in some other way. Therefore, I hope that they will consider the amendment on its merits and decide that if they are to have devolution it is worth having a good measure. I hope, therefore, that they will not feel precluded on grounds of dogma from considering any measure to improve the Bill.
  6.15 p.m.
  The other measure of proportional representation which is referred to is that embodying the single transferable vote. It is put forward in some of the other amendments. The system has merit, but for Scotland and Wales it would require an elaborate redrawing of constituencies. Also the system necessarily reduces or eliminates the constituency relationship between the member and the people who vote for him, a relationship which we in this country value. In certain circumstances I believe that the STV could be valuable. For instance, adoption of the first past the post system for European elections would be likely to produce grotesque results. Furthermore the constituency relationship between a member and his constituents would be nonexistent and could never be close because of the large size of the constituencies.
  For here and now, however, I believe that the system that we propose is suitable for Scotland and Wales and that it would retain local loyalties. It is simple for the voter to understand and it would not incur expense. I suggest that it would give Scotland and Wales the Gov-
  1248
  ernment that the people of those countries want.
  Mr. Dalyell: For anyone who wanted a nice, easy, congenial life, being an additional member, a topped-up member, of the Scottish Assembly would certainly have its attractions. That would perhaps attract the less energetic of us. Although one may put this in fairly ribald terms, frankly the degree of derision that would come about if we accepted this system of topped-up members would be fairly formidable, and we know how in politics ribaldry is a formidable force.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Member therefore explain why the German electorate does not spend the whole of its time in paroxysms of mirth?
  Mr. Dalyell: Because the German system is deeply different, However, it is no good saying that we are taking on the German system. That would be like suggesting that Baden-Wurtemberg should have an Assembly of its own with its own Prime Minister, and be over-represented in Bonn, which was directly responsible for the rest of the Federal Republic, without. Länder. The German analogy is misleading.
  Like the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I have had experience in the German elections. The hon. Member was working for a Liberal candidate and I was working for an SPD man, Manfred Schmidt, in Munich. Manfred Schmidt is a very good, active young Member of Parliament. However, it was an interesting experience to walk for three-quarters of a mile with him through the streets of his Munich constituency some days before the election. If the hon. Member for Inverness were to walk through the streets of Inverness, if I were to walk through the streets of Bathgate, if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were to walk through the streets of Tredegar or if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland were to walk through the streets of Stirling, half to two-thirds of the people there would recognise us and say "Hallo" or make some kind of greeting. However, this well-known member of the Bundestag walked through the streets of Munich and was recognised by hardly anybody. Theirs is a very remote system of government which is not overwhelmingly attractive.
  Mr. Mackintosh: If my hon. Friend wants a bit of ribaldry about this system, perhaps I can explain to him that Bathgate and Munich are rather different from each other. If my hon. Friend walked through the streets of Glasgow he might not get the same degree of recognition.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is not my experience in Glasgow. Furthermore, to complete the answer to this question, the point that bothers me is that whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) denied that there would be any kind of list, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and I learned that de facto there would be a list.
  For six months before the elections in Germany, the Germans at the European Parliament would explain that they could not attend various committees of that Parliament because they had to go off to their elections. When one asked them if they were going to an election meeting, one was told that it was not an election meeting but that they were having to attend some function of the party caucus in Hesse or Nieder-Sachsen or some other Land. This system would make one heavily dependent on the party central caucus, although some may want that. If there was a list of this kind, it would very soon be altered by the Assembly because the ridiculous nature of the system adumbrated by my hon. Friend would soon become apparent.
  We are sailing straight towards the German caucus-controlled list system. say that I do not care for it very much, because it means spending one's time oiling up to the party caucus.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member speaks about a party caucus. Surely these have been seen nowhere more than in the valleys of South Wales, where there has been an overwhelming domination by one party because of the first past the post system and where everything has been determined in party caucus.
  Mr. Dalyell: I must not be dragged into South Wales. I have a self-imposed ordinance on the amount of time I spend on a speech, and I do not want to be accused of filibustering.
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is wise to keep out of South Wales.
  Mr. Dalyell: Regardless of all these arguments, I shall be voting in support of the Government in the Lobby tonight. If the amendment is passed it will be seen, whether we like it or not, and regardless of the argument, for proportional representation, as yet another fix and device to dish the SNP.
  The basic reason why we are discussing PR is that so many people fear that under any other system the SNP might get a majority of candidates in the Assembly. Let us be candid about that. The argument becomes clearer when we have their basic piece of reality in the front of our minds.
  Mr. George Reid: How can that be so when my party has said publicly that it supports the amendment?
  Mr. Dalyell: The SNP is shrewd to support the amendment.
  It will be seen as a fix, and anything that is seen as a fix or a device is counter-productive to what I and others with the same views, want to do, and that is to make it clear that the argument here is about one thing only. It is about the dismantling of the United Kingdom, the end of Great Britain and the creation of a separate Scottish State. Anything that clouds that crunch decision is a disservice to debate.
  Sir Nigel Fisher: I am so modest that I did not expect to be called to speak so soon and I am unprepared, but that does not lessen my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker.
  So much excitement has been generated in this debate that one might think that electoral reform is a new idea. It is nothing of the sort. The method suggested in the amendment is new, but as long ago as 1917 the Speaker's Conference of that time recommended the replacement of the first past the post system by a proportional representation system and both Houses of Parliament agreed. The present system survived only because the two Houses could not agree on the precise system that they wished to put in its place. I hope that the supporters of electoral reform will not, by disagreeing among themselves today, bring about the same outcome as happened 60 years ago.
  Later, in 1931, a Bill on proportional representation was introduced by the

  1251
  then Labour Government. It passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons but was rejected by the other place and was then abandoned because of the 1931 General Election. So electoral reform is not a new idea. And it is a perfectly respectable idea, as has been demonstrated by the fact that the last two Speakers of the House of Commons have both been supporters of the concept of proportional representation. That is not surprising since the present system is obviously unfair and totally unrepresentative. We all know the figures, and I shall not go into them.
  The result of the present system is that this or any other Government are able to pursue policies that are against the wishes of the majority of the voters. Clearly, if a party had 51 per cent. of the votes and all the seats, and a party that won 49 per cent. of the votes had no seats, the position would be so absurd and intolerable that it would be changed by common consent at once. The question is, at what point in the process does one decide to change the system and make it more representative? I suggest that the right moment has now come because the issue is no longer theoretical. It has become topical and, indeed, urgent, because a need for elections both to the European Assembly and, if the Bill is passed, to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies will soon arise.
  It is generally conceded that the method of election to the European Assembly will inevitably be some form of proportional representation. We shall have to conform to that, perhaps not for the first election but certainly for every subsequent one. For Scotland and Wales the matter is even more immediate. Incidentally, I have not yet heard any hon. Member refer to the fact that almost the only recommendation upon which the Kilbrandon Commission was unanimous was that for proportional representation.
  Sir David Renton: It should be added that the Kilbrandon Commission considered only three possibilities: the first past the post system, which it called the relative majority system, the alternative vote system and the single transferable vote system. The Commission did not consider the German system or this variant of it, or the French system or any other.
  Sir N. Fisher: I take that point. My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I do not know why the Commission did not consider the German system, because it has worked well there and has resulted in relatively stable government. The reason why it did not concern itself with the additional member system was that it had not been invented then. It was the product of work done by the Hansard Society Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Blake, in which work my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) took part. The Hansard Society Commission reported last summer, a long time after the Kilbrandon Commission reported.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) said that the German system had created stable government, but was it purely the electoral system that created the stable government? Is there not stable government in the United States of America?
  Sir N. Fisher: It is not relevant to compare the American system with ours. That is a different situation altogether. The German system of election has certainly contributed to the stability of Germany since the war.
  This amendment has very special importance for Scotland because, as other hon. Members have indicated, according to the latest public opinion polls the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the SNP have roughly equal support in Scotland. They have perhaps the support of about 30 per cent. of the electorate each. It is likely that by the time of the next General Election one of the parties will have edged in front of the others and may obtain 35 per cent. to 45 per cent. of the votes. Under the present system that could give the leading party a substantial majority of seats and, perhaps, an overall majority.
  That is not only unfair; it is dangerous. I hope that it will not happen but the majority party might be the SNP. It is a party that is openly pledged to separatism for Scotland. In that even, the war between Edinburgh and London, which so many of us fear and which has been referred to constantly during these debates would be certain, continuous and bitter. It would be gravely divisive and damaging for both Scotland and England and would inevitably lead to the break-up

  1253
  of the United Kingdom. But under any system of proportional representation the seats secured by each party would be in proportion to the votes actually cast for it, and that would be far less potentially dangerous.
  The proportional representation system that is favoured by most hon. Members, and is certainly favoured by all those who support the amendment, was devised by the Hansard Society Commission. It is the best system because it is the simplest and easiest one for the electors to understand. They have only to put a cross against the name of the candidate they prefer, exactly as they do at present. This method would also retain the personal relationship, which I believe is important, between an hon. Member and his constituents. It would not involve re-drawing the constituency boundaries and it would also reduce the number of members in the Welsh Assembly to 50 and in the Scottish Assembly to 100.
  If we have to have these Assemblies at all, the fewer members who serve in them the better. If adopted, as I hope it eventually will be, for Britain as a whole, the additional member system would result in 480 directly elected seats in this House—that is, three-quarters of our membership—and one-quarter of the seats would be filled on the additional member basis from wider areas by proportional representation.
  It is true that the additional member system would increase the average size of the constituencies in the United Kingdom from about 64,000 to about 85,000, but the alternative of the single transferable vote system would either double the membership of the House or double the size of constituencies, which would be worse; moreover, STV would not retain the personal link between an hon. Member and his constituency.
  6.30 p.m.
  Both systems are fair. I can understand some hon. Members supporting one or the other because they feel that it would be more advantageous to their party. Presumably that is why the Liberal Party prefers the single transferable vote to the aditional member system.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The alternative member system is more advantageous to the Liberal Party, but we support the
  1254
  single transferable vote system, so what the hon. Gentleman says is wrong.
  Sir N. Fisher: In that case I withdraw my comment, and I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member is wholeheartedly behind the amendment for reasons of self-interest as well as of principle.
  I believe that the method suggested in the amendment will command the most general support from hon. Members who are interested in changing to a system of proportional representation.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I am listening to my hon. Friend with great care, and I have not yet made up my mind. Some people believe that additional members would be in a superior position to ordinary members because they would have no constituency obligations and, therefore, would have greater time to devote to great national matters instead of having to deal with the worry and druggery of constituency work. Other people think that the alternative members would be in an inferior position as they would have no power base, would have been failures at the polls and would be regarded as mere birds of passage.
  Sir N. Fisher: I do not quite understand the point which my hon. and learned Friend is making. Additional members would have fewer of the constituency chores and the work of dealing with personal cases which takes up so much of our time, but I do not see that that would make them superior or inferior to ordinary members. The alternative members would be representing regions rather than individual constituencies and might have more time to devote to matters other than constituency problems. However, I do not understand why my hon. and learned Friend should be worried.
  I suppose that I should be grateful to my Front Bench for allowing the Conservative Party a free vote on this issue, but I am extremely disappointed that neither Front Bench has felt able to give positive support to the amendment.
  Both the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet say that they want to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom and to prevent the SNP from breaking it up without a majority in Scotland for doing so; but when it comes to actions rather

  1255
  than words they either sit on the fence, as I understand my Front Bench intends to do tonight, or as the Government intend, vote against the one sure way of preventing a minority from taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom.
  Why is there this irresolution from my right hon. and hon. Friends and outright opposition from the Government? I fear that the motives are the same. They are afraid that if we give a fair system of voting to Scotland and Wales we may eventually have to give a fair system of voting to England. Not for the first time, I wish that for once some party, preferably my own, would put the national interest before what it believes, wrongly in my view, to be in the narrower party interest.
  I do not think that anyone can or does argue that the present voting system is fair. I have a mass of statistics to prove that it is wholly unfair. The system's defenders say that it "works", but I doubt whether even that is still true. Governments spend part of their time in office repealing the Acts of their predecessors and then passing legislation which is likely in its turn to be repealed by their successors.
  Mr. Peter Emery: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that this system should eventually be adopted for the whole of Great Britain, would he agree that in almost every General Election, at least since the First World War, we should have had a coalition to govern the country? Does he think that this would have been a good thing? I certainly do not.
  Sir N. Fisher: I shall come to that point and develop it later, but I do not think that coalition Governments are so terrible. Frequent reversals of policy have an appalling effect on economic stability in this country and prevent industry planning ahead with any confidence and giving us the investment which the economy badly needs and which would create new employment.
  I believe that a system of proportional representation would lead to greater political stability and certainly to greater political continuity. That would suit ordinary people as much as it would suit business men because the British people are basically moderate and middle of the road and they do not care for extremism
  1256
  of the Right or the Left. It may be that electoral reform would often produce Con-Lib or Lab-Lib coalitions, and I can see that my hon. Friends who want a true blue Conservative Government—which they might get at one General Election but which would be unlikely to last for a succession of elections—would not like such a system. But I think they should appreciate that extreme Right or Left-wing Governments would probably not last for more than one Parliament, and those who find the prospect of a coalition unattractive because they seek a true blue Tory Government—which is a perfectly respectable aim—should remember the other side of the coin, which is that under proportional representation, we should never get a Leftwing-dominated Government. It would effectively dish the Marxists, which for me would be a great prize. I apologise to hon. Members opposite below the Gangway.
  Such a system would result in the loss of some Conservative and some Labour seats to the Liberals, but it would be in the national interest to achieve the moderation and stability that this system would ensure. For Scotland, it is not only fair and desirable but essential as a safeguard against the disintegration of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: There are about 18 different systems of proportional representation, some of them more complicated than others. It is odd that the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) introduced so determinedly was the one of topping up. He chided my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for not being sufficiently clear about the intentions of the topping-up principle. I, too, would not have known much about this system had I not fortunately had the opportunity of reading Bernard Levin in The Times this morning about what has become known as the Levin-Mackintosh amendment, in that we were warned about the consequences of rejecting the amendment.
  The system proposed in the amendment is not only a complex form of proportional representation but is basically unfair. Yet the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) said that the present first past the post system was unfair.

  1257
  It is probably also true to say that if we were to give our attention to all the other 17 systems we would come up with the same sort of qualifications. I suspect this is due to the fact that the electorate does not act in a predictable way.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton also mentioned the problem of motives, and here I would myself not look too closely at the motives of any party or at the motives of those who support the amendments which we are considering. It would be a fascinating exercise but we do not have time to go into it.
  I want to deal with two or three points which arise from the amendment and also to go back to the point at which we started the debate, when we were considering why we should have so many amendments grouped under this heading. Many hon. Members raised points of order, quite rightly, to show their concern about this subject. I was not surprised to see that degree of anxiety shown by hon. Members since it reflects the absurdity of the whole Bill. I make no apology for restating my position. I object to the fact that we are proceeding by way of a series of set-piece debates. We had a set piece last Tuesday, which was a Welsh day, and on Wednesday we had another set-piece debate about the Shetland Isles. Today we have another on the subject of proportional representation. I and some of my hon. Friends have warned the Government about the problems of taking a major constitutional measure with all its inevitable dilemmas and conflicts by way of a series of single rigid debates.
  This is no way to do justice to the constitutional matters associated with the Bill. It is totally unfair to those of us who are neither Scottish nor represent Scottish constituencies, or who are Welsh and represent Welsh constituencies. It is not just that English Members and the interests of their constituents are being nosed out of the debate. We representing English constituencies have not even got into the intellectual framework of the debate because of the way we are required to proceed with set-piece subjects. This is an extraordinary way in which we have to examine and monitor a major constitutional measure. It is equally important that we should be clear that hon. Members who refer to circumstances as
  1258
  they might affect England should be listened to most carefully. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will follow me on this point.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I hope that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) is not inviting other hon. Members to be out of order, as in my opinion he is at the moment. We are not discussing the principle of the Bill this afternoon. We have already debated the principle on Second Reading. I hope that the hon. Member will turn to the amendment under consideration and not invite other hon. Member to follow his bad precedent by being out of order.
  Mr. Moonman: I accept what you have said, Sir Myer. I did not raise a point of order when many other hon. Members raised points of order earlier, although I had my reservations. I welcomed the fact that this was to be a much wider-ranging debate, and one of the amendments in my name is included in the group of amendments that we are discussing.
  I was making the point that we are discussing not just proportional representation, which is the central theme of the main amendment, but a group of amendments.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend has expressed his annoyance that last week and this week we have been discussing set-pieces, but does he not accept that when a Bill has been given a Second Reading and the Committee stage is reached the Bill is discussed clause by clause and, in effect, we discuss set-pieces? But these set-pieces are important aspects of the Bill which the Committee wishes to go into in detail.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Moonman: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but I also believe that the lines of debate have been drawn too tightly. This was reflected in the speeches made last week on our Welsh day, which were very closely integrated in that way. I was one of many hon. Members who tried to speak in that debate and to raise additional matters and who found it impossible to do so.
  I wish to comment on some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. He said that his amendment was in the

  1259
  spirit of devolution. This is one of the dilemmas which we have to overcome as quickly as possible. We are beginning to use slogans in our debates on the Bill. We are using expressions like "devolution" and "separation". If we say that the topping-up principle is the heart and spirit of devolution, we will confuse large numbers of people. Although this point has not been spelt out, anyone listening to our debates on devolution will realise that there are scores of different interpretations of what devolution means.
  When we discuss the question of holding a referendum, I hope that the Lord President will bear in mind that alongside a series of alternative choices it will be necessary to lay down clearly the meanings of these phrases. We have seen various attempts to analyse greater forms of communication and to give people the feeling of sharing in decision-making, but even after the debate has gone on for some time we have still not been told what is meant by "the spirit of devolution". As one who is very much concerned about the subject of devolution, I hope that we may have some meaningful answers to those questions before the debate is concluded.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that part of the trouble is that in the past two years too many people have been talking in slogans?
  Mr. Moonman: Part of the problem has been haste, part has been the area of motivation and part is that it is an attempt to create a structure—perhaps a hollow one—without revealing that the fundamental problems in Scotland and Wales are more serious than just their problems about houses, jobs and so on. The reason why I believe that we should not proceed in this way is that it will attract other campaigns and other forms of speculation That is why we are having this debate on proportional representation.
  Another matter to come out of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian is the very dangerous practice which suggests that we need this form of choice because it will give smaller units and alternative forms of representation. This immediately assumes that the whole concept of centralisation is wrong. Of course there are problems associated with centralisation, and no doubt the Scottish nationalists
  1260
  would say that bigness is bad, but this would have been a problem for any Government who tried to establish a system that would open areas of decision-making without going to the extremes of what we call devolution.
  If we persist in arguing on this level and we do not take sufficient account of the enormous advantages associated with centralisation to any modern technological country, we shall turn back the clock a couple of hundred years. It may suit members of the Scottish National Party to argue that they want proportional representation, and for them to create the fears which may be necessary for them to whip up support in Scotland, but they have to recognise the importance of such subjects as centralisation. The Government have not even been prepared to answer this question.
  This goes to the heart of the case that has been argued by the Scottish nationalists that there is something wrong with centralisation and that they want a devolved Parliament and then an extension of it. That extension becomes proportional representation. Such a series of steps is dangerous. I am questioning the fundamental assumption that is made. If some hon. Members want to take the argument back to the initial reason for having proportional representation, we are bound to listen to it, but there is an alternative.
  Mr. Thorpe rose
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. In my opinion the hon. Gentleman is devoting too much time to a matter which has nothing to do with this group of amendments. We are not going to have another Second Reading debate as long as I am occupying the Chair in this Committee.
  Mr. Thorpe: Whatever the hon. Gentleman's views may be on proportional representation, I hope he will not say that it is a question whether one is in favour of centralisation or decentralisation. The question is whether one system gives a wider and fairer choice. That is a matter for argument. I think that it does.
  Mr. Moonman: There is an intelligent case for centralisation in dealing with the size and scale of an operation or country. I should like to give further

  1261
  consideration to the narrow question of proportional representation. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] It is regrettable that we must have these narrow, rigid ground rules on a matter which affects England as well as Scotland and Wales. I incline to speak briefly in debates. I do not intrude too much in other hon. Members' observations. I hope that hon. Members, unless they feel that I am being totally unfair or inaccurate, will at least hear me out.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The fact that the hon. Gentleman does not often take part in presenting a case does not mean that when he does he is entitled to be out of order.
  Mr. Moonman: I take the point, Sir Myer. I come back to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. If that is the level of debate that hon. Members would prefer to talk about, so be it. One of my hon. Friend's torturous arguments was that, if we were to continue the present system of voting in this extraordinary Assembly, it would mean that there could be no clear lead for any of the three parties involved. Thus my hon. Friend justified a major change in terms of voting procedures and practice on these very slim grounds. I submit that that shows little perspective. He would institute a major change in the voting pattern and procedures to meet a transitory need. Surely part of the job of the parliamentarian is to look beyond the immediate pressure wherever it comes from and to have a reasonable perspective.
  Sir Nigel Fisher: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) directed himself to the Scottish Assembly because he was being most meticulous in keeping within the rules of order on the amendment. The situation applies equally to the United Kingdom as a whole. I think that the Liberal Party is greatly prejudiced by the present system. The Liberal Party got almost 20 per cent. of the votes in the 1974 General Election but came back to the House of Commons with only 12 seats. The argument is that the system overall is unfair and that it ought to be changed because it is so unfair.
  Mr. Moonman: Proportional representation has been discussed in this House
  1262
  many times in the past and might well be discussed in the future. My point was, what place has it got within the context of a Bill dealing with devolution in Scotland? The hon. Member for Surbiton referred to the difficulties facing the Liberal Party in achieving some reward in Parliament for its actual voting strength, but is this the time to examine this on a major constitutional Bill?
  The debate about electoral reform abounds with irrelevancies. We have had some this afternoon. It means that virtually everyone with a grievance to air or a political axe to grind has jumped on the bandwagon. There is genuine concern about the ability of the present electoral system to reflect the wishes of the public, but that concern has been swamped by the vested interests of minority parties in their varying array, aided and abetted by an academic or lunatic fringe.
  It is perhaps easier to understand the problems of the Liberal Party which, as I mentioned earlier, has supported the argument for proportional representation for a long time. The Liberals can claim some responsibility for getting the bandwagon rolling. It is a policy commitment which has added to the talk of recording 6 million votes but returning only 13 Members or getting 18 per cent. of the votes and only 2 per cent. of the seats. But the other minority parties—the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Communist Party and the National Front—have no similar justification. They have only a vested interest in change and, possibly, confusion.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the Liberal Party, does he agree that in the days when the Liberal Party formed the Government the system was the same as we have now and there was no indication that the Liberal Party wanted to change it?
  Mr. Moonman: That is absolutely true.
  Mention has been made of the Hansard Society Commission's report. Dealing with electoral change, the Commission set out four criteria: first, that the Government should not be able consistently to pursue policies that were manifestly against the will of the majority; secondly, that on the other hand the elected Government should be able to govern efficiently;

  1263
  thirdly, that sizeable minorities, in terms either of geographical area or overall strength in the country, must be adequately represented; and, fourthly, that any system must be generally acceptable to the people as a whole.
  It became increasingly obvious from the Hansard Society Commission's report that it had no clear view on the best PR system or even how to square these four criteria. I ask hon. Members to reflect on the impossibility of trying to relate, on the one hand, the criteria that size-able minorities should be adequately represented with, on the other hand, the demand that the elected Government should be able to govern efficiently.
  I do not wish to enlarge the argument by reference to other countries, but studies of both the German and Israeli systems show that they can be found wanting. They are not easily intelligible and in both instances the difficulty of communication between the constituency and the member is aggravated. A number of other countries have the list system.
  I do not deny that we should constantly aim for a fairer system. That is worth searching for. But to introduce it into this Bill and to support topping up is plain foolishness. It would be a pity if, in an attempt to set up a new system, we destroyed that essential ingredient in British politics of the communication between the elector and his parliamentary representative. He or she should be an identifiable person, not a name on a list. Those who have spoken to people in other countries about representation know about the difficulty of recognition.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from government being brought closer to the people, it is being taken further away from them?
  Mr. Moonman: Yes. That brings me to my final point. Those who make claims for this new form of voting procedure must recognise some of the practical problems which will become inevitable. The Liberal Party may feel that now its great moment has came at last. It may feel that it has been arguing for a long time for PR and that it has had a raw deal. Now, through this Bill, is the moment when it will get its way. That would be a great mistake for the Liberal Party.
  1264
  7.0 p.m.
  What is much more important is that we should have at least a system in all parts of the United Kingdom—in Scotland, England or Wales—that takes account of the important social changes that have arisen in our society. But devolution is about running down the decision-making process in this Parliament, yet the areas of decision-making have already moved away from here. Governments have created a whole series of agencies and authorities. Those are the areas in which we should be trying to improve communications—between the individual and the enormous number of bodies and agencies that have been created within the past 15 years. Proportional representation and the topping-up procedure bear little reality to our contingency needs.
  I end as I began, by saying that of all the systems that have been put forward—and many reports have justified this—the topping-up principle, which is the principle produced and recommended in the amendment, is not only unfair but is devilishly complicated and requires considerable administrative back-up. We owe it to this nation not to divert the citizen's attention away from the essential priorities for survival. Regrettably this whole Bill, like the amendment itself, provides such an indulgence.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moon-man) has made his dislike of the Bill very clear. Coming as it did from a Labour Member who is usually more open-minded than most, I was a little surprised to hear what he said about proportional representation.
  It seemed to me earlier that the strongest argument that we have heard in opposition to proportional representation was that put forward by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), to the effect that Manfred Schmidt's recognition factor was very low. I am not at all convinced of the relevance of Manfred Schmidt to this debate. However, if Manfred Schmidt's recognition factor is as low as the hon. Gentleman made out, that can be only because Manfred Schmidt has not done very much about his own publicity.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian, the hon. Member for Basildon and the

  1265
  hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) have made very heavy weather so far about the German system, yet the German system is seen to have worked with considerable success. I wonder whether any of those hon. Members saw a television programme a few days before the last Federal German elections in which a number of comments were made about the system. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth suggested that the electoral system should be intelligible. He went on in his brief intervention to conclude that the additional member system would not be intelligible. I do not agree with him.
  In that television programme in connection with the German elections, one of the points made was that the German electorate on the whole did not understand their system but were entirely satisfied by the result. Only too often it seems to me that the opposite is true in this country, because whereas the electorate very simply can understand the system, often they must find the results wholly unintelligible.
  I support the amendment. I do not believe that the electoral system is the arbiter of the success or failure of a Government, but it is a major contributory factor, as it is on the consequence of the electoral system and the Parliament or Assembly that it produces that a Government are based.
  The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) drew a distinction between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Assemblies. There is a distinction, but lessons from the former are applicable in relation to our consideration of the latter. Conversely, if the amendment is accepted—as I hope it will be—in due course, from the application of the latter we may be able to learn lessons in connection with the former.
  The hon. Member for Basildon referred to the fact that all electoral systems have their imperfections. I agree. However, if I were convinced that the first past the post system on balance produced the mast beneficial effect for the electors, I would think that there would be no argument but that it should be adopted for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. However, I am not so convinced.
  1266
  I think that few would argue against the proposition that, even with the inbuilt unfairnesses of the system, at least until the last war and probably for 10 or 15 years afterwards, the first past the post system had been one part of what I think has made up the most sophisticated and successful democracy in the world. However, we are not concerned with the past. We are concerned with more recent years—say, since 1960—and with the future.
  If in recent years I felt that the first past the post system had contributed, for example, to an economic performance comparable with that of our competitors, there would be little about which to argue, but it has not done so. If I felt that it had encouraged investment, provided strong government, provided stability and continuity and provided a basis for responsible government that reflected the opinions of voters and had the confidence of voters, there would be no argument and we could happily bequeath the system to any new Assembly or Parliament. However, it has done none of these things.
  Judging by what I hear from those who consider themselves to be experts on the subject of investment, it seems generally agreed that, even though we do not obtain a full return from existing investment, our new investment is totally inadequate.
  Then there is the question of strong government. It is sometimes claimed that we have a strong government but, I think, only by those who do not face reality. If Governments are strong in any way, they are strong only in their ability to legislate. Few members of the public would concede much success on that score. But Governments are weak in administration simply because they have power without authority. No Government have had the support of even a tiny majority of the electorate since the war, so every action of the Government is likely to be opposed by a majority of the electorate.
  Then, who would be so unwise as to claim that the system provides stability and continuity after the violent contradictions in policy that have occurred over recent years?
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the changes in policy that have taken

  1267
  place within the period of a given Government have been almost as violent as the changes that have taken place as between two different Governments?
  Mr. Morrison: I shall be giving an example of the point my right hon. Friend makes. I was about to refer to a controversial sphere—namely, incomes policy. It is of no importance to my argument whether an incomes policy is right or wrong, but the fact is that every new, modern Government have come into power opposed to an incomes policy—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Surely we are not about to start discussing incomes policy, followed by discussion on the next stage of the social contract. We are discussing proportional representation.
  Mr. Morrison: I am not so much talking about an incomes policy as using that as an example of why the present system has its failures, and in that respect I beg leave to believe that I am in order.
  The point I was making was that every modern Government have come into office opposed to an incomes policy, yet within a very short time they have concluded that they had to introduce such a policy. That hardly reflects stability or continuity. If consistently there had been an incomes policy, or consistently there had not been an incomes policy, perhaps we should be in a much better position today. It is the chopping and changing that does the damage. That is only one example of the contradictions and somersaults that take place as a consequence of our electoral system. In the circumstances it is difficult to see how anyone can still believe that the system provides a basis for responsible government.
  He would be a brave man who claimed that the system produces a Parliament that adequately reflects the collective opinion of the voters. No Government have received a majority of support since the war. No Government have even received the support of 40 per cent. of the electorate. As we know very well, in 1974 the present Government received the support of less than one-third of the electorate at both elections. However, a marginal shift in the attitude of voters, as daily they learn to their cost, can
  1268
  produce a violent swing in the stance and in the policies of the Government. Small wonder that disillusionment has grown steadily. Even in the House of Commons it seems that the confidence in our ability to do what we are supposed to do—namely, to speak for the people—seems to be wearing thin.
  If that were not so, why else would it now he suggested that we should have a referendum? In fact, I shall support the introduction of a referendum because I believe that the House of Commons as at present constituted is incapable of speaking on behalf of the public.
  Mr. Moonman: I have sympathy with the line of argument that the hon. Gentleman is taking, and I am still open-minded on these matters. But, having stated all the problems—the lack of stability, a lack of economic confidence and a lack of investment—is it not possible to draw a different conclusion from the one at which the hon. Gentleman has arrived, which he bases on the unfairness of the present parliamentary system to small parties and the fact that successive Governments have not been making the right decisions? Is it not possible that the problems reflect the inability of leaders adequately to relate to their parties and to the constituencies as a whole?
  Mr. Morrison: I was about to take up that point. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. There are some who say that there is nothing wrong with the system. They say that the only problem lies with those who run it. But where are the paragons who consistently will make the right decisions? Governments come and Governments go, and they are not all filled with fools. We may have our own opinions about who is wise and who is a fool, especially when the Government of an opposing party are in power, although that may not always be the case. However, within the present system I suspect and suggest that the public believe that many more wrong decisions than right decisions have been made. I cannot see where the great men will come from who will always make the right decisions. The wrong decisions have stemmed not least from the system that wise men have to try to operate.
  Apart from the reduction of support for the two major parties over the years to which reference has been made, there

  1269
  is another factor that has changed over the years and now creates the need for a different electoral system. I refer to the extent to which Governments intervene every day and all the time into every aspect of the life of industry and individuals. In the past it mattered little if there were violent swings and changes in the way a Government operated because those swings and changes had relatively little effect. Nowadays, because of the expansion of government, the need for stability and the need to iron out violent swings and changes is so much greater.
  7.15 p.m.
  Would any other electoral system provide a basis for improvement? I believe that it would. That is because of the examples that we see elsewhere. I believe that a system of proportional representation would provide greater stability and continuity and would reflect the opinions of the electorate. The opponents of proportional representation may, as they have implied already, say that it would not provide a clear-cut choice for the electorate. Are the electorate worried on that score? I believe that they are much more interested in consistency, which can provide a basis for good government, than in a clear-cut choice.
  It has been said that proportional representation might lead to coalition. It might do, but it need not do so. In this country we have assumed that coalition cannot work in peace time. It seems that even that is a major assumption given that which has taken place in my adult lifetime in peace time and the changes that have occurred since the 1930s. Against that background, it might be wiser to draw conclusions from experience in other European countries.
  Even without proportional representation it seems that there is a strong possibility that coalition will occur in the Assembly in Scotland or Wales given the existence of at least four parties. There is the difficulty that any one party will have in obtaining an overall majority. Are we to say, therefore, that coalition is all right under one system but not under another? If there should be coalition in the Assembly, I should far prefer that it was the natural consequence of a system that reflected the electors' views rather than in spite of a system that did no such thing.
  1270
  In support of its opinion in favour of proportional representation and the need to ensure proper representation of minorities, the Royal Commission said:
  "it would be no bad thing for a regional government to have to pay regard, in the formulation of its policies and in its administration, to the views of the minority parties, or indeed to be obliged to seek a consensus with them."
  There seems to be a good deal of common sense in that view in this context.
  But what system of proportional representation? As I have said, I support the amendment. I think that the additional member system would be simple to implement and simple for the elector. I cannot accept the opposite view which has been put forward today. I cannot accept that the British elector, or, to be more precise, the Scottish or Welsh elector, is stupid in comparison with his counterpart in other European countries. The AMS system provides a reasonably simple and maintains a constituency-member relationship. Let there be proportional representation in Scotland and Wales, not only because it would seem right for the Assemblies but because it would enable us more accurately to assess its merits and demerits in comparison with the first past the post system. In time it might be of great benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Buchan: I think that the problem with which we are dealing should be simplified. First, we are dealing with the proposition that is put forward in Amendment No. 59—namely, that there should be proportional representation. The other proposition has been put forward and argued at great length and with vigour by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). Tonight we should engage our minds in arguing that case. I shall direct my mind to the arguments that have been put forward by my hon. Friend. It is in those arguments that we must engage ourselves.
  One of the great problems in all political life, and especially so in the House of Commons, is the ease with which people accept the first level of complexity. They consider that level of complexity and say "This is manifestly so" and proceed to argue on that basis. They approach proportional representation on the first level of complexity and

  1271
  say "This is fair", leaving the matter at that level. I frequently find that it is the politically rather wet Members who associate themselves with that approach—namely, the easy acceptance of the first simple and obvious proposition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian exemplified this by emphasising the element of fairness in one aspect alone—the particular events during the 24 hours of election day. There are many more equally important matters in democracy besides the structure of elections and the particular events on polling day. I want to deal particularly with some of the arguments of my hon. Friend.
  Those arguments have been advanced on the basis of two propositions. The first is that change in society is a bad thing and that we should have some kind of structure in our voting to inhibit it.
  The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) talked about changes in policy, and rapid change, which meant that he did not like change in society. Of course Conservative Members do not want change in society. They like society as it is. It is those of us who are concerned about changing our kind of society who do not find this change in voting unhealthy. That is the first argument, and those hon. Members see it as a means of preventing change in society.
  Mr. David Knox: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that those who have been advocating electoral reform are doing so precisely because of the changes that have already taken place in society? It is the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who are the reactionaries on this issue.
  Mr. Buchan: It is interesting that those who accuse us of being conservative on this issue are precisely those who do not want to bring about change in society. Indeed, that was largely the basis of the argument put forward by at least three hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) said exactly the same thing by advocating the advantages of coalition and so on.
  It is interesting that the quotation used by the hon. Member for Devizes from the Kilbrandon Report was the very first quotation used in the brief proposed by
  1272
  those hon. Members who are putting forward the amendment. There is a very good case for PR, but the argument those hon. Members put forward was precisely this one from the Commission:
  "it would be no bad thing for a regional government to have to pay regard, in the formulation of its policies and in its administration, to the views of the minority parties, or indeed to be obliged to seek a consensus with them".
  But, by definition, the seeking of a consensus by itself is designed to prevent major change in society.
  There is no consensus between a Socialist and a Conservative on a major change in society. There may be a consensus on technical change, such as the level of REP or another form of regional grant, but certainly there is no possibility of a consensus on major changes in society.
  That is the background to this whole issue. That is the purpose of the argument that PR is essential for the Assembly, for it is designed to achieve a situation in which change will be difficult. The case is made on that very quotation. Basically, the first argument is put forward to try to prevent decisive change in society.
  The second argument, an equally dangerous one, is that the presence of the Scottish National Party in the Scottish situation makes it necessary. I cannot think of a worse reason for a major change in our democratic operation than that it is designed to dish a particular party. That destroys the case itself. The way I want to dish the SNP is to meet it head on and argue the case against it politically, as I have done night after night.
  We first need to look at the real nature of democracy and its consequences. Democracy does not stop on polling day. On polling day we tell people "These are the things we believe in. These are the things we wish to advocate. These are the things we want to bring about." On Thursday I would stomp West Renfrewshire telling people where I and my party stand, but on Friday I have to tell those people "All those things that I told you yesterday. and for the last four or five years, are not going to be done because we have brought about a coalition and a consensus with the other parties. Because of that we are not going to do what I said."

  1273
  This is where we come on to the second level of complexity. That which appears to be fair to the electorate denies to the electorate, first, control over its representatives and, secondly, the expression of the views that it wishes to be carried out by the party for which it voted.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman's party is forced to go into coalition it may have to jettison some of its objectives. If it does not go into coalition, it would not get any of its objectives at all. At least by going into coalition it would achieve some of its objectives.
  Mr. Buchan: Yes, and on and on in the same way. I accept that I want to change society and alter it. I do not want to be bound down by the events that we have seen in the past year. We have had to suffer all this, but we want to change it.
  I cannot understand why people welcome the idea of moving into coalition in order to prevent and inhibit all that they want to bring about. That seems to be a third level of complexity. They destroy their own policies in that way.
  The argument about dishing the SNP is highly dangerous for another reason. Many hon. Members have not properly understood the basis of the political situation in Scotland, and it is precisely in Scotland that this cannot be the solution.
  The argument is that we have one-third / one-third voting and that we have to balance this out. The problem is that it is not quite like that. What we basically have in Scotland is a situation in which two parties wish to achieve a certain kind of society. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party have views about the kind of Scotland and the kind of social change that they wish to bring about.
  The third party in this situation has opted out of that basic discussion. It is true that it takes policy decisions at conference, but basically its aim is to achieve an independent Scotland. That is the aim that binds its members. It is their basic objective. But it is not on the same wavelength as political discussion which is concerned with what kind of society and what kind of Scotland we have.
  1274
  7.30 p.m.
  We see the problem when we consider the figures advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. Under the system advocated in the amendment we find that the Labour Party, which had 41 seats in the last election, would retain 41 seats because there would be no topping-up for it at any stage. It is a long and complicated stage. The SNP will have 29 seats, the Liberals seven and the Tories 23. I would ask whether at the next stage—the fourth level of complexity—we shall get a representative Government to deal with that kind of voting.
  The Kilbrandon Report speaks of a consensus with the minority parties and the hon. Member for Stroud and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian speak of coalition. Kilbrandon said that it would be no bad thing for a regional government to have to pay regard to minority parties. With respect, we are creating something that cannot in any sense of the term be called a regional government. We are creating an Assembly that will have within its power the ability to alter, modify and transform Scotland's social structures.
  I accept that control over our own resources is missing. I also accept, even as a Socialist, that control over economic affairs that can change the basic relationship between man and man in society is not the only prerequisite for altering society. Policy decisions are needed on matters that are not dealt with by local government, including education, health, law and planning.
  The Scottish Assembly under the Bill can achieve totally different social structures in Scotland. The Assembly is not merely a regional government. It has a function equivalent to that of the government of any other country in bringing about the policies it requires.
  Against that let us look at the figures. No consensus is possible. Is a coalition possible? The Labour Party as the largest party would, presumably, have a certain interest in creating a coalition. With whom could the Labour Party coalesce to achieve a majority? The nearest approach would be the Liberal Party, but even with the Liberal Party Labour would still be in a minority.

  1275
  Is that the prospect we are offering to the Scottish people? Scotland has great radical traditions, and in election campaigns my comrades and I say that we are fighting against the evils in society. In our more jargonistic moments we say that we do not like capitalism. We cannot say on the next day that we have entered into a coalition with the Tory Party. What basis of coalition can exist there? None.
  The only other possibility is to enter into a coalition with the SNP. The SNP is not concerned with the kind of society in which we live; it is concerned with creating an independent Scotland. That is no basis for the election of an Assembly Government.
  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that according to the present figures 60 per cent. of the Scottish electorate do not like you or your policies.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not mean that as a reflection upon the Chair.
  Mr. Buchan: I am glad that you have taken it on your own shoulders, Sir Stephen. For one dreadful moment I thought that the hon. Gentleman did not like me.
  Of course we know the problems. I am a democrat and I want to change that ratio of 60:30 to 30:60.
  There is no case for the Tories to enter into coalition with the SNP. Therefore, no coalition Government is possible.
  It must he remembered that we are not dealing with a regional government. There will not be the wheeling, dealing and trimming that there is in local government. The Assembly will produce policies that affect the whole fabric of our national life and, therefore, national decisions are required.
  People will expect something to happen in the Assembly. After all the travail this year—and in Scotland over the past six years—we do not want to create an Assembly only to say on the following day that the Assembly can change nothing because the two elements of government cannot agree. That is a recipe for disaster.
  1276
  Those who put forward these arguments as a basis for dishing the SNP are extremely ill-advised. I can think of no recipe better calculated to wreck the Assembly than the creation of a situation in which its Government cannot operate.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be based on the assumption that if we adopt the first past the post system for the Assembly we shall get one party with a majority in the Assembly. While that may be the most likely result under the present electoral system there is no guarantee that it will happen. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to resolve the problem that will arise from coalitions if even under our present electoral system no party ends up with a majority in the Assembly?
  Mr. Buchan: Of course I understand that. We face precisely that problem in Westminster. I remember the unholy alliance between the Tories and the SNP to try to destroy the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, despite the effect on shipyard workers in my area. Despite that, I do not say that we must alter the system altogether. Let us try to persevere to achieve what we can—
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman cannot make a comparison with Westminster. It is proposed that the Assembly should have a fixed term. It will exist for four years, irrespective of whether any one party has a majority.
  Mr. Buchan: That brings me to the fifth level of complexity, the question of parties and people. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian said that there would be a relationship between the people voting and the members of the Assembly and that the parties would not decide which members were to be on the topping-up list. Nevertheless, wheeling and dealing would continue throughout those four years. Power will be in the hands of the party caucus, which will have to conduct the wheeling and dealing, and the electors will be debarred.
  My argument against the proposal is not based on its complexity. I understand that it is complex. A computer is complex, but the people who feed information into the computer get the answer. I do not need to know how a computer works to get information from it. People

  1277
  will know that they are still voting for their party and I do not object to that because it is complex in its working out, but I am concerned that when they vote Labour it should be meaningful and that it will not result in a coalition. Please get past this simple level of complexity which says that this is a fair system.
  Johnson once said
  "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
  In a sense, fairness can be said to be the last refuge of the wet. This is something complex that we have to look at and we must hoick ourselves up from that level of complexity to understand the consequences of what we are doing instead of accepting the simplistic and naïve view of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I strongly object to being referred to as "wet".
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member is not wet.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred in his peroration to the need to make votes meaningful. That is precisely why some hon. Members are asking for proportional representation.
  The first simple though fundamental question I ask is whether the Government are listening to the debate. I know that the Minister of State is on the Government Front Bench, but I want to know whether what the Government hear during the debate will make any difference to the implacable opposition to any electoral reform that they have so far shown.
  The Government have said frequently—as has the Minister of State—that they are open-minded about the changes proposed in various aspects of the Bill. This is the first test whether there is any real degree of open-mindedness. I desperately fear that Ministers have so stuffed their ears with the cotton wool of tradition that they are deaf to the hearing of any changes, and that, however persuasive or lucid the arguments—and there have been some extremely lucid speeches already—they will have as much effect as the proverbial water on the proverbial duck's back. Having a three-line Whip is not exactly a good beginning. Trying to sort out so fundamental a part of this basic
  1278
  constitutional change in one day is not exactly a good beginning either.
  I speak as a Liberal, long committed to electoral reform, in a mood which mixes deep disappointment and anger. Trying to give vent to the latter emotion is probably a waste of time, but all the hysterical laughter from below the Gangway opposite made me feel twinges of it earlier. But I suppose that disappointment can be remedied and anger diffused.
  I said on Second Reading that the Bill arouses such a great variety of strong feelings that if it is to succeed, in the end it will require all of us from our different points of view to make compromises. The Liberal Party has a long record of support for the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. In support of its ease of introduction and operation there is the recent evidence of Ulster. It was introduced in the Northern Ireland Bill. From then to the moment of voting was 13 months and in the memorable words of the Government's promotional material in films and on posters, the system was "as easy as one, two, three".
  In regard to the political and intellectual validity of the single transferable vote system, it is also worth quoting the unanimous conclusion of the Kilbrandon Commission, which in many other respects is the foundation of large parts of the Bill.
  Mr. Adley: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the experiment in Northern Ireland, which was aimed at breaking the two-party system, or the Catholic-Protestant system, was successful or unsuccessful?
  Mr. Johnston: I do not wish to be diverted into that argument, but I should say that it enabled power sharing to get going and cracked up when there was a subsequent Westminster election on the first past the post system.
  Mr. Budgen: Was it not a crude attempt to break the stranglehold on power of the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, and did it not fail?
  Mr. Johnston: As I have said, I do not wish to be diverted into this question, but if there was any crudity in the matter, it was the crudity of the Unionists in taking the system away in the first place in the 1920s—[An HON. MEMBER: "In 1929."]—which resulted over a period of

  1279
  time in the hardening of attitudes which has led us to the present impasse in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Whitehead rose
  Mr. Powell: May I assure the hon. Gentleman—
  The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Whitehead.
  Mr. Powell: I did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had given way to me, as I know something about the matter.
  Mr. Whitehead: I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he had any evidence that the proportional representation system in Ulster as used before 1929 had any measurable effect of the kind he is now suggesting. Is it not crystal clear that what that system has done in Northern Ireland is to outrage the majority?
  Mr. Johnston: I would say "No" to that question.
  Mr. Powell: The answer is "Yes".
  Mr. Johnston: In Eire the difference in attitude with the same system of STV is notable.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There may be a point with regard to Westminster elections in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it must be remembered that there was a Convention election on the "easy as one, two, three" system and the Unionists then had a bigger majority than they had had in the Assembly.
  Mr. Johnston: I fear that this may well become a teach-in on Ulster if we pursue the matter further. I was making the simple point that the Liberal Party has been consistently in favour of the single transferable vote system, but that my colleagues and I are prepared to support the added member system interim compromise, for all that we continue to hold the opinion that it is a less sensitive democratic mechanism than the single transferable vote system advanced in our amendment. We are prepared to do this although we accept many of the criticisms of the added member system which have been advanced tonight and have been made by, for example, the Electoral Reform Society. We are prepared to do
  1280
  so because it introduces proportional fairness between parties and their mass vote where at present there is none.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman made a point in relation to Kilbrandon. The Kilbrandon Commission also said at paragraph 771:
  "If it is not accepted that both central and regional authorities could be relied upon to strive to administer a scheme of legislative devolution in this spirit of co-operation, legislative devolution is not to be contemplated."
  If we are to quote Kilbrandon, we should include that strong reservation.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is once more making his own point that he does not like the whole thing. I do not think that it is wholly relevant to the question of proportional representation.
  The other feature that we should recognise in the added member system is that it would avert a potentially calamitously biased result in the first Assembly elections, and it is designed, by virtue of its interim character, which perhaps has not been sufficiently emphasised, to allow more time before a more permanent solution is settled upon.
  I would go further. If the Government accept the principle of proportional representation but contend that for technical, practical or legal reasons perhaps not immediately evident to the drafters the amendments are deficient and tell us that they will produce a proportional scheme of their own on Report, I would even go along with that. I am prepared to compromise to that degree, for of one thing I have no doubt—that while each of the proportional amendments may be open to certain criticisms, for no system that we can devise can ever be perfect, against none of them can be brought one-tenth of the weight of objection to which the Government's own extraordinary proposals are open.
  If we apply the Government's proposals to the October 1974 General Election and assume, which is a reasonable assumption—
  Mr. Adley: It is not.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has not yet heard what it is I have to say. If we assume that people given two votes, or in some cases three, will cast them for candidates of the same

  1281
  party, the Labour Party in Scotland would, for only 36 per cent. of the vote, have obtained over 20 of an overall majority, equivalent in this House, with 635 Members, to nearly 100 of an overall majority. The first elections of course will not necessarily favour the present Administration. They may favour other parties. But the basic point remains. It was well made in the Financial Times this morning by Joe Rogaly, who said,
  "Deeply ideological government is in itself unattractive. Its imposition by a minority imbued with the arrogance of temporary power is simply not tolerable."
  About a year ago, the Lord President described coalitions as "evil". I thought at the time that that was a remarkably strange word for one who is usually very meticulous in his use of language, especially when one considers that all the Labour Parties with which our Labour Party is associated in the Socialist International are or have been at one time or another in coalitions, and when one considers the nature of the Labour Patty itself just now.
  I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman—he is not here at the moment, but perhaps he will be able to say later—would describe the kind of result that I have just depicted. "What is democracy?" said jesting Foot, and would not stay for an answer. [Interruption.] I depicted a result in this House in which 36 per cent. of the votes yielded an overall majority of 100 and asked whether that was fair, even according to non-wet Members.
  I suppose that I am beginning to give vent to the very anger that I thought was not useful. It is just that one gets to the stage—Liberals have been getting to this stage for a long time—of wondering whether reason can triumph. That is a very dangerous condition in a democracy, and it is a condition that many people feel when they work and they try and they do not see anything coming back. It is they, who are not perhaps always as loud as others in their declamations, who should be considered, as well as anyone else.
  I have developed the question of fairness sufficiently, but there are one or two minor points still to be made. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West suggested that those who advocated propor-
  1282
  tional representation were those who wished no change in society because PR would be more likely to produce a consensus, stable society and therefore be a drag on change rather than the more dramatic first past the post system which allowed change because there were bigger swings and a bigger chance of great changes.
  With all respect, we Liberals have a good record of adherence to reform. We are not advocating no change. We are saying that change is acceptable only if people are prepared to accept it. I know that that is a tautological statement, but unless change is achieved in a proper representative way, it can be undemocratic.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not at all disagree with the hon. Gentleman's last comment. Naturally I approve of it. Of course I want to convince so many people of my point of view that they will accept the change that I want. I did not say that the argument for proportional representation was the argument for no change. I said that the arguments adduced tonight and the material which has surrounded this debate were based on that argument, and I gave quotations to prove it. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Liberal Party does not take that view—but that is because it wants more members than it has now for the size of the vote it gets.
  Mr. Johnson: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman's second argument was that many people appeared to be putting this proposal forward to "dish" the SNP. The brief answer to that is that some credit is due to the SNP because, so far as one can establish, its chances of getting into a dominant position would be greater under the present system than under either the STV or the added member system—if present trends persist, which we can never tell.
  But there is certainly an argument to be made that the SNP is at a point at which it could do exactly what the Labour Party in Scotland, apparently with no shame whatever, does now—achieve a vast majority of seats for a considerable minority of votes.
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the SNP has an amendment to provide

  1283
  the alternative vote system plus the additional member system, which according to some commentators would give the party a much bigger share of members than any other system which can be devised, including the first past the post system. Just for clarification, would it be the result of the STV amendments to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking that the size of the Scottish Assembly would be 217 and the Welsh Assembly 118? If so, why did the Liberals pick on a quotient for the elections which would give such a large number in both Assemblies?
  Mr. Johnston: That brings me naturally to the next series of points that I intended to make—on the subject of the alternatives. The direct answer to the Minister's question, of course, is "Yes". That is what is contained in our amendments. It is also true that we favour a larger Assembly than is proposed either by the additional member system amendment or by the Government themselves. The complement to that is that we also favour a reduction in the size of Scottish representation in this House. I think that that covers the hon. Gentleman's question.
  The choice that faced the all-party committee for a representative Assembly was between what I advocated in the Committee—supporting both a single transferable vote amendment and some added member variant—or plumping for one thing. In the end we came down to the view that we should try to reconcile the differences between us and go for something relatively simple, easy to introduce, that would not disrupt the present situation and that would of its nature be an interim solution.
  Much of the credit for that is due to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a professor of politics at Edinburgh University. He will be as appropriate as any Liberal to explain to his students one unique attribute of the first past the post system—that it enables the maximum possible number of people to produce the correct political answers and to be politically unsuccessful simultaneously.
  Therefore we have opted for this system. The advantage is contained in its maintenance of the famous link,
  1284
  which many hon. Members feel to be important, between the constituency and the member. However, as I said earlier, I should be happy if the Government produced some other variant, because one recognises that the advantage of the STV system rests in the fact that it provides direct election of all members and that the elector—the consumer—is allowed to make choices between a particular kind of Labour or Conservative member to represent him.
  That is a profound advantage. It is quite wrong, as one hon. Member claimed, that it would create tremendous problems of boundary changes. It would not. It could be introduced on the present boundaries without difficulty.
  8.00 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the system not fall because of the very top-heaviness that develops from an STV system in which there must be at least three members for each constituency? Will that not mean an Assembly that is huge compared with most other assemblies—not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world? In other words, is not the hon. Gentleman advocating a huge, overpowering, bureaucratic procedure?
  Mr. Johnston: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman that is not true. If we examine the options produced by the Electoral Reform Society, apart from producing a proposal for 200 members as opposed to the Government's figure of 150-odd, it produced a draft composed of 100 members. Therefore, it is possible to look at the matter in practical terms.
  I do not wish to delay the Committee any longer. I end by addressing a few remarks to those hon. Members—and there are quite a number—who do not approve of the Bill and who are totally opposed to the establishment of Assemblies in Scotland or Wales. There is a strong argument for them to consider supporting proposals on proportional representation for the simple reason that, even if this proposal is found to be totally unacceptable to those hon. Members and may pass into statute despite their opposition, I believe that it is in the interests of hon. Members at least to try to ensure that the way in which the system functions is democratically acceptable, fair, and speaks for the people with

  1285
  their many interests and views. Therefore, I ask those Members who oppose the whole idea to consider joining us in the Division Lobby tonight. Even though we recognise that we may not be opting for the perfect solution, we are at least trying to find a compromise—but a far better compromise than that which is comprised in the status quo.
  The Government made clear in the Queen's Speech that they were anxious to widen the democratic basis of government. They have tried in their way to produce the answer to part of this complex of problems by dealing with nationalism. The Bill deals with nationalism and indeed that is what it is all about. It deals with the communal urge for self-expression which all people feel. But if they are to provide the whole rather than part of the answer, reflecting the adherence to democracy that they share with Liberals back to the Chartists and before, the Government must reconsider their position and recognise that a proportional system of voting is the only fair, just and democratic basis upon which a Scottish Assembly—not merely because of the current division of opinion in Scotland—can operate, succeed and gain the confidence of the Scottish people.
  Mr. loan Evans: I wish to deal with the question of the single transferable vote. In this debate so far we have concentrated on Scotland, but I suggest that if we examine the situation in Wales we reach a different conclusion. As I said on Second Reading, if we introduced a proportional representation system in Wales it would benefit the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) then asked me why I did not support such a system. I did not think that was a sufficient reason to change the electoral system.
  Of 23 parliamentary seats in Wales at present won by the Labour Party 18 were won with over 50 per cent. of the vote. Under an STV system, those 18 Members would get in without any question. One Member in Wales was elected by a vote of 49·9 per cent. of the electorate. Presumably, under the proposed system he would have to go for a second preference vote in order to get the other 0·1 per cent. of the electorate. In Wales 19 Labour Members would be elected
  1286
  automatically. Therefore, we appear to be talking of only four Members, since 19 of the 23 seats would be won by an overall majority.
  Furthermore, not one of the 13 Opposition Members in Wales won his seat with an overall majority. Therefore, the 13 Opposition seats would be up for further decision, because there would be no overall majority on the first vote.
  If we take the second preference vote, we would find in a constituency such as Cardigan, where there is a Liberal Member, the likelihood that the swing would be to Labour rather than to Liberal. Therefore, again a Labour man could get in. That would be beneficial to Wales as a result of the STV system because there would be increased Labour representation.
  It might be said that this is a good argument for supporting any amendment to bring in a PR system, but the fundamental weakness of such amendments is that they seek to change the electoral system by the back door, instead of by seeking to deal with it in a separate Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. It is wrong that English Members should come to these debates and try to create a voting system for Wales and Scotland but at the same time not seek such a system for England. It is wrong that this system should be required for the Assembly but should not affect Members elected to the House of Commons. Surely that is a weakness of parliamentary democracy, if it is said "This is the system that is best for the Assembly, and therefore that is the system that must be imposed."
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little mixed in his terms. The system he describes is the alternative vote system, not the STV system. It is not a system of proportional representation. A PR system, if Labour had 49 per cent. of the votes, would give it 49 ner cent. of the seats.
  Mr. EvansOf course it depends on the system that is used.
  Let me return to the Amendment No. 50, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). We all recognise that he is an expert in these matters; and it may be said that, on occasions,

  1287
  he is a little too academic. We know that he is on his way to a professorial chair, and he is sometimes a little airy-fairy in his theories. I wonder why we have not thought of all this before. The present system appears to have worked perfectly well.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the German system. I hesitate to get in conflict with my hon. Friend, but I think that he has got the German system wrong. As I understand the situation, there are elected representatives to the Bundestag.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I later withdrew what I said on that subject.
  Mr. EvansI am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. I was not in Committee when he made that announcement. I know that one finds members of the Bundestag who have never fought elections.
  I believe that the PR system would be unfair as between elected Members. In Wales, 36 constituency Members would represent all the people of the constituencies as they do now, but in addition, according to the proposal, there would be 14 Members without any constituency, and those Members would be responsible to nobody. It is all very well to say that there would be 14 floating members, but what would happen as the political situation changed? One would have first-class members and second-class members.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: One has those now.
  Mr. Evans: There would be first-class members elected by the people in the constituencies and second-class members who would find themselves in a somewhat fey situation. There was a time when people put on their headed notepaper "BA(failed)". That was not a good way of describing the situation. This would involve failed Members being given a place. The system would be unfair between different areas. If it had been used in Wales at the last General Election the 14 additional members would have been chosen as follows. Six would have been Liberals. No wonder the Liberals want to change the electoral system. They would have had additional Members at Denbigh, West Flint, Cardiff, North-West, Cardiff, South-East, Cardiff, North and Wrexham. Four would be Conservatives. They polled a higher vote
  1288
  in Wales than the Liberals, but they would still only win an extra four seats —Swansea, West, Brecon and Radnor, Cardiff, West and East Flint. Two would be Labour—at Pembroke and Monmouth. Two additional members would be Welsh Nationalists at Caerphilly and Aberdare. The Welsh National candidate for Aberdare, by the way, has been ousted since the last election. They change their candidates, if they are in difficulty. This amendment would have that defeated candidate in the Assembly, but the Welsh Nationals have ousted him.
  Mr. Adley: Does the hon. Member not realise that, in company with other speakers, he is making a dangerous and intellectually arrogant assumption—and I do not mean "arrogant" rudely. He is assuming that if the electoral system is totally changed people will still vote in the same way as they voted at previous elections. There is no justification for believing that. One might as well say that if my grandmother had wheels she would be an omnibus. She did not, she has not and she is not.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Member has made his point. One cannot look into a glass ball and say what would happen in the future if the electoral system were changed; one can only go by the last results. It is a fair assumption to say that if a person voted in a particular way at the last election he will do the same at the next, unless he is voting for more than one candidate, when he might vote for one from each party. But it is a fair assumption that if a person voted Labour or Conservative, National or Liberal last time he will continue to vote in this way.
  Going by the results of the last election, Clwyd would have four additional Members under the system proposed in this amendment, and Gwynedd would have none. Cardiff would have four additional members, while Gwent, Mid and West Glamorgan, each of which is larger in population terms would have only four additional members between them. The areas that would receive additional members would be determined in a random manner according to no reasonable criteria, and this could have a considerable impact on the work of the Welsh Assembly. The idea of constituencies is to give a fair geographical

  1289
  distribution taking account of population and other factors. Under this system some areas will do very well and others will do very badly.
  Furthermore, the system is quite unfair between the defeated candidates. In Cardiff, South-West 10,356 people supported the Conservative candidate and 8,066 supported the Liberal. The Conservative defeated candidate polled more votes than the Liberal, but the Liberal candidate becomes the additional member and not the Conservative. Similar circumstances apply in other seats. A Labour candidate with over 38 per cent. of the votes, as at Carmarthen or a Conservative with 29 per cent. as in Newport would not become additional Members, but three Liberals with less than 20 per cent. of the votes each in Cardiff, or the Welsh National with only 21·2 per cent. of the vote in my constituency would be deemed to be elected.
  Sir Anthony Meyer rose
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is not in order for two hon. Members to be on their feet at the same time. All interventions prolong speeches; long interventions prolong them even longer; and constant interventions prolong them interminably.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Evans: There would be nine defeated Labour candidates who would not be additional members—at Carmarthen, Barry, Cardiff, North, Cardigan, Caernarvon, Cardiff, North-West, Conway, West Flint and Merioneth—even though they polled a larger share of the vote in their constituencies than the most successful defeated Liberal candidate in Denbigh. This does not include the two Labour candidates who would become additional members—at Pembroke and Monmouth, each of whom had a larger share of the vote than the winning Conservative at Denbigh.
  Proportional representation would be extremely unfair, and far inferior to the present system. Parliament must reject this crackpot proposal in the amendment.
  Sir. A. Meyer: The hon. Member is confusing two things. Fairness to candidates is unattainable, but fairness to poli-
  1290
  tical parties is attainable through the system.
  Mr. Evans: If that is the case we should not vote for candidates but for parties, and then reallocate the seats among the parties according to the votes, but that is not the way we do things in this country. Parties select candidates, and these candidates go before their constituencies. It may well be that it depends on the party to which which the candidate belongs whether he is elected. The Conservative Party has not gone to the country saying that it believes in this electoral reform, and neither has the Labour Party. The Liberal Party has campaigned for proportional representation even since it went out of Government. It never believed in PR while it was in Government, but ever since it left office it has campaigned for it in a big way, because that is the only way it can see of getting a majority in this House.
  When we look at the European Parliament we see that there is something wrong with coalition government. Let us have a Government which will say something to the people and stand up for what they say. In war time we can have a coalition but not in peace time. If we do we will have the horse trading which goes on in the European Council and the Western European Union. I was elected chairman of a committee in the WEU because of this. There should have been a German Social Democrat elected, but there was some horse trading behind the scenes, because the Social Democrat voted for a Christian Democrat and they swung it so that I, as the British delegate, was elected.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is very difficult to make comparisons with other countries? One may not be comparing like with like. For example, in one continental country the Liberal Party with which a large party makes a coalition may have much the same opinions. The same may not apply here. It is extremely difficult to make comparisions because we may not be comparing like things.
  Mr. Evans: I agree. I think we should recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill when attempts were made to determine the design of this House. He said that we shaped our buildings and they in turn shaped us. In this country we have

  1291
  primarily the two-party system. That is why I believe we shall have stronger government by having a complete majority, and that is why I do not believe we should change the electoral system in such a way as to increase the multiplicity of parties. That will happen if we encourage everyone to stand for election. So long as such candidates get sufficient votes they will be entitled to membership of the Assembly.
  Mr. Richard Wood: When, to natural diffidence, is added the challenge that is generally, but not always, daunting to an Englishman, to give opinions about affairs either north or west of the borders of England, most Englishmen might be tempted to remain silent. I have decided to speak tonight, however, almost entirely because in my view the interests of the whole United Kingdom are intimately involved in these amendments. I want to try to give rather more attention to one aspect of this matter, which has been strangely neglected by most hon. Members except my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher).
  I was properly brought up on the old axiom, which all hon. Members will know, put to me by a close and remarkably unpresumptuous Scottish friend, who told me long ago that the best prospect for a Scot was the road that led to England. In the intervening years I have trod that road northwards, and also the road to Wales, many more times than I can possibly remember, both officially and, perhaps just as often, for the pure pleasure that I always found on the other side of the border.
  I remember long ago, when I left the Ministry of Power, discovering a benign plot by my civil servants, which they later revealed to me, by which they tried to keep me more often in England and to prevent me from going so often to Scotland and Wales, where they probably rightly felt I was spending too much of my time.
  My interest in the amendments stems first from my interest in the whole question of electoral reform. I was a member of the Hansard Society Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Blake, which reported last June and which was the collective author of the additional member system which is embodied in the
  1292
  amendments. We did not, however, claim originality for it for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and others. Our report was mainly concerned with electoral reform generally, but it made recommendations both for the devolved Assemblies and for elections to the European Parliament, which I fervently hope we shall be discussing in the fairly near future.
  The more important reason for my interest, however, is my conviction that the electoral system devised for the Assembly in Wales and even more important, for the Scottish Assembly, is of vital concern to us all, whichever constituency we represent. I share with a great many other hon. Members a passionate wish that the United Kingdom should remain united. I fear that certain electoral systems could sooner or later lead to irresistible pressures driving us to destroy that unity. I am determined to do all I can to prevent that.
  The starting point for many of us was the Kilbrandon Commission. Both the majority and the minority reports recommended the single transferable vote. I think that the majority report added that it might be combined with the alternative vote in areas of sparse population. However, the important thing is that both reports were agreed that some form of proportional representation was necessary to secure the proper representation and protection of minorities.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed out earlier that the Royal Commission apparently considered only the single transferable vote, the alternative vote and the existing first-past-the-post system. It did not consider other electoral systems, and certainly not the additional member system, which had not then been clearly defined.
  If my speech from now on is mainly concerned with the Scottish Assembly rather than the Welsh Assembly, it is only because in my view the dangers involved in the improper and inadequate representation of minorities are greater in Scotland than in Wales.
  All of us suffer two disabilities in this discussion. None of us can foresee future voting patterns with any certainty. None can forecast with accuracy the effect on these voting patterns of any

  1293
  change in our electoral arrangements. But, taking existing constituencies, whatever their precise relationship may be to the future Scottish Assembly, I think one can say with some degree of certainty, that, under the existing first-past-the-post system, an overall clear majority of seats can be the reward, as it is at present, of considerably less than half the total vote cast.
  In October 1974 the Labour Party, with little more than one-third of the votes, won well over half the seats in Scotland. It is certainly possible that this inadequately-earned reward could go to another party. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) gave the example of the recent election in Quebec. The reason why I believe that this subject is so grave is that none of us can be at all sure of the way out of the constitutional crisis that could occur where the party, with the minority of votes but with a clear majority of Assembly seats, was in direct conflict with Her Majesty's Government in London on the issue of Scottish independence.
  Contrary to most belief, the Conservative Party is the only party since the war to win a clear majority of Scottish votes cast in a General Election. That was in 1955. It was rewarded with the most meagre majority possible of one seat over the Labour and Liberal Parties combined. Yet at the following General Election, when it was still the most popular party, it won seven seats fewer than the Labour Party, which had won fewer votes than the Conservatives.
  Several things have since happened. One of the main changes has been the large increase in support for the Scottish National Party. Professor Rose of Strathclyde University has probably put it correctly when he suggested that
  "the use of the existing electoral system offers the prospect of a Scottish Assembly with a majority either for Socialism or for Nationalism; whereas the prospect under proportional representation is a majority for the Union."
  This is fundamentally important. If Professor Rose is right—and I believe that he is—those who believe in the paramount importance of the Union and who think that this overshadows all economic differences between ourselves and the present Government, for instance, must
  1294
  be naturally drawn to some form of proportional representation.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does not this presuppose a coalition between Labour and Conservative representation? Is that not the logical consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman says?
  Mr. Wood: That may well be true, but that will depend upon the relative importance that both Labour and Conservative Members attach to economic questions and to preserving sovereignty as it now exists. No one can foresee what the situation will be. If the Labour Party and the Conservative Party agreed that the maintenance of the Union of Britain was more important than any economic differences, they would presumably combine in order to preserve it.
  Examining the suggested alternatives with this objective in view, I would at once reject the system known as the alternative vote. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) discussed this, although he did not always make it clear which system he had in mind. The reason why I reject the alternative vote system is that neither it nor the related double ballot sets out to achieve a proportional result. If one wants to bring votes cast and seats won into a closer relationship in order to safeguard minorities, there must be an overwhelming basic case for rejecting an electoral system that would not even aim at that objective.
  The single transferable vote would achieve a more proportional result than the additional member system that we are now considering. It would certainly be a great deal better than the existing system, but I think that the cost of introducing it would be greater than that suggested by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). It would involve considerable upheaval, and I cannot see how the Boundary Commission could avoid considerable difficulties about the size of constituencies, the number of Assembly members to be returned and the constituencies' precise delimitation. These are important questions that would have implications for every political party. Such a change would take considerable time.
  For all these reasons, I prefer the additional member system. It would not lead to such a large measure of upheaval. No boundaries would have to be redrawn,

  1295
  and voting would be as simple as at a General Election. Each constituency would elect one Assembly member and the total number of members of the Assemblies would not only be in nice round figures, but would also be sufficient for the job. The system would be easier for everybody to understand. Constituency members would be augmented by additional members. There was some confusion earlier about whether or not the system would be complicated. It is easy to explain in principle, although the details are more complicated, but it would be unnecessary for the details to be clearly understood by the voter when he cast his vote for a man or party, or for both.
  There has been some discussion about the possibility of having two members representing a single constituency—the winning member and the best loser, or possibly even the winning member and the two best losers. All the possible electoral systems that we are discussing tonight—whether the one in the Bill, the single transferable vote or the additional member system—involve more than one member representing a constituency. Therefore, whichever system we choose there are likely to be constituencies that will return more than one member to the Assembly.
  The system proposed in the amendment is not strictly proportional, but probably we could not introduce any practical system that would be entirely proportional. At least no party would be likely to obtain a majority over the others unless it had come close to winning a majority of the votes cast. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who has unfortunately now left the Chamber, was immensely optimistic about his party's future in Scotland. I do not know whether he has a crystal ball, but he can certainly see more clearly than I. He seemed to be appalled by the limitations that could be improved by the proposal in the amendment upon the prospects of the Labour Party and, I think he added generously, upon the prospects of any party that might be in a majority position with a minority of votes. I think that the hon. Gentleman was unwise to be too optimistic because the results of the first-past-the-post system—particularly where there are four or five parties, as in Scotland—are so wildly unpredictable
  1296
  that it would be rash for any party to gamble on the possible, or even probable, benefit of the present system, in which the winner takes all, without at least reflecting on the reverse truth that the loser takes nothing. At a future election it might be difficult for the loser or losers to prevent the break-up of the United Kingdom.
  All forms of proportional representation are opposed on the well-known ground that coherent government is made difficult when no one party wins a clear majority of seats. This is the argument for strong government which I and many others have advanced in the past against the cause of proportional representation. However, whatever the continuing merits of that argument in respect of the United Kingdom as a whole—and this is not the time to discuss that question—I believe that there is great force in the majority report of the Kilbrandon Commission, which said:
  "it would be no bad thing for a regional government to have to pay regard, in the formulation of its policies and in its administration to the views of the minority parties, or indeed to be obliged to seek a consensus with them."
  If the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West puts the interests and ambitions of his party above the interests of the country, I can understand his frustration and disagreement with this idea. If, however, he believes that the interests of Scotland in this case, or Great Britain in another context, are paramount, he will recognise that there may be an advantage in having to seek a consensus, not necessarily through coalition but by other means, with other parties, in the policies pursued by the Government.
  No one believes that any of these systems is perfect. I think that the additional member system is the best, but I am myself concerned about the position of additional members and whether they will be regarded as inferior or superior to ordinary members. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said that some people believe that additional members would be thought superior and some thought that they would be considered inferior. In such circumstances the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. It has been suggested that members elected by constituencies would be superior, while

  1297
  others say that it would be so glorious not to have a constituency that the additional members would be considered superior. We could go on arguing the point for a long time.
  It is a positive advantage that each candidate would have to stand for election and not be chosen from a party list. The Blake Commission considered this matter and recommended the line contained in the amendment. If there is strong feeling that a party list would be preferable, we could reconsider the matter.
  The main point is that the imperfections of the additional member system, and to a lesser extent the single transferable vote, are mere blemishes compared with the fatal flaw of the existing system, which threatens to destroy the structure which has been built up patiently over the centuries. The great danger of grafting on to the Scottish Assembly a system, which has no merit except that it is familiar to us, fills me with foreboding. My plea is that we should escape from the plurality system, which is not merely defective but could lead us to disaster.
  In all my years in Parliament, I can remember no time when the unity of the country was more gravely threatened. Those of us who care deeply for that unity must do all we can, while we can, to preserve it. I am convinced that the House of Commons will be taking the first momentous step towards that end—which few want to see—if it rejects the amendment, which could do much to keep alive the continuing prospect of a united Kingdom.
  I hope fervently that hon. Members who share my fears and agree with the need for change will feel strong enough to remain possibly until a late hour tonight or even tomorrow morning, to make a substantial dent in that massive force of Members which has been represented for most of the afternoon by a skeleton force but which will no doubt be duly shepherded into the "No" Lobby.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: I was heartened to hear what was said by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). His speech was excellent, if only because it got away from the arith-
  1298
  metic and began to consider some of the more important political issues concerning not just devolution but this amendment.
  I was struck most forcefully when my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said that his amendment was about the essence of devolution. That immediately commended it to me, because I believe very strongly in the wisdom of the Government's devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales. An additional argument, which I had not previously thought of, was put forward by the right hon. Member for Bridlington, who said that this system would work towards preserving the unity of the United Kingdom—although I have no fears for the unity of the United Kingdom unless we fail to obtain a satisfactory measure of devolution. I am a keen believer in the unity of the United Kingdom, and I hope for a unity even greater than that which exists at present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was criticised by the right hon. Member for Bridlington for getting a little mixed up between the various systems of proportional representation. My hon. Friend tried to draw some arithmetical conclusion about what would have happened in Wales had there been an STV system of proportional representation in the last General Election. My hon. Friend was simply defining the laws of arithmetic. The effect of any particular type of proportional representation can be fairly accurately predicted. Although I would be the last to claim to be a great expert in these matters, at least I have sufficient nous to know that one and two make three, since some hon. Members have been talking about the one-two-three system.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) over-stated his case when he said that since 49 per cent. of the votes went to Labour, Labour would have had 49 per cent. of the seats. But we are striving to get a closer correspondence between the total number of votes cast and the number of seats gained by the various parties.
  Mr. Wigley: Strictly speaking, the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says. Labour had 49·5 per cent. of the votes, and under the system recommended in this amendment Labour

  1299
  would have got 50 per cent. of the seats. That is a difference of 0·5 per cent.
  Mr. Ellis: That may be so, but the point that the hon. Gentleman was making was that if Labour got 49 per cent, of the votes, it would get 49 per cent. of the seats. That may apply in one fortuitous set of circumstances, but it would not apply as a general principle. The hon. Gentleman was trying to put it forward as a principle.
  If we look at the result of the last General Election we see that the parties are not represented in this House according to the proportion of votes cast for them. Plaid Cymru had half as many seats again as the Liberal Party, but the Liberal Party had half as many votes again as Plaid Cymru. That is a nonsense which results from the arithmetic of the present system. Therefore, it seems prima facie that a change is needed, and the question then arises when it should come about and where it should be applied.
  I favour the single transferable vote system, but I believe that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) made a big mistake when he tried to compare the various systems. The proposal before the House has one inestimable advantage, which was clearly explained by my hon. Friend, in that it is readily available to be put into effect by the spring of 1978 when these Assemblies come into being.
  8.45 p.m.
  In a sense, that rules out all argument for the time being as being academic. We are after a practicable working proposition. To that extent, it would justify any hon. Members who believe in the principle of proportional representation supporting the amendment. These are arithmetical arguments. They are important—I should be the last to decry them—but there is a more important issue to which the right hon. Member for Bridlington devoted a great part of his speech. I should like to give my thoughts on that aspect, too.
  I see an important trend in British political life. During the last century or so, we have been accustomed to what are called adversary politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare referred to Winston Churchill insisting that this Chamber should be rebuilt to its tradi-
  1300
  tional pattern with the Government on this side and the Opposition on the other. One of my criticisms of our proceedings is that they often seem to descend to Government Members getting up and saying "Yah" and Opposition Members getting up and saying "Boo". In many ways that is far too simplistic an approach to politics in a modern industrial State to appeal to the electorate who, on the whole, are intelligent. One reason for a growing disillusionment with political parties and the political processes as such in this country is the feeling held by many people that it is "Yah Boo" and no more than that.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that in some Continental parliamentary chambers there is more "Yah Boo" within the semi-circle chamber where there is a multiciplicity of parties? Instead of the Government putting their view and the Opposition putting theirs, there are coalitions which are failing because they cannot carry their own party members when pursuing policies with which the coalition supposedly agree.
  Mr. Ellis: I apologise if I have given the impression that I am trying to draw some kind of casual connection between the geometry of this place and that type of politics. I want to develop my argument into something less simplistic. The arithmetic in trying to argue the results of proportional representation is essential, but I do not think that the shape of the Chamber determines the form of our politics. We started with adversary politics essentially because the Labour Party, I think rightly, saw gross injustices all around.
  When I was a small boy, my father, who was a coal miner, was active in local politics. When he saw gross injustices all he had to do was to get on a soap box and shout "Down with the owners." That was a meaningful thing to do in the 1920s and 1930s. I am not sure that it would be meaningful today—of course, many of my colleagues might still be tempted—to get up on a soap box and shout "Down with the owners", because I should be shouting against myself. To the extent that this kind of simplistic black and white situation that everybody can appreciate has gradually gone away, adversary politics have become less meaningful than they were.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that adversary politics began long before the arrival of the Labour Party in this Chamber? It was fully established between the Whigs and the Tories by that time. On the matter of merit, does he not realise that what he is advocating—a series of constructive speeches—would kill democracy stone dead? Has he not realised that one's own constructive speeches are fascinating, though those of others are generally dull?
  Mr. Ellis: At present I am not advocating anything in that respect. I was merely making the point that we have had a tradition of what is now an outmoded kind of psychological basis for our politics. Many hon. Members may argue about this matter. I want to develop it a little. Unfortunately, because of the shortage of time I shall inevitably over-simplify the matter. I hope that the House will forgive me for not going into great detail on this very difficult subject.
  I accept that adversary politics have existed for much longer than 50 years, or even 100 years. What has been happening because of the gross injustice, in particular since the war, is that we have been in a position of "us" and "them". That applies to our whole society. Some of us entered politics for that very reason. We want to do away with "us" and "them". We want to get rid of class, for example. That is my basic purpose in politics. Therefore, anything that still insists on an "us" or "them" approach is to me, prima facie, axiomatically unsound.
  Mr. Buchan: Is my hon. Friend saying that he wants to get rid of "us" and "them" or merely saying that "us" and "them" do not exist? Which is it?
  Mr. Ellis: "Us" and "them" will exist for a long time. Conflict is of the nature of society. I quoted Aneurin Bevan during my last speech in this Chamber. He said that the only complete unanimity was the unanimity of the graveyard. I do not want to get into that position.
  The "us" and "them" situation as it then was is not so apparent now to everyone. It would be a little silly of me simply to shout "down with the
  1302
  owners". The electorate would ask something a little more intelligent of me.
  Nevertheless, in the political history of recent years one can see all kinds of things that have gone wrong and that one can trace basically to that almost subconscious assumption on the part of politicians and, therefore, on the part of Governments and Oppositions.
  I take for example the kind of approach to fiscal policy. One of the great criticisms is that a Government go into office and start this or that policy, are in office for three, four or five years and then leave office, and the next lot go in and say "We are not having that", and they change it. That has gone on almost indefinitely on comparatively technical issues. I am not dealing with basic issues of political ideology. The Committee will forgive me because I am trying to cram into a small period of time my comments on a very difficult subject. I am taking a terrible risk of being misunderstood because of over-simplification.
  All kinds of problems have arisen. I take for example a potted history of the Conservative Party over the last six or seven years. The Conservatives came to power in 1970, having adopted what we then called the Selsdon Park attitude which in my view was an extreme Right-wing attitude. It was a very poor attitude, but they adopted it. Fortunately for them, they got power. Why they got that power is a very interesting question, but I shall not go into that matter.
  The realities of the situation and the responsibilities gradually educated the Conservatives, or at least those who were a little more intelligent than the others. They lost the Selsdon Park mentality and gradually adopted more realistic, intelligent and plausible policies. However, they lost the General Election in February 1974 and they are now going back to the old Selsdon Park extreme Right-wing attitude, which will do their party a great deal of harm. I sometimes think that one of our greatest political assets is the Leader of the Opposition, for that very reason.
  It is in that sense that I am trying to make the case, on a United Kingdom scale, that adversary politics are not in 1977 the right kind of psychological basis for conducting our affairs.
  Mr. Dalyell: I have read my hon. Friend's 8,000 elegantly argued words on this subject in "New Europe" and followed his argument closely, but how is it that he supposes we can do away with adversary politics in the context of proportional representation? Proportional representation has nothing to do with doing away with adversary politics. There are SNP Members on the other side of the Chamber who believe in a separate Scottish State but we believe in the unity of the United Kingdom. There is a built-in adversary situation. It is irrelevant who is right and who is wrong. Proportional representation will do nothing to mend the disagreement and the rift between us.
  Mr. Ellis: I was speaking on a United Kingdom scale. The situation has still to be considered on a United Kingdom basis. It is said that there should be a first past the post system if for no other reason than it would be such a major change to introduce another system that it would do more harm than good.
  In this Bill we are concerned with Wales and Scotland. It is said that even if we had a first past the post system we could easily find ourselves in a situation—many of my hon. Friends and Conservative Members have used this as an argument against devolution—in which we had a Government in this place of one colour and an Executive in another place of another colour. That may be a bad thing or it may not, but if we had a proportional representation system working in Wales and Scotland the strongly held views that might well be held at that level—I am assuming that the sovereignty of Westminster, about which we have spoken a great deal, will still remain in Westminster to a certain extent and that there will be a more muted political situation in the Assembly as set against the overriding determinant of Westminster—would be more readily acceptable than a potentially extremist situation.
  I am not advancing this argument merely to keep out the Scottish National Party. I am making a point of principle because our political situation has now reached a much more complex, sophisticated and intricate position than obtained 50 years or 60 years ago. Accordingly it seems that the political structure and
  1304
  the electoral structure that choose our Governments and politicians must also develop. Surely this is one of the main arguments for proportional representation.
  Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman is defining some of the problems that we are facing, but is not the most formidable obstacle our disposition to hold the view that we have the finest constitution and that nothing we can do can improve it? I suggest that the major obstacle to any advance is the attitude that our constitution is almost perfect and does not need improvement.
  Mr. Ellis: I agree that most British people have a conservative attitude and that as a whole we are not very happy with change. However, we must accept the facts of life. We must accept that change is now a feature of our society and that we have to be radical, even to the extent of being radical root and branch.
  The possibility of having an extremist party—I say that without meaning to be rude, meaning "extremist" in the sense of wanting complete separation—would be muted if we had a system of proportional representation. To that extent I think that most hon. Members should be prepared to support the amendment.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir David Renton: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) made a courageous speech, and I agree with very much of it. But I do not entirely go along with the hon. Gentleman in what he said about adversary politics. I do not think that any form of PR will bring adversary politics to an end, although I think that in the multi-party circumstances of a Scottish or Welsh Assembly PR might help to reduce the sphere of conflict. I shall have more to say about that later.
  There is a danger that our vote on Amendment No. 50 tonight will be interpreted, both inside and outside the House, as a desire to alter the system of voting in our parliamentary elections and as a sort of pointer to the way in which we might vote in years to come with regard to a European Assembly. If any such interpretation were placed on our vote tonight it would be unfortunate, because I see no reason why there should be only one system for every kind of Assembly and Parliament. I can well

  1305
  imagine one system being adopted for a regional Assembly while perhaps for a central body we might have another system.
  The reality of our vote tonight, as I understand it, is whether we are for or against the additional member system of electing members to the proposed Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. That is what we shall be voting on.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said, there is no perfect voting system. Every system has some disadvantages. For the two Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, however the worst system would be "the first-past-the-post" because that could create the worst distortions.
  I hope I shall be forgiven if I again mention the Kilbrandon Commission, but I was the only hon. Member who signed the report and have something to answer for. We unanimously favoured the single transferable vote system. I favoured it because it seemed right for the type of Assembly that I wanted—a consultative and advisory Assembly in which members would not be laden with responsibility for particular constituencies. But as the Government are proposing to have an Assembly in which members will have personal responsibilities, there should therefore be single member constituencies, and the single transferable vote system would be quite unsuitable.
  Having given a lot of thought to what might be the best kind of voting system for the two Assemblies, I find myself attracted to the additional member system.
  It seems to me that, by first having single member constituencies, we retain one of the advantages of the first past the post system in that it gives personal responsibility to members for the affairs of their constituencies and makes sure that each constituency has a member to whom it can turn with regard to constituency problems. That is one advantage of what is proposed.
  Contrary to what was said earlier, the second advantage is that the additional member system is very simple indeed. It is as simple as the first past the post system. All that the elector has to do is to put a cross against one of the names
  1306
  on the ballot paper for his constituency. Nothing could be more simple than that.
  I have a slight doubt about the method in Amendment No. 50 for choosing the additional members. That will not stop me from voting for the amendment, but if this matter is to be considered further it is worth thinking in terms of turning those who have been elected by the first past the post system for the constituencies into electoral colleges for each party. The additional members would be chosen by electoral colleges on a party basis, and that would enable them to choose those who are considered to be the best men in their parties.
  I know that there will be talk about the party machine. The party machine, for better or for worse, for Left or for Right, is always with us. It has some advantages in that it enables people's merits to be sorted out. Therefore, the suggestion should not be utterly disregarded.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. and learned Friend see any fatal objection to the system proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), namely, that the person who polls the largest number of votes should be on the list? Surely the electorate should have a say.
  Sir D. Renton: No. Although that is acceptable, it is not the best idea.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir D. Renton: No. I promised to speak for less than 10 minutes. I have been occupying the attention of the House of Commons rather too much lately.
  I have no doubt about the value—indeed, the virtue—of having some additional members who can devote themselves to their Assembly duties free from the ever-growing demands of constituencies, demands which are always time-consuming and not always relevant to the problems of the day. The demands are sometimes of much triviality and sometimes the function of democratically elected members of local authorities is usurped. In any event, I hope that the Assembly members would try to "stick to their own last" and not have a roving commission among the local authorities.

  1307
  I see the value of having additional members who are able to devote themselves in the way I mentioned. There is something to be said for additional members of any Parliament or Assembly, as the Germans have found.
  Miss Janet Fookes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way.
  Sir D. Renton: No, I am sorry. I am about to conclude.
  Any system of proportional representation in Scotland and Wales might lead to coalitions, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington said, that would be a positive advantage in the multi-party circumstances of Scotland and Wales. It would reduce the risk of party conflict between the Executives in those two countries and central Government at Westminster—which will, of course, be party Government. If there were coalitions in Edinburgh and Cardiff, there would be much less party conflict and less risk of the breaking up of the United Kingdom which is feared by opponents of devolution.
  For these reasons I shall vote for Amendment No. 50, but I stress that I shall do so in the context only of the Bill as it affects the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.
  Mr. Wigley: I shall not comment on the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) other than to disagree fundamentally with his idea about the nomination of members from the party list. That is just what we are trying to avoid in the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. We have already far too many nominated people in Wales.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) referred to the sovereignty of Parliament. My colleagues and I believe that sovereignty lies with the people. That is why we think that when the majority of the people of Wales wish to make a certain change in the constitution or to go all the way to self-government with Plaid Cymru, they have every right to do so. Many hon. Members recognise that, although they may not be willing to admit it.
  The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)—and the hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned this also—was somewhat
  1308
  confused and appeared not to know the difference between the single transferable vote system and the alternative vote. STV would not give the Labour Party more seats in Wales, but the alternative vote might.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Aberdare that the Plaid Cymru constituency party in Aberdare has not thrown out its prospective candidate, neither has the party nationally. This contrasts with what is going on in London, where Labour Members are being thrown out of constituencies they have represented for many years by their constituency parties.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: I said what I did as an aside, but I should like to take up what the hon. Gentleman has said. The candidate who fought the election in 1974 was employed by Plaid Cymru when he was a candidate. He was dismissed from his job by the party and there was an attempt by other members of the party in the constituency to have him suspended from the party. That is a fact.
  Mr. Wigley: The person in question left his job, but it is inaccurate to say that he was thrown out of the party.
  I come to matters that I believe to be more pertinent, beginning with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the unfairness to certain candidates not elected, when the top-up system is used. That system is much fairer to the electorate, and fairness to the electorate is much more important than fairness to defeated candidates.
  I regret that Amendment No. 59 in my name and those of my hon. Friends was not chosen first in this grouping, because it is a general amendment opening up the whole question of proportional representation. The amendment on which we shall vote first narrows the question down somewhat. But although I have certain reservations about the scheme outlined by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) it is by and large preferable to the first past the post system to which we are accustomed here.
  The fundamental consideration should be fair play. We have in Wales a word for it—"chwarae teg"—and we believe this fair play is very important. It should be clear to all hon. Members that the present system does not provide fair play, as is most obviously seen in the fact that

  1309
  the Liberal Party has so few representatives here after securing a fairly substantial vote at the last General Election, and in the position of the SNP. I am not grinding a party axe, because the system would not give us in Plaid Cymru all that many more seats—probably four here instead of three—but undoubtedly there are groups which are unfairly treated by the present system.
  I am certain that if Westminster were being redesigned we would not adopt the first past the post system. When we have a chance to establish a new and fair system with the Assemblies, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the inequities of the present system. If we believe in representative government and draw constituencies of roughly equal sizes, the idea must be that there is some correlation between the number of electors and their representatives, some proportionality. That is what the amendment seeks.
  The Government's credibility and mandate may be disputed when they visibly represent a small minority. It is in the interests of good government that the electorate should know that there is a proportionate basis at General Elections.
  Proportional representation was the only unanimous recommendation of the Kilbrandon Commission. In Wales the one fear expressed in many places is of one-party rule in the Assembly. We have had experience of the uncertainty of the past. The PR system avoids some of the detrimental policy somersaults that we have seen over the past two or three decades in the United Kingdom. For instance, the steel industry has been nationalised, denationalised and renationalised. I am not saying which course is right, but going backwards and forwards is certainly not the best thing. The same applies to the chopping and changing over investment grants: continuity is needed for better government.
  9.15 p.m.
  Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman referred to what he sees as the one fear in Wales. Is it not a greater fear among some people that the Assembly might take a decision which by its nature would be irrevocable—namely, to separate itself from the rest of the United Kingdom? Would he
  1310
  accept that that is the greatest fear for many people?
  Mr. Wigley: If the people of Wales by a majority in a PR system showed that they wanted that change, they would have every right to have that change.
  Sir Raymond Gower: But it would be irrevocable.
  Mr. Wigley: The point is that from General Election to General Election different Governments would be formed. There would be alternatives and moves from one system to another over a period of years. We have seen that in Northern Ireland. I do not want to follow that road too far, but we have seen a model of government come and go in Northern Ireland. What is important is the wishes of the people. That is why I underline my support for PR, because that is the system which most fairly represents the wishes of the people.
  The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) described PR as a damper on radicalism, Socialism and change. Surely the point is that he must persuade more people to call for that change and win their hearts by his arguments in order to get an overall majority for his view in a proportionally representative Parliament.
  In Wales, for the last two generations, one party has had virtually absolute power in some areas. In those areas people think that the tendencies normally associated with absolute power have grown up. This is not good for democracy. It is beneficial—particularly for Wales—to have strong opposition. In the Assembly the danger is that there will not be a strong opposition without this sort of system.
  In the last General Election Labour had 49 per cent. of the votes and 63 per cent. of the seats—23 out of 36. Labour would dominate an Assembly elected on the present basis. If the sort of system advocated here were adopted, Labour would have exactly half the seats—in other words, there would be a brake. The one thing that people in all parts of Wales want to avoid is the one-party domination that we have experienced in some of the valleys of Glamorgan and Gwent. We have no party axe to grind because in the Assembly elections, as in the Westminster elections, we would

  1311
  not greatly benefit from the proposed system.
  The model of PR that we want should be one that allows a relationship between the member and his constituency. For that reason, I would reject the full list system of the sort which may be operated in Israel. It is important to minimise the degree of multi-membership in a constituency.
  For example, if three or four members represented one area, I can imagine the problems in a constituency like mine. People bring problems to my surgeries, I write to the local council and get an answer which might be occasionally unsatisfactory to the constituent. He therefore goes to the next member, who does the same thing. The poor local councillor may have to write three or four times on the same problem. So the multimember system has problems in that direction.
  It will also mean that Assemblymen would be less representative of all the people. People would tend to go to the member of their own party. There might therefore be a polarisation, with certain parts of a socio-economic group going to one member or another, leaving some members ignorant to some degree of feeling among a particular section of the electorate.
  Mr. Whitehead: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but would he not agree that precisely that could happen under the topping-up system proposed in Amendment No. 50?
  Mr. Wigley: Yes, I accept that. That is one of the weaknesses of the topping-up system, but on balance it has advantages. However, it presupposes that the topped-up members keep in contact with constituencies. Presumably, if they are going to fight elections next time and stay in, they will need to keep contact with a certain constituency so as to be elected, either directly or through the topping-up process.
  The third reason for objecting to the multi-member system is that in the rural parts of Wales if constituencies were to be large enough to allow this, their size would make them impracticable. One could not imagine the whole of central Wales as one constituency: it is just not on. We already have enough difficulties in rural seats in keeping in touch with
  1312
  villages. In my constituency I have 92 centres of population. I hate to imagine the situation under multi-member seats.
  Under a PR system we would also ideally look for a built-in element of alternative votes. We should be looking for a figure of 51 per cent. for the directly-elected members in addition to whom there would be the topping-up members. This is not contained in the model, but I should like to see that happen and instituted by the Welsh Assembly after the first election. Only a topping-up in that way would provide for true proportionality.
  The amendment goes a long way towards that objective and the system can be adapted after the first election to meet other shortcomings. In Wales under the existing boundaries we feel that the proposed system is the best available. However, we feel that a figure of 50 members is too small to man the committee system proposed in the Bill. Our Amendments (a) and (b) provide for the 50 figure to be made up to 60 members.
  This is relevant on the question of power-sharing in committees in the Assembly. There must be a base from which to draw members on to committees that is fairly representative of the country as a whole. Therefore, we need more like 75 or 80 members. But with only 36 constituencies—unless the boundaries are drawn differently—it means on the topping-up basis that there will be 36 members directly elected and 24 topping-up members. What we should like to see after the first election is 55 single member seats in Wales with 20 topped-up members in order to give a fair balance.
  A number of objections have been advanced to these proposals and I shall seek to answer them. The status quo has been argued because of the vested power bases. People who have power under the present system want to retain it. That is a grossly reactionary attitude and I ask people to think again. I believe that under the PR system we can bring people together, even though they may be from different parties, to obtain solutions to our social problems.
  It has been said that Assemblymen in government without a constituency basis would be put at a disadvantage and would not have first-hand experience. But in reality that is what happens now. We

  1313
  have members in the Government who are in the other place. Indeed, my predecessor in my constituency is now in the other place in the Government. Therefore, what is being suggested in the amendment will have its merits in parliamentary terms.
  Some people object to the topping-up system because they believe that un-elected members will interfere with the elected members. But I suggest that the present model contains such a danger in respect of the two or three-member constituencies. Therefore, if the amendment were accepted, that danger would be lessened.
  Another objection to the topping-up system is that members will not keep their constituency interests. But that problem would be overcome if members were required to live in various constituencies or if members were adopted as candidates for the subsequent election by constituencies. Assemblymen elected with only 35 per cent. of the vote in a constituency would have fewer votes possibly than people who come in under the topping-up system. I believe that the Labour candidate for Carmarthen at the last election would come up with a greater proportion of the vote than certain other members elected directly. Therefore, that would not necessarily be a problem.
  The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) said that this proposal was too complicated for the electorate to understand. We cannot accept that. Why should we suggest that the electorates of Wales and Scotland are less intelligent than are electorates in Germany and other countries?
  The point was made that members elected under this system would not be answerable to anybody. However, once elections have taken place for seats in this Chamber, I suggest that until the next election some hon. Members are more answerable to their party Whips under the present sysem than they are to their constituents.
  Another point advanced against these proposals was that the geographical distribution was unfair. But it would vary from election to election. There would not be any built-in unfairness. There are benefits that are apparent. Some Mem-
  1314
  bers of Parliament would be free from constituency duties to take on more general work in the Assembly or to take on roving commissions in the local councils and other authorities. The topping-up system avoids selection by the party machines, makes for a genuine representative Government and leads to genuine power-sharing in an Assembly.
  An opinion poll was conducted in Wales before Christmas on the question of the proportional representation system. In that poll 58 per cent. of the respondents wanted PR and only 18 per cent. did not. A total of 61 per cent. of Labour voters wanted PR. That is something of which the Government should take great notice. To deny PR in this case is to knock down any arguments for changing the number of representatives of Wales and Northern Ireland in this Chamber. If the Government deny the proportionality of the number of electors to the number of members in this Chamber, they deny the logic of the argument which has been put forward from Northern Ireland for more than 12 representatives.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Does the hon. Member realise that when we talk about PR we talk about unfairness between parties? When we talk about it in relation to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, we talk about the relationship to the electorate in whole countries, which is quite a different matter from the idea of unfairness between political parties.
  Mr. Wigley: I do not differentiate between unfairnesses. Both are unfair. The PR system looks to the number of people and the argument for having fair representation. The argument in Northern Ireland is that 12 seats is too few in relation to the number of people. Both arguments are in parallel.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member talks about these roving Assemblymen and councillors. Some of us might think that they would be breathing down the necks of councillors and driving them to absolute distraction. Have I got it wrong?
  Mr. Wigley: Yes. The vast majority of these Assemblymen would be in the Assembly itself where there is a considerable amount of work to be done.
  Mr. Powell: May I put the hon. Member's mind at rest, in case he still suffers

  1315
  from a bad conscience at the over-representation of Wales and the under-representation of Northern Ireland, by telling him that the results would be exactly the same as far as the number of seats was concerned under a PR system as under the first past the post system?
  Mr. Wigley: I do not dispute that. That was not the argument I was making, and I see that the right hon. Member acknowledges the fact.
  To summarise—different people vote for different parties for different reasons. We see different attitudes in different areas. Labour Party members in Scotland want PR there to stop the Scottish National Party. Conservatives in Wales want PR there to stop the Labour Party. Liberals everywhere want PR to advance their own cause. It strikes me that the nationalists are the only people who advance PR simply because they think it is a good thing and they want to see fair play.
  I urge the House to support Amendments (a) and (b) to Amendment No. 50. and if Amendment No. 50 fails, I shall request a separate vote on Amendment No. 59. If both amendments fail, when the referendum takes place I shall urge the Government to add another question to it. They should ask the people in Wales and Scotland whether they want elections thereafter by the PR system.
  Mr. Whitehead: I think that the shameless nature of the conclusion of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) was unfortunate when set against his disarming frankness in the earlier part of his argument. I have never heard in a single paragraph the case against PR put better by an advocate of PR.
  The hon. Member said that he did not want to see the Israeli solution imposed on Wales, yet this is perfect proportional representation—the whole country is a constituency and those who represent it are a perfect microcosm of the nation. However, as the hon. Member pointed out, it leaves the country without a link between the member and the constituent in a single constituency. He said that he was in favour of that link in some form but he admitted that in the topping-up procedures envisaged in Amendment No. 50 that link between the individual member and the individual constituent is profoundly threatened,
  1316
  as it is in any topping-up procedures under the various STV systems.
  9.30 p.m.
  For that reason, I cannot take too seriously the hon. Member's fervent advocacy of proportional representation in theory and his claim at the end of his speech that he and he alone advocates it from a position of principle. There are those in the Liberal Party who, as the iron has entered into their souls over the years with their exclusion from power, have come to believe, or have persuaded themselves to believe, that they are in favour of proportional representation out of pure principle. Perhaps that is the position of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston).
  In this debate I speak as a fervent English supporter of devolution, unlike many of my hon. Friends who are opposed to proportional representation. I am opposed to PR for two reasons. First, it will not advance the cause of democracy in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom it will be introduced for the United Kingdom Parliament as well as for the two Assemblies and as well as for election to the European Parliament.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: All the better.
  Mr. Whitehead: The right hon. Member says that that is all the better for his purposes, but he must listen to mine. For the United Kingdom Parliament, PR would be a retrograde step. I hope to show that it would not solve but might exacerbate the problems of Scotland and Wales. I say that with some knowledge, after much study and with greater humility because we have all made mistakes over Northern Ireland with PR. When we have used this device in the past we have not always been over-successful with it. There are those who tell us that we must have PR because—and this is always the argument out of the back of the hand, not the argument of grand principle which is advanced in the Chamber—somehow we can stymie the SNP advance. That is absolutely wrong.
  In the case of Northern Ireland, I regret to say that I believe we were wrong to think that the introduction of fancy franchises into the Province would do anything to break the Orange solidarity, which is the fundamental fact about

  1317
  Protestant nationalism, which many of us on the Labour side have failed for a long time properly to understand. I have to say that because it is essential to my case that the arguments advanced for PR elsewhere in the United Kingdom are properly understood.
  If the Scots are to assert for themselves a separate identity of a separate national State, and if in that Scottish national context they are to assert it in the sense of separatism and of taking power for themselves, ultimately the United Kingdom Parliament cannot stop them. English Members of Parliament cannot stop them. Charles Stewart Parnell was entirely right when he said
  "No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation."
  We must meet the SNP and Plaid Cymru on their own ground, and we must carry the argument to them in Wales and Scotland. That is the argument for a United Kingdom. I support the Union strongly, not for its advantages, notional as they may be, to the people of England, some of whose people, I must warn hon. Members from the Celtic fringe, are getting heartily sick of some of these arguments. There is the grave danger of an English backlash from 85 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom. That is not something to be laughed at.
  We believe that if we meet the arguments about the Union on the ground of the Scots and the Welsh, and take nationalism in that sense entirely on its own ground and its own case, we can defeat them. But to cobble up some franchise of this kind, to tinker with the vote and to believe that we can beat those arguments in that way is mistaken and wrong.
  There are two points that will tackle this problem in the United Kingdom. I shall examine why proportional representation will not tackle the problem. We are now told that proportional representation may control the emergence of a new party in Scotland. We have been told in the past by advocates of proportional representation that it is a necessary crutch that will allow a party which has been unable to attain a major party status for the past half century to limp along. The arguments are not contradic-
  1318
  tory, though they are sometimes contradictorily advanced.
  The system that we are being asked to accept will inevitably, if granted by Parliament today for Scotland and Wales, be advanced tomorrow on the grounds of precedent for the United Kingdom Parliament. I am opposed both to the system of the single transferrable vote and to the topping-up system proposed in the amendment. I am opposed to STV because it will lead to a plurality of parties and an extension of bargaining and jobbery after elections rather than before them. That is not an advance for democracy.
  The argument that is often advanced by the Liberal Party refers to the number of votes that the party had in 1974. But it is not the sole or prime function of the United Kingdom Parliament to represent a microcosm of the nation. Many hon. Members who say that nevertheless come to me saying that they have stood out against their constituents in supporting policies that would be opposed by 60 per cent. or even 80 per cent. of voters.
  Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair in suggesting that proportional representation would lead to a multiplicity of parties. That is prevented from happening in West Germany by the requirement of a minimum proportion of the votes. It is easy.
  Mr. Whitehead: I shall come later to why the system has been successful in Germany and whether that success is due to proportional representation. In general, proportional representation has led to a plurality of parties because it is easier for that to happen in a PR system. We have the great advantage in this country that large parties are in themselves coalitions and they are seen to be so by the electorate. With STV or other proportional representation systems, where there are hemi-cyclical politics, the parties splinter and fragment. This has happened in Holland, Italy and many other countries. I accept that it has not happened in Austria and in one or two other countries.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Neither Italy nor the Netherlands has STV. Eire has STV and it does not suffer from the

  1319
  splintering of parties or any notable degree of jobbery.
  Mr. Whitehead: I shall not go into the question whether there is jobbery in the Irish Republic. Circumstances there are due to the history of the Republic and the nature of the two political parties, frozen as they are in the disputes of the civil war—treaty and anti-treaty parties. That is a major factor in the politics of the Republic. That is why that country has so few parties, and why a Socialist Party has failed to emerge as one has in the United Kingdom. The Netherlands and Italy do not have perfect proportional representation but they have a form of PR. Reformers in those countries wish to move to a system that has the historical stability that this Parliament has enjoyed. With the exception of one or two instances, there have been stable Governments of one form or another in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I should like to explore my hon. Friend's mind on this subject. Like him I am not enamoured of the amendment, but I would like to know what he thinks about this possibility: if both Assemblies were created and if one or the other Assembly subsequently decided that it wanted to introduce a form of PR, would my hon. Friend be in favour of, for example, the Scottish Assembly having the power to do that?
  Mr. Whitehead: That is a difficult question, because we cannot foresee the circumstances in which it might arise or how the Assemblies would exert the powers they are given or the powers they take—and I am sure that the powers that they are given will not be those they will ultimately wield. We cannot go into hypothetical questions about what might happen.
  The topping-up system is absurd. It purports to preserve and maintain what is generally accepted to be one of the strong points of our system, apart from stable government—the link between a member and his constituency. The argument is that we shall continue to have single member constituencies but that in addition—through what is appropriately known as the "Droop Quota"—we shall have a number of selected people who will be sent to the Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East
  1320
  Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) suggested that such members would not have the right of access to Ministers or be able to trespass on the prerogative of elected members who were returned on the first past the post system. But who on earth will stop them?
  If such a member has been sent to an Assembly, having just failed to be elected on the first past the post system and he believes that he has a mandate and wishes to establish himself as a concerned and caring member so that he may be elected under the first past the post system at the next election, he will seek to build a reputation as a local ombudsman, as will other members.
  It is bunkum for my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian to suggest that the additional members will not have access to Ministers, be able to ask questions or seek satisfaction for people in their areas. Of course they will be able to do that, and they will have every right to do so.
  Let us consider some of the problems of our society which this tinkering with the franchise is supposed to solve. We are told that coalition of the kind advocated by some hon. Members has brought great benefit to West Germany and that there has not been a pluralising of the parties there. In fact economic success, the federal system, with which I am rather impressed, and the fear of extremism—remembering how a Nazi Party came to power under the perfect democratic constitution of the Weimar Republic—have combined to give West Germany its stability. It is accidental that the arrangements between the Social Democratic Party and the Free Democrats—who have been preserved in aspic by their system because they are the perpetual bridesmaids of the coalition system—have made one of the least relevant elements in West Germany's success.
  That success cannot be adduced in favour of proportional representation or coalition any more than I could claim that the enormous problems of Italy—with 35 Governments since the war and utter chaos at times—is a crunch argument against coalition or proportional voting.
  I do not believe that proportional representation has helped when we have

  1321
  had it in the United Kingdom. I said earlier that it may have exacerbated problems in Northern Ireland, and hon. Members should consider that argument carefully and look at the two periods when it has been in operation in the Province.
  There is no evidence that it did anything on the first occasion between the Government of Ireland Act and 1929 to eliminate the problems of mutual suspicion between the majority and minority communities, and I deeply regret that there is little evidence that it has done so in the five years since the ending of Stormont.
  9.45 p.m.
  Before voting on the amendment, hon. Members should look at how we can grasp the essential problem of democracy. The essential problem of democracy is how to face up to hard choices. The hon. Member for Caernarvon said how terrible it was that we should oscillate between parties which believed in nationalising the steel industry and those which did not. But what does he believe in? He should believe in one or the other. If we have a belief, we have to take sides in the argument. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), if he were still in the Chamber, that this is what adversary politics is about. Adversary politics is now a pejorative phrase, but it has made the House of Commons what it is over the last 200 to 300 years. The odd lapses of the last few years, which must be set against the background of relative economic decline over the past 50 years, should not be ascribed to the failure of democracy. We have often failed to grasp the hard choices of politics in the way we should have done. I believe that those would go if we had a system of coalition set in perpetuity over us by proportional representation where changes of Government were no longer followed or immediately validated by General Elections. It is the right of recall there, if the policies of the Government change, which I want for all the electorate and not merely for those who support the Labour Party.
  Mr. Rifkind: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). He was correct when he
  1322
  argued that it was totally improper to try to deny the rights of the Scottish people if ultimately they should seek independence. However, he missed the point of the argument of those who support the amendment.
  If we had a situation where 50 per cent. of the Scottish electorate came to a settled conviction that independence was in their interests, it would make no difference what electoral system applied in the Assembly or elsewhere which would enable that objective to be attained. That was the flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument about Northern Ireland. If proportional representation failed in Northern Ireland, it was not because of the failure of proportional representation as such but because its proponents in that context failed to realise that the supporters of the Ulster Unionist parties constituted an overall majority of the Northern Irish electorate. In a situation of that kind it does not matter what electoral system is applied.
  The question is not whether proportional representation will dish the wishes of the majority of the electorate. It is whether it can help ensure that in a major constitutional problem the proposals and policies desired by only a small minority of the electorate are allowed to overcome the wishes of the majority in that part of the United Kingdom.
  When ultimately we come to vote on this amendment, I hope that we shall decide the matter not on the basis of some hon. Members who wish to see proportional representation at Westminster and who, therefore, will vote for the amendment to encourage that objective, nor of those hon. Members who will oppose it because they fear that it will lead to proportional representation at Westminster. Whatever our views may be, surely it is sufficiently important to judge the amendment on its merits as it will affect the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. If hon. Members believe that it will harm the workings of government in Scotland and Wales, let them oppose the amendment. If they believe that it will help it, let them support it, irrespective of their views on a proper electoral system for Westminster.
  In supporting proportional representation, I look solely at the situation in Scotland. That is the part of the country

  1323
  for which the Scottish Assembly will be responsible, and it is only the circumstances of Scotland which are relevant to this argument.
  There are three factors which the Committee should take into account. The first is that in Scotland we do not have a two-party or even a three-party system. At the moment we have five political parties represented in this House, and it is very likely that for the foreseeable future at least four of them will command the support of a substantial proportion of the electorate and that three of them will command the support of a very large proportion of it. This is a major factor which the Committee cannot ignore.
  But there is an additional point which is often overlooked and in this respect Scotland is different from the rest of the United Kingdom. Even before the rise of the Scottish National Party, no political party in Scotland traditionally was able to point to the support of even half the Scottish electorate at any General Election.
  This is not simply a recent development since the rise of the SNP. The Labour Party—the so-called traditional majority party of Scotland in the eyes of many of the public as well as in those of Government supporters—has never in its history got the support of 50 per cent. of the Scottish electorate. The nationalists have never approached it. The only party to do it since the First World War was my own party in 1955. The Scottish Tory Party then managed to achieve 51 per cent. of the Scottish vote. In this context, Scotland is different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
  On a number of occasions the Conservative Party has achieved a majority of support in England. In Wales the Labour Party traditionally achieves more than 50 per cent. of the vote. In Northern Ireland the Unionists have traditionally been able to command and speak for the majority of the electorate there. But at no time throughout this century has any political party been able to claim to speak for the majority of people in Scotland. If the situation is even more exacerbated in recent years because of the rise of the Scottish National Party, that is a further argument demonstrating what is already a historical and political fact.
  1324
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made great play of the argument that the real political basis of those who support proportional representation for the Scottish Assembly is an attempt to dish the nationalists and prevent them from achieving the fruits of their political growth. That is an important argument which must be considered.
  I believe that there is a fundamental difference between a political system which leads to unfairness, on the one hand, and a political system which leads not merely to unfairness, but to the probability of a grave constitutional crisis, on the other hand. It has been pointed out to the Committee that, according to the opinion polls, opinion in Scotland is split fairly evenly among the Conservative, Labour and Scottish National Parties and that any one of those three parties could become the majority party in the Assembly at the first Assembly elections.
  Clearly, if the majority party were the Conservative or Labour Party, there would be a great feeling of unfairness and resentment among the other political parties, just as at the moment in the United Kingdom as a whole there is resentment because the Labour Government have only 39 per cent. of the electorate behind them. I should argue that the system and the situation would present an even more grave development if by chance, by luck, or by the arbitrary distribution of votes the party in control of the Assembly were the Scottish National Party or any other party which sought a major constitutional change in the arrangements within the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman satisfy my curiosity? Would he rather have a coalition, because a coalition it would have to be, with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and others with whom he has differences on the running of the economy than with Members of the Scottish National Party who believe that there should be a separate Scottish State? Which coalition would the hon. Gentleman choose?
  Mr. Rifkind: If the main issue were to be determined by the population of the United Kingdom, I should even be prepared to join a coalition with the hon. Member for West Lothian. It would be

  1325
  a matter to be determined according to the issues before the electorate at the time.
  The hon. Gentleman is surely as good a democrat as anyone. The question whether coalitions would be necessary would be determined by the electorate. If the electors wish to give majority support to one political party, they will do so. There would then be no need, irrespective of the electoral system, to contemplate coalitions or any other joining together of political parties. However, if the electors by their votes in a democratic society decided, freely and properly, to distribute their support evenly among three political parties, is the hon. Gentleman, as a convinced democrat, saying that the wishes of the other two-thirds of the electorate should be disregarded and that a minority Government should be imposed upon the population as a whole? If he reflects no that, I do not believe that is the kind of system that he would wish to justify either to his constituents or to the electorate as a whole.
  I return to the point that I was making when the hon. Member for West Lothian intervened. If there is Labour or Conservative domination of the Assembly, that will result in a great feeling of unfairness among the rest of the political parties and among those who did not vote for the party that came into power. If it were the Scottish National Party, a grave constitutional crisis would develop from not merely a minority controlling the Assembly, but a minority that would use its position to disrupt the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom.
  I should like to give a parallel from the House of Commons. For example, we have many grave differences between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, but as yet there is no difference on a fundamental constitutional issue. If, however, the Labour Party were to adopt for its next General Election manifesto a decision to abolish the Monarchy, and if the party got 39 per cent. of the support of the electorate and it were nevertheless to form a Government here and use its majority to force through legislation to achieve such effect, and if the other place did not exist—as it will not exist so far as the Scottish Assembly is concerned—
  1326
  we would have the domination of not merely a minority but a minority in a unicameral legislative system seeking to impose a grave constitutional change without the support of either the majority of the electorate or the majority of those concerned.
  Mfr. Anthony Fell: Is not my hon. Friend stretching imagination rather far when he tries to convince us that basically there is nothing between the Tories and the Labour Party? Is not the Labour Party out to destroy the House of Lords? I thought that it was.
  Mr. Rifkind: As yet it does not include such a recommendation in its official policy.
  I freely accept that major differences exist betwen the two sides of Parliament. I have been confining myself to the constitutional future of the United Kingdom. I was merely illustrating that if there were to be a major conflict and if a minority party sought to impose its view irrespective of its minority support among the electorate, that could lead to a grave crisis which would have disastrous consequences for the nation. In a purely Scottish context, if under the present system we had a nationalist party with only 36 per cent. of the vote seeking to use that minority support to break up the United Kingdom, that is the sort of constitutional crisis that would develop.
  This is not hypothetical. We can look at Quebec and the grave constitutional crisis that Canada faces because a minority party controls the Quebec Assembly. It has been pointed out already that this is a minority party, but it was not said how it had come to control the Assembly. Although its share of the vote rose from 30 per cent. to only 41 per cent. at the recent election, its share of scats rose from six to 65—a ridiculous explosion of representation as a result of a relatively modest improvement of its support among the electorate.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot, on the one hand, say that it is right for the Scottish people to demand the right to develop their own political system and, on the other hand, criticise a party in Canada for using the existing electoral system there in order to develop its programme to change the political system.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am not for a moment criticising that party. It is perfectly entitled to use the system that existed in Canada and Quebec when it fought the election. However, given that we are in the process of legislating for a new Assembly and that we have it within our power to determine the most sensible electoral system for that Assembly, and given what has happened in Quebec on the first past the post system and that a grave constitutional crisis has developed as a result, it would be sensible for the Committee to take all this into account in determining the appropriate system for the Assembly.
  Mr. Buchan: I should like to return to the basic argument that the hon. Gentleman was putting forward before he became side-tracked. That was on the question of the position that would arise if a minority Scottish nationalist vote led to a minority vote but the major party position in the 71 seats. What the hon. Gentleman says would be true if all the SNP were madmen, but there are certain sane elements, for example, Professor MacCormick, who sees the point clearly and understands that the SNP is a party concerned basically with constitutional change, and therefore argues that it would attempt to secure, by one means or another, presumably a plebiscite or a referendum, a majority of the votes in Scotland before it considered that it had a mandate for independence. I do not doubt that what the hon. Gentleman says is right. I am simply concerned—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

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

  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Rifkind: —about the first elections for the Assembly. Maybe one party will do well or badly, but the system will exist for the forseeable future and there will be many elections to the Assembly. It is not inconceivable that at some stage a party that is returned with only minority support will use a position of control in the Assembly to try to force through a major constitutional change against the majority of people in Scotland.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend mentioned Quebec. I was in Quebec just before the election to which he referred. Is he aware that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has made a fair point and that Le Parti Québecois offered itself for election on the clear understanding that its proposals contained a referendum safeguard so that anyone who voted for it knew perfectly well that there was no question of Quebec attaining independence solely on the votes that were cast in the election? Is my hon. Friend further aware that public opinion polls taken immediately prior to the election and immediately following the election indicated that the amount of electoral support for independence fell away by almost half—namely, from 20 per cent. to 11 per cent.?
  Mr. Rifkind: I do not doubt that that happened for a moment. I am concerned with promises given as to whether there should be a referendum. I am concerned about whether the electoral system as such is likely to encourage the emergence of a grave constitutional crisis. In the present situation Quebec provides a perfect example. Popular support for the Parti Quebécois increased relatively moderately but its representation increased tenfold. That is a cause for concern.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Taking up the hon. Gentleman's fortuitous example of Quebec, I put to the hon. Gentleman the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)—namely, that a national aspiration will be expressed and that a country will get nationhood if it pushes. What makes the hon. Gentleman think that it was not the expression of the people of Quebec that was reflected in the vote?
  Mr. Rifkind: I have no desire to express any view about why the people

  1329
  of Quebec voted for the separatist party. I merely point out that the separatist party has still not yet obtained the support of a majority of the electorate in Quebec although it has moved from a position of relative insignificance to total dominance of the Assembly because of a relatively small improvement in its political vote. Whether it is Le Parti Québecois or any other political party, I do not believe that such an example bodes well for a healthy, stable parliamentary system or a system that anyone would sensibly wish to defend.
  There are a number of powerful arguments which point to a system of proportional representation being appropriate for the Assembly. I have an amendment on the Order Paper concerned with the size of the Assembly. This is a matter which has not yet been referred to by any hon. Member. Nevertheless, I feel I must mention it, however briefly, at the present time, because I have no way of knowing whether I shall catch the eye of the Chair, or what may happen, by the time the question of PR has been fully ventilated.
  I simply believe that the Government's decision to have an Assembly of 150 members is absurd and indefensible. I hope the Government will give serious reconsideration to it. When the Kilbrandon Commission recommended its proposals for devolution it proposed that the Assembly for Scotland should consist of about 100 members. In rejecting that view the Government have not yet put forward any argument in defence of their proposition for an Assembly with a composition 50 per cent. greater than proposed by Kilbrandon.
  They have merely indulged in an arbitrary arithmetical exercise by doubling the existing membership of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland and topping up with an additional one or two members in constituencies that have a particularly large electorate.
  I have no firm view about a specific number of members, but I feel that an Assembly with far fewer than 150 is eminently desirable. I would suggest that an assembly of 71 members is quite sufficient to meet the type of devolution proposed by the Government. The Government's proposal is astonishing when one thinks that the rôle of the Assembly
  1330
  is to be responsible for approximately half the responsibility of Scottish Members of Parliament. Although the Assembly will only be concerned with half the present responsibility of a Scottish MP, each constituency will require two Assemblymen to be responsible for half the work that is presently done by one Member of Parliament. In seven constituencies I think that it will require three Assemblymen to do what is presently done by one MP.
  If the Government were to contemplate an Assembly half that size, there would be a substantial number of benefits. There would be a significant cost benefit. We are all conscious of cost at the moment. None of us knows what the salary of an Assembly member will be. It is unlikely to be a full-time salary, but it is difficult to imagine that it will be significantly less than £3,000 a year. If the size of the Assembly were reduced in the way that I have suggested, that would mean a saving in one single swoop of about £250,000 every year. Taking into account extra secretarial expenses, travelling expenses and other administrative expenses, one could achieve a saving of at least £500,000 a year simply by having a smaller Assembly.
  There are other factors at work. I believe that all political parties in Scotland will find it difficult to get 150 candidates of sufficient calibre when they will also have to find candidates for parliamentary, district and regional elections and, soon, candidates for the European Parliament. In view of the reduced cost to the political parties in Scotland I think a reduction of this type would be well received. It would enable the Royal High School—the site of the Assembly—to be adapted much more easily to the requirements of the Assembly.
  Mr. Dalyell: In addition, how is this plethora of committees to be manned?
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had waited for 30 seconds, I would have dealt with that matter. The important point when one is determining the size for each Assembly is to decide not the maximum size but the minimum size required for the Assembly to carry out its proper functions.
  For the purposes of the argument, I confine myself, to the kind of devolution that the Government are proposing. As

  1331
  yet we do not know how many departments there will be in the Scottish Executive, but, given the functions to be devolved to the Assembly, we can assume that there are likely to be departments for housing, education, health, legal affairs, social services, possibly industrial matters and probably planning and local government.
  It is unlikely that the Executive will consist of more than 10 or at the most 12 Ministers or members of the Executive. If we add half a dozen junior Ministers or junior members of the Executive, the total number of the Executive would be not more than 18. In an Assembly of 71 members we can assume that the Executive has the support of the majority of the Assembly. Therefore, the Assembly would have the support of at least 36 members, and there would be at least 18 Government Back Benchers plus a minimum of 35 Opposition Back Benchers. That is sufficient to meet all the requirements of the system of devolution proposed by the Government.
  The old Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland, with a Prime Minister, Ministers and a similar structure of government, managed with 52 members, 19 fewer than I am proposing and 100 fewer than the Government are proposing for the Scottish Assembly.
  Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the population of Northern Ireland is not much over 1 million, whereas the population of Scotland is 5 million?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that the Minister rests his argument on that point. If he wishes to think in terms of population, I refer him to California, a State of the United States of America which has its own Assembly. The population of California is 20 million—four times the population of Scotland. It has a State Assembly of 80 members. If California, with four times the population of Scotland, can make do with an Assembly of 80 members, Scotland might just be able to make do with an Assembly of about the same number.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I shall not take time to argue against the hon. Gentleman's case for reducing the number of members, but surely he is being unduly defeatist in saying that the parties could
  1332
  not find 150 candidates of suitable calibre. I am sure that in the Conservative Party the hon. Gentleman knows of individuals who for various reasons cannot stand for Westminster.
  Mr. Rifkind: No doubt there will be plenty of people with low ability, but whether there will be a sufficient number with sufficient ability I doubt. That will apply to all parties.
  The Minister claimed that the example of Northern Ireland was invalid because of its smaller population—
  Mr. John Smith: The point I want to put here is that if there were 36 members in the governing party it would be necessary to choose for the Executive one out of every two of those elected, which is a high proportion. Not all might be willing to serve on the administration, so there might be a very restricted choice and a narrow group from which to pick the administration. Why not have more?
  Mr. Rifkind: The Minister say "Why not have more?"—as if there is virtue in having as many as possible.
  Mr. John Smith: It allows for better choice.
  Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps in his own party the Minister would like a bigger choice to enable him to get persons of sufficient calibre, but that is not a criterion that we need worry about too much.
  Let us look to the experience of other independent States, for example, New Zealand in the British Commonwealth. The New Zealand Parliament is responsible not merely for devolved matters but for all matters of government, including defence, foreign affairs, taxation, social security, industry and energy, which are not being devolved to the Scottish Assembly. The New Zealand Parliament has 87 members. Iceland, another totally independent country, makes do with a Parliament of 60 members.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: What is the population of Iceland?
  Mr. Rifkind: I have already given the example of California, with four times the population of Scotland, which makes do with 87 members. The size of the population is not the determinant factor because, irrespective of which country or

  1333
  State one takes, each one has decided the size of its Assembly or Parliament on the basis of its local requirements.
  As yet, the Government have not sought to justify the figure they have determined for the Assembly. They have simply taken the existing parliamentary constituencies, doubled the number, and made minor adjustments for overpopulated areas. That is not good enough.
  10.15 p.m.
  There may be an argument for the figure the Government are putting forward, but they did not advance it in the White Paper, in the supplementary White Paper, on Second Reading, or on any other occasion. Other hon. Members agree with me that the demands of the type of devolution proposed by the Government could be met if the Assembly were far smaller than 150. Good arguments have been put forward, and the Committee deserves an answer.
  I have confined myself to the two basic issues of proportional representation and the size of the Assembly. Other hon. Members have spoken very strongly on electoral reform. The Government made it quite clear on Second Reading that they would adopt a flexible approach throughout the passage of the Bill. We have not yet seen many signs of that flexibility.
  Mr. George Younger: We have seen no signs.
  Mr. Rifkind: If Ministers expect even superficial support from hon. Members who cannot be channelled through the Government Lobby just because they are
  1334
  members of the Government party, they must show a flexible response. This is not simply a party political matter. The whole future of the United Kingdom is at stake. The Government have stated that this is a matter of profound significance to the whole British nation. if they show some flexibility in their response to the amendments—
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have not shown any flexible response to what hon. Members have suggested. I remind him that the Government accepted the proposal for a referendum, which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We took into account what the Committee said about it.
  Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman, who gave the assurance about flexibility in relation to the Committee stage, knows perfectly well that acceptance of the referendum was a deathbed conversion during the Second Reading debate, a last attempt to persuade some of his hon. Friends to go through the right Lobby. I compliment him, because he succeeded in his purpose. He is no doubt very pleased with the concession. But we have a long way still to go, and the Government will be aware that they do not exactly have the enthusiastic support of all Labour Members for all the provisions of the Bill, and that if it is to reach the statute book, it must command the support of some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We have had no sign of flexibility on the amendments with which the Committee has dealt so far, no sign of an objective, non-partisan approach by Ministers. I hope that today will prove an exception.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I listened to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) with interest, particularly when he talked about the 39 per cent. of the electorate that supported the present Government in 1974 and the problems that might arise should the Government be prepared to put through a constitutional measure on the basis of such a minority vote. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the period 1970–74 the Conservative Government also had a minority of the vote but felt in no way inhibited from putting through the Industrial Relations Act. The hon. Gentleman may well say that that was not a constitutional measure. If so, it will be clear that he makes certain distinctions. I suspect that the Conservative Party has always made distinctions in regard to electoral systems, democracy and a number of relevant matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) suggested that there was something rather strange about the fact that we were discussing proportional representation against the background of a devolution Bill. He appeared to suggest that there was no point in that exercise until we had clarified the whole question of devolution per se, and I think that you had to call him to order, Sir Myer. It seems to me that if we accept, as I do, that the Bill should become law, we also accept that there will be two Assemblies, one in Scotland and one in Wales. The logical consequence is an examination of how those Assemblies should be elected.
  Against that background, I believe that PR is relevant to the situation created by the Bill. The Bill gives us an excellent opportunity to test within the United Kingdom whether PR could be made viable for the whole Kingdom. What better test than introducing it at this stage and allowing Scotland and Wales to elect Assemblies on that basis?
  Many of my hon. Friends would reject that argument on some grounds of democracy. That is what I find puzzling. Several definitions of "democracy" are trotted out from time to time. The word means "people's rule" or "people's power" as it obtained in the Athens city States. If we accept that it means the direct involvement of people, with free
  1336
  choice and free speech, in the government of themselves, we must examine whether our present electoral system produces the maximum involvement of people in the decision-making processes of society.
  Some may argue that that is not the intention, that democracy means majority rule, that we have a system that produces a majority of one party in this House. But if we consider majority rule in another context—that is, rule by those selected or elected by the majority of the people—it is clear that we do not have that sort of a system and have rarely had it for the best part of this century.
  "Power to the people", a slogan which has been put forward in many varied situations over the past 50 or 100 years, involves a recognition that when people choose in an election by voting, the end product should reflect their demands and opinions as closely as possible. I think that it was Rousseau who said that Britain had a democracy every five years, implying—with some validity—that once the election was over, the people were no longer involved in making decisions. But from another point of view what he said was incorrect, because we do not have a democratic system of election.
  Many of my hon. Friends would argue that we do not need democracy in the context of which I am speaking, that all we need is power because that it what politics is about, and that the party which has power can legislate in accordance with the people's wishes. I can accept that approach, but not if it is presented as a democratic approach to our political problems. If it is our position that we are not interested in anythting but the two-party system, with one or other elected because it is first past the post, we should end the pretence of democracy in terms of our electoral system.
  There are those who address themselves to the speculative problem of coalitions which are likely to emerge from a PR system. One begins to get a clue about what is at the backs of their minds and why they are so worried about the PR system. The issue for them relates to who will win under such a system rather than whether it will provide the people whom

  1337
  they allege to represent from time to time with the opportunity to express their will. Those people, if they are not going to win, are not interested in the expression of the people's will.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), with whom I have had a long political association, rightly drew attention to the absence of democracies in certain Socialist countries. He was right to make that criticism, but I found it difficult to accept the way in which he could attack the lack of democracy in those countries but at the same time reject any criticism of our electoral system in Great Britain.
  I believe that in the short run there is likely to emerge some sort of coalition, which I personally would find politically unacceptable. I view with no satisfaction the prospect of a Tory-Liberal coalition in Scotland, Wales or anywhere else. There has been much hypocrisy from the Liberals on the subject of proportional representation because they cannot hide the fact that at the turn of the century the Liberal Party would have had no part of proportional representation if it had involved any loss of power for it.
  In the process of the emergence of a coalition in the short run I believe that the people, in whom I have every confidence, will begin to realise in a short space of time what coalitions between parties such as the Tories and the Liberals mean in terms of a changing society and of meeting the needs of ordinary people. I believe that once the initial elections in Scotland or Wales result in a Right-oriented coalition, it will not be long before the contrary position emerged and we had a Left-influenced coalition.
  I foresee a situation in which the major party of the Left, the Labour Party, will become the dominant party, irrespective of questions of proportional representation. I appreciate that we have a long way to go before we reach that situation. It behoves us on the Labour Benches to remind ourselves that in 1974, with a manifesto which many of us felt was the best document of that sort produced for 20 or 30 years, we could muster only 11 million votes against the 13½ million votes that Labour polled in 1951. We have done little on the Labour Benches
  1338
  and in the Labour movement generally to examine the reasons for that tremendous drop of 2½ million votes in a situation where the electorate increased.
  It is not sufficient to dismiss the matter by saying that there is an increasing number of people who fail to identify the differences between one or other Government, be it Conservative or Labour. I suggest that there is an increasing disenchantment in Britain, which has been growing over the last 20 or 30 years, with the two-party system per se.
  10.30 p.m.
  There is a growing feeling that there has to be some alternative to the two monolithic structures that appear to exist in British politics. It is interesting to record that in the other two-party system—in the United States—the election results in about 60 per cent. participation. Our figure has been falling, and I would hate to see the day when the participation figure in a General Election in Britain reached that level. The appalling thing is that there are some constituencies, such as Liverpool Exchange, where about 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. of the electorate participated. We must have a serious examination of the reasons for this.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Does this call for a serious examination mean that my hon. Friend is in favour of PR for the United Kingdom as a whole?
  Mr. Thorne: Yes, I am in favour of it for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am trying to keep to the terms of this Bill because you, Sir Myer, have a habit of calling hon. Members to order if they stray too wide.
  There are those who would argue that I should not be in favour of PR because it might affect my job, and I know that many hon. Members look at it in that way. But it is irrelevant whether it affects our jobs. To me the basic question is which is the more democratic of the two systems. Should we advocate the first past the post system or proportional representation for representation of this Chamber? As far as possible, the systems we create should represent the opinions outside, and I tend to accept that the latter is more democratic than the former.

  1339
  In the final analysis it seems to me that many of us who claim to be on the left wing of the Labour Party will be judged by time and history in accordance with whether we were prepared to accept the more democratic system, even though there was, perhaps, an initial price to be paid. Nevertheless we should accept it on the basis that it is more democratic.
  To many members of my own party this is a simplistic and naive approach. I cannot escape the notions that I have about this matter. I believe that PR is more democratic, and I claim to be a democrat. Therefore, logically, I must accept the amendment on PR. Whether the system being advocated in Amendment No. 50 is the best is very difficult to determine in the short run, but it has the virtue of being something which can be easily and readily applied with the passing of this Bill, and the opportunity exists thereafter to introduce other means of reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
  I should have liked personally to see the STV system but at this stage of the discussions on the Bill it is not possible, and on that basis I shall vote for the amendment.
  Mr. Reid: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Wigley) got the basic purpose of this debate right, as he so often does, when he set two issues, not one, before the House. The first was the general issue of principle. It was whether the Committee tonight takes the first step, however tentative, towards electoral reform for two of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, recognising that if it takes that step the Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff may move away from adversary politics to consensus politics, and even coalition Government, but realising that the people of Scotland and Wales will be getting what they vote for in their Assemblies.
  The second issue is consequent upon the first. It is what type of electoral reform should be applied to the Assemblies. Should it be AMS, as put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), AV plus AMS, as advocated by the SNP, or STV, as advanced by the Liberals? These points, however, are less important than the general principle of electoral reform. The SNP has always stood firm throughout its 50 years' history for straight electoral reform, even though, of all parties
  1340
  in the House of Commons, we are best placed in the current Scottish situation to benefit from the first past the post system of voting.
  Two of my hon. Friends have worked with the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian on the amendment that stands in the hon. Member's name tonight. The hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) seem to find something sinister and suspicious in that. The former indicated that the amendment was a heaven-sent opportunity for the SNP because it would be seen in Scotland as an attempt to dish the nationalists. When asked why in that case the SNP was going into the Lobby with the hon. Members for Berwick and East Lothian and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) he was somewhat at a loss and could only hint darkly that the SNP was extremely clever and good at manipulation. Frankly, that is nonsense.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the hon. Member mean that he is not?
  Mr. Reid: From the opinion polls in Scotland today it would appear that there is a three-way split between the main parties. What those opinion polls do not show, however, is the 20 per cent. "don't know" factor. In the General Elections in February and October 1974 the SNP picked up about 60 per cent. of the "don't know" votes. If it was able at the next General Election to do the same it might go up from 30 per cent. of the vote to about 36 per cent. of the vote. The positions of the SNP and the Labour Party would then be reversed, the SNP going from 11 to 41 seats, and the Labour Party falling in the opposite direction.
  Against that background I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) for his kind words. He said that the SNP had been honest in this matter, that it had a continuing commitment to electoral reform. The cynics in this House will find something curious in that. Why should a party which stands to gain without it advance electoral reform as openly as we do?
  Mr. Buchan: The proposals that the SNP makes are not the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). The SNP is proposing the

  1341
  additional member plus the alternative vote which, as Professor Bellinger points out, would mean 51 SNP seats in Scotland. Any cynicism on the part of hon. Members would be justified in those circumstances.
  Mr. Reid: We have proposed AV plus AMS, come the second Assembly election. The alternative vote would at least mean that the majority of people in any constituency would get a Member of Parliament acceptable to them. If it worked out in the way that the hon. Member suggests, with a disproportionate number of seats going to the SNP, that would be balanced out in the subsequent AMS seats.
  My party is determined to stick to a policy of electoral reform as it has advocated for 50 years. We are determined that the Assembly in Scotland will get off to a fresh start. There is no point in a Scots Assembly being a pale carbon copy of this House. We in Edinburgh do not want the adversary, gladiatorial system of politics practised in this House for so long. What the people of Scotland vote for should be reflected in their Assembly.
  This open commitment to electoral reform as adopted by the SNP tonight will do much to reassure many people who allege that the SNP will go into the Assembly to wreck it from the start. Our support for this measure tonight shows that we intend to work within the system and to build constructively upon it.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member says that he does not want adversary politics. How will he reconcile people like myself and himself, between whom there is an enormous gulf on the major issue of whether there should be a separate State?
  Mr. Reid: I do not think that the hon. Member will be there to have this issue forced upon him. As far as general consensus is concerned, I think that I could find much in common with the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian on the question of Scottish representation in the European Community, with the Liberal Party in terms of social reform, and so on. There is already cross party agreement on many issues among Scots
  1342
  Members—the beginnings of future Edinburgh consensus politics.
  Several types of electoral reform have been trailed before the House. The principle is much more important than the detail, but it will not have escaped the notice of the Government Front Bench that the SNP has tabled its own amendments to this amendment. It is proper that the SNP should put the proposals on record now.
  The first of our amendments would make the Scottish Assembly somewhat larger than the size proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. If the hon. Member were quite open he would admit that if he were not frightened of possible criticism on grounds of cost, his proposals would be for an Assembly of 200 members rather than 100 members. I see that the hon. Gentleman nods his head.
  With reference to the proposals for the first elections, we support the system outlined in the Bill which would give two members for most seats and three members for those seats where the size of the electorate exceeds the Scottish average by 125 per cent.
  Such a system brings three distinct advantages to the Scottish situation. It would allow the people of Orkney and Shetland, two balanced communities of 18,000 people each, to have one Assemblyman each. It would permit the Assembly to man the highly developed committee system that most SNP members and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian are anxious to establish. What we want are highly specialised standing departmental committees—as in Sweden—with much business removed initially from the floor of the Assembly to committee. More than 100 members will be needed if this is to be achieved.
  There would be distinct disadvantages in having an Assembly of 70 or 100 members. Given a three-way party split, everybody in the Government party would be a Minister. In an Assembly of that size virtually every member of the Government party would have to take on Front Bench duties.
  The SNP has always stood for the alternative vote, though earlier there was some confusion in the Committee about

  1343
  this. It is a system whereby one marks the polling paper one to four in order of preference for candidates. The preferences are added up until one candidate achieves 50 per cent. of the preference votes. That ensures that no constituency can be represented by a member to whom the majority of voters are resolutely opposed. We appreciate that such a system could not be introduced until the second Assembly election, since AV would not work well in multi-member seats.
  I accept that criticism will be directed at me and and my party about costs. A 200-member Assembly will cost more, but my party has rather different ambitions for the Scottish Assembly than the hon. Member for Pentlands. There is certainly a consensus among Scottish Members now for scrapping most of the Scottish regions in local government and for removing 432 regional councillors. That is a good price to pay for an Assembly of 200 members in Edinburgh.
  The hon. Member for Pentlands was highly selective in talking about other provincial legislatures and small independent parliaments in Europe. I would remind the hon. Gentleman about some countries that have more than a surface resemblance to Scotland. Norway has a population of 4 million people, 150 MPs and the population per MP is 27,000. Denmark has a population of 5 million people, 179 MPs and a population per MP of 28,000. Sweden has 8·2 million people, 349 MPs and a population per MP of 23,500. There are similar figures for Finland. Scotland has a population of 5·2 million and given 100 MPs it would have a population per MP of 52,000; with 150 MPs that figure would be 35,000; and with 200 MPs the population per MP would be 26,000.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that by using the parallel of Norway he is giving me my argument? He said that the Norwegian Parliament has 150 members, but has he overlooked that it is the Parliament of an independent country? If we were proposing a Parliament for an independent Scotland, 150 members might be reasonable, but we are talking of an Assembly with only a minute fraction of the powers of an independent Parliament.
  Mr. Reid: As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), our Chief Whip, says "Stick around." The SNP wishes to build on the Assembly. If we are to develop a specialised committee system, we shall need 150 to 200 members to work it. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has conceded that a membership of 100 may be too low, but we are concerned with getting the principle right, since that is more important than the figures and the amendment rightly provides that the Assembly may review the suitability and fairness of the system of proportional voting in future.
  Many people will see this as the thin end of the wedge; that was obvious from the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. I say to him that what is good for the Scots goose is good for the English gander, and if electoral reform is established for the Assemblies, it might be equally good for this House of Commons.
  The real opposition to the amendment has come from those who favour adversary polities; the ideologues who want to capture the party machines, to move in on the Labour Party NEC and use it to railroad policies through. They do not realise that there is broad agreement now between many Scots Members on a wide range of issues, including increased Scots representation in the European Communities, fiscal, social and industrial policies. I should like to see the Assembly get off to that sort of start so that we can work towards a free and independent Parliament in our own land.
  Lord Crowther-Hunt, in his minority report in the Kilbrandon Commission, got it absolutely right when he said:
  "In any democracy there is a crucial problem about the rights of minorities. … And the essence of the problem here is that if the vital interests of minorities are overridden or neglected by an insensitive majority the essential basis of consensus in society will be eroded …"
  The SNP will vote for the amendment. If it fails and we win as Rene Leveque of the Parti Québecois recently won in Canada, so be it.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I listened to the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) with some sorrow. At one time, he had a little of the fire of Socialism in his belly. I remember being very appreciative of his assistance

  1345
  in an election campaign; he was a good member of the Labour Party then and he had some good Left-wing views. It was sad to hear him speak in a wishy-washy way about wanting a Scottish Assembly or even a Scottish Parliament to be without the adversary politics on which he was weaned.
  Mr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that my first overt political act was to stand on a platform in Glasgow, Woodside alongside Hugh Gaitskell and the Campaign for Democratic Socialism trying to stop the nasties getting on the platform?
  Dr. Miller: That does not destroy my point. The hon. Gentleman has degenerated a long way when he sneeringly rejects a pale carbon copy of this Parliament as a model for the Scottish Assembly. What are his political views now?
  I always listen to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) with interest. I have some sympathy with what he said about a smaller Assembly, but I shall not pursue that argument. He criticised the Government's death-bed flexibility and I unhesitatingly offer my professional assistance to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if it is not already too late.
  I intend to confine myself entirely to the issues of proportional representation. I have said before that I respect the traditions of this honourable House, but that does not mean to say that from time to time we should not consider the possibility of change. I understand and have a niggling regard for the desire for constant, steady improvement, but surely our object should be good, democratic government. It does not necessarily follow that because the first past the post system sometimes produces a minority Government, the electorate is not well represented. Every hon. Member accepts that he represents all of his constituents regardless of the party to which those constituents belong.
  However, the fact that we are discussing proportional representation at all is probably evidence that we are less than satisfied with our present electoral system. By "we" I mean some hon. and right hon. Members of this House. As far as
  1346
  I can determine, the public in general has not been pushing for a change in the electoral system. My constituents have not put to me any great objections to the present system. They may object to the Government—they are entitled to do that—but I do not think that they specifically identify the electoral system with our difficulties.
  To be concerned about the fairness of the British electoral system does not mean that we must of necessity demand another system. As has been pointed out, no electoral system is entirely fair. During the debate there has been much explanation of various electoral systems. The single transferable vote, the alternative vote, and the additional member system all have their advantages and have been well spoken to today. There is another system, the party slate or the party list. All these systems have advantages and disadvantages, and every hon. and right hon. Member owes it to the House to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of our present system compared with other systems, and to decide what he or she believes is best in the circumstances.
  In addition to leading almost inevitably to coalition and weak government, some of these systems have the disadvantage of tending to produce results where, in multi-member constituencies, for example, there will be undignified and very unhealthy squabbling among the elected representatives of different parties. For example, the single transferable vote system was advocated by one Liberal Member who queried my contention that it would produce far too many members. It must produce at least three members per constituency, which would give more than 220 members of a Scottish Assembly, which is far too many.
  If we examine proportional representation from the viewpoint of absolute fairness, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) pinpointed the system that is absolutely fair—the party slate or party list system, because it produces a result strictly in accordance with the proportion of votes cast for each party. But, as the Israelis know to their cost, it is a system which leads to nuisance splinter parties, it leads to the domination of candidates by the party caucus, and it is a system by which members are not identified with their

  1347
  constituencies. The Israelis themselves are not satisfied with that system and are doing their best to evolve another to replace it. It would not surprise me if they adopted a system similar to that which we have at the moment.
  British political stability, which in my opinion is the most pronounced stability of any country in Europe, has as much to do with our electoral system as with the character of the British people. It could be a chicken and egg situation: we do not know which came first. Was it the character of the people which evolved the system, or has the system affected the character of the people?
  Even from a psychological point of view, our present system has an advantage in that it allows the electorate the essential luxury of letting off steam by attacking the Government. Whom would the electorate attack if we had a Government elected on a proportional basis where everyone had equal responsibility for the difficulties which developed? The electorate would have no target at which to aim. In such a situation, Parliament itself would be the target, and a dangerous cynicism might develop if we permitted such a system to supersede that which we have at the moment.
  In the Sub-Committee on Devolution, we have been looking at the amendments as they have come up from week to week, and we have considered carefully the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. In this connection, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It is not with any great degree of joy that we have come to the conclusion that the present system ought not to be superseded. We examined each of the possible systems on its merits, and we felt in each case that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. Each system was put up against the present first past the post system, and we felt that, despite all the disadvantages of our existing arrangements—and they are not perfect—we should continue to support them until we can devise something substantially better.
  Mr. Emery: It was not my original intention to say very much about proportional representation, but it is surprising that, after nearly six hours of debate, anyone sitting in the Gallery or
  1348
  reading Hansard on some future occasion might gain the impression that Conservative Members were massively in favour of PR. So far not one Conservative Member has spoken against it.
  I am diametrically opposed to proportional representation. I always have been, and I think that it is about time that my view was made clear.
  Mr. John Pardoe: That is one good reason for supporting it.
  Mr. Emery: The situation is such that, if the votes of Conservative Members were taken—to say nothing of the votes of Conservatives throughout the country—the overwhelming view would be against proportional representation.
  11.0 p.m.
  If I may carry that a stage further, many of us are worried about this debate and the way in which the proportionaal representation argument has been put forward on this Bill. We see it as a foot in the door—and that has no relation to the Leader of the House. The view has been openly expressed by some hon. Members while advocating this policy for this Bill that they saw it is a first stage in bringing in the structure of proportional representation for the whole United Kingdom. The basis of my approach in opposing this amendment is that if we take it for Wales or Scotland, it would be the first move in the direction of increasing pressure to bring it in for the whole United Kingdom.
  The second part of this is that the proposers of proportional representation have pointed out, quite fairly, that the present first past the post system has a number of inadequacies and in some ways may be judged unfair. I believe that to be true but I ask those who oppose the amendment what assurances I can have that what they wish to put in its place will not itself have inadequacies and be unfair. I know of no democratic system of election which has no inadequacies and which is not basically in some areas unfair.
  The German illustration has been used many times in this debate, but nobody has yet pointed out that, irrespective of topping-up, the whole German system has no relationship of German MPs to constituencies, a relationship which is the

  1349
  whole basis of this House. If people want the German system and think it better than ours, they should go to look at what happens in Bonn and at some of the fights and party caucus troubles in the German experiments. It is better than Germany has ever had previously in any democratic Assembly but is a long way short of what we have been able to achieve in this House.
  If one looks for other illustrations, people will point to the United States of America as the great demonstration of democracy working well, but the inadequacy of the American system is such that even when there was a 2 million votes lead in the popular vote, 55,000 votes the other way, spread between Ohio and Hawaii would have meant that Mr. Ford would be President today.
  I know of no system in the world devoid of inadequacies and weaknesses. Until someone can show me that what he wants to put in the place of what we have been able to build up over many years must certainly be better than what we have, I am against the experiment.
  I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) earlier in the debate what he had to say about the fact that if the amendment had been adopted throughout the United Kingdom, we should have had nothing but coalition Governments ever since the First World War. I do not believe that our British structure of democracy favours coalition in this House. Any system which works for a structure of coalition Government would be weakening the structure of government as I want to see it. I find the move towards proportional representation a great weakness because of that argument.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in a system of voting by proportional representation the options facing and the attitude of the public are different and that, therefore, it is not right to base that calculation on the results of elections in the first past the post system?
  Mr. Emery: That is a reasonable argument, but I do not accept it.
  That leads me to the last point that I want to make on proportional representation. I thought that my right hon.
  1350
  Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) put forward a very sound argument. Indeed, it has been echoed by others, but I thought that my right hon. Friend put it better, more substantially and more intellectually than anybody else.
  My right hon. Friend wished to see proportional representation because he saw it as the defence of the Act of Union, keeping the United Kingdom together, and stopping the Scottish National Party from winning a majority in a Scottish Assembly and in that way, as it is dedicated to an independent Scotland, achieving the break up of the United Kingdom. I see the force of that argument, but I disagree with it because it is based on past examples.
  I believe that there has been support for many Scottish National Party candidates because those voting for them knew that there was no possible chance of the break-up of the United Kingdom. I believe that in a first past the post election in Scotland—I will take a wager on this with anybody; the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is not present, but no doubt he would make the book—a whole host of people who previously supported the nationalists would certainly not support them if they held to their policy of the break-up of the United Kingdom. I believe that giving the nationalists a chance of slipping in with a system of proportional representation will achieve exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington wants to avoid.
  I should not want to carry that argument very far. Adopting a political system to stop or to encourage a party or faction is the worst possible argument for supporting any system. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument that proportional representation is the way to stop or to encourage any particular faction or party.
  Mr. Dalyell: I will take the hon. Gentleman's wager. The next election will be unique, because at no previous General Election, by-election, regional election, or district election or opinion poll has there been the all too real possibility that, by putting their crosses against Scottish National Party candidates, the Scottish people could bring into being

  1351
  a Scottish Government. No one in Scotland will have any illusions next time about the real possibility of a separate Scottish State, and that alters the whole position as postulated by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Emery: I think that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) only reinforces what I was trying to put to the Committee.
  I turn now to the second, fourth and sixth amendments standing in my name in this group. I made it absolutely clear in the debate on Clause 1 that I wanted the Act of Union to stay intact.
  Once we initiate in Britain a national Assembly, a single national Parliament—that is what it will become—there is nothing that will stop its members in time from demanding more and more powers. They will immediately wish to have the right to raise taxes. They will then begin arguing that the Scottish Assembly should be represented outside Scotland. After all, in the United Nations 20 nations have smaller populations than that of Scotland, so why should not this Assembly be represented there? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We hear the "Hear, Hears" from SNP Members reinforcing what I am saying.
  Similarly, why should not the Scottish Assembly be represented in the EEC? Denmark and Ireland are smaller than Scotland. Therefore, once we have a Scottish Assembly, we already have the kernel advocating that greater powers should be given in order that Scotland can be represented internationally, and when that happens we shall have the break-up of the United Kingdom.
  I am in no way against devolving powers outside Whitehall and this Parliament. I am very much in favour of so doing. Therefore, my amendments set out to ensure, in a way that does not fall into the error into which the Government have fallen that the setting up of Assemblies in Wales and Scotland will not lead in time to their independence. If we had three Assemblies in Scotland, a Highland Assembly, a West of Scotland Assembly and an East of Scotland Assembly, that situation could never arise.
  SNP Members may laugh about this matter, but a number of Members from
  1352
  the Highlands will say quite honestly that they do not much like being governed by Whitehall but they are damned if they want to be governed by Glasgow or Edinburgh. That is a very strong view.
  Mr. Douglas Henderson,: Why does the hon. Gentleman not ask an SNP Member who is sitting behind him?
  Mr. Iain Sproat: As my hon. Friend was interrupted by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), perhaps I may tell him that the regional council for the area that the hon. Member represents is totally against a Scottish Assembly for precisely that reason. It wants nothing to do with an Assembly dominated by Glasgow.
  Mr. Emery rose—
  Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Emery: I shall not give way on this point.
  Mr. Henderson: Because the hon. Member cannot take an answer.
  Mr. Emery: I have given an answer, and that view is held. A host of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  My amendments are trying to ensure that for both Scotland and Wales the House of Commons can make it absolutely clear that it is willing to devolve powers and to see Assemblies in Wales and Assemblies in Scotland that can, within their own nationality, carry out the devolved functions that the Bill would give. However, I want to ensure that in no way shall we run the risk of their being only a national Assembly in both of those countries, which would in time, without hesitation, have to demand that they should have greater and greater powers given to them or fought for from the House of Commons until those Assemblies came to be independent. If we had three Assemblies in Scotland, as I have suggested, that situation could never arise.
  I have a schedule that explains how the division should be made. I am entirely open to the view that there should be debate, alteration and amendment of the schedule, which is not before us tonight. I do not hold to the exact delineation

  1353
  that I have suggested. However, the suggestion that I am putting forward is more likely to meet the views of the Government and even the views of the Opposition Front Bench about wishing to devolve powers to Assemblies in these nations, and yet we would avoid absolutely the risk of ever having those Assemblies demanding independence from the Act of Union.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Haffer: This has been an extremely lengthy and good debate and I shall not keep the Committee very long. I shall make one or two comments arising from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh).
  My hon. Friend said that some Labour Members below the Gangway are conservative in their approach. I assume that in that sense the opposite to conservative is radical. I have a feeling that some of my hon. Friends have reached a stage where they consider that any change of any kind must be necessary because that is radicalism. I do not believe that we should change for the sake of change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I expected to get that response from the Opposition Benches.
  It seems that some of our people are becoming so battered and confused that instead of trying to seek political solutions to our problems they take the view that problems can be solved on a basis of mere constitutional change. In a sense that is the essence of the Liberal argument. Liberal Members are saying that the politics of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have not proved successful in dealing with our problems and that the answer is to have a constitutional change—namely, proportional representation. They say "A plague on both your houses and everything will be all right."
  That is rubbish. Nothing has ever been solved in the world on the basis of mere constitutional change. The answers to our problems will be political in their nature. If we are not to have a Labour Government, I should prefer a Tory Government who know where they are going and what they are doing. At least we would know our position in opposition, which we would not know if we
  1354
  had some group in the middle in power who stood for nothing.
  One of our difficulties over the years is that we have had too many people on both sides of the Chamber who have always looked for consensus politics. Far too many have believed in consensus politics. They are now being joined by the SNP. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) said that we needed consensus to get Scottish independence—no politics, just independence. Surely fighting for independence is politics.
  If the SNP gets its independence, will the politics cease from that moment onwards? Will that all finish? Will there not be different attitudes towards private property, public ownership and a National Health Service in Scotland, for example? To suggest that that would be the case is rubbish. What happens to any State that gets its independence? What happened to the ex-colonial countries? Unfortunately, independence has usually led to one group becoming dominant and suppressing the others in violent ways. That is what has happened in ex-colonial countries. Unfortunately, politics have taken a different turn and not always in a democratic sense.
  Mere constitutional change does not solve anything. That is my basic criticism of the Bill—that it does not solve anything. It will not solve our basic political, economic and social problems. They have to be solved by political decisions. In my case that means taking Socialist decisions.
  Change for change's sake is not the answer in itself. I am afraid that many of my hon. Friends are seeking an answer in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) made a first-class and brilliant speech. We do not always see eye to eye on matters but on this issue we were 100 per cent. in agreement. My hon. Friend was right to draw our attention to the Continental countries. I do not know of the Continental countries but at one stage I certainly knew about the Italians.
  Our party was described as being basically a coalition. Let us look at the position of the Labour Party under a system of PR. Whenever there was

  1355
  an argument, the Manifesto Group would go off and form its own party, the Tribune Group would form its own party and the centre would remain for a period and then split to form its own party. It would be chaos. That would not lead to stability.
  There are two basic fundamental attitudes and both of them are coalition. If we are to have stable government, it means putting in one coalition at one time and another coalition at another time. Stability is basically what we are talking about. If we do not have that kind of stability we cannot deal with the fundamental problems facing this country.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. The basis of his argument is that the survival of the Labour Party as now depends upon not having a system of PR in the United Kingdom. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be more concerned about stable government than about a Government who could undertake social change. Is there not an argument for having a Socialist Party elected by PR? Although it might only result in some 70 or 80 Members going into occasional coalition with a social democratic party it might result in that coalition sticking to its manifesto rather than seeing a deradicalisation, which always happens to a Labour Government.
  Mr. Heffer: I do not want to be lectured about Socialism by the hon. Gentleman. If I am to get lectures about Socialism I shall get them from hon. Members on my own side of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman does not need to lecture me on this matter.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North made clear, bargaining takes place in countries where there is PR. Sometimes there is bargaining before the General Election to try and get some sort of united platform. It happens within our own party and it is the same with the Tories. Having got it we then have to fight to see that the manifesto commitments are carried out. Of course, they are not always carried out. That is why we have lots of arguments in the House of Commons and we shall continue to have them.
  Another matter of great importance concerns the political list. We in this
  1356
  country pride ourselves that we represent constituencies and that our constituent bodies select us. I can just imagine that situation with political lists. I am talking about the system of PR which exists in many countries of Europe.
  If we had a type of PR with lists and we had a Right-wing group dominating the selection of lists, that would mean having Right-wing people on the list or, if the reverse occurred, Left-wing people on it. That means that in certain circumstances my hon. Friends and I would never appear on those lists and never enter the House.
  I do not want to see a foot in the door of election by lists. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) says that nobody is arguing that. That might be true of this amendment, but the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire was putting forward alternative methods of proportional representation. There are many methods of proportional representation other than the one suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. One method makes use of lists. My hon. Friend does not suggest that method. He suggests one Member for each constituency and topping-up.
  Mr. Mackintosh: The national vote is topped-up.
  Mr. Heffer: Then 19 or 29—or what ever number is decided—are selected as additional members who will have no constituency responsibilities and who will float around topped-up. If they do not have many duties, they will probably be tanked-up. Once that happens, we are only one step away from the list system. It will not end there. We shall be on the slippery slope.
  Certain powerful forces want proportional representation, starting with the Assemblies and eventually ending with Parliament, because they believe that it is a way of dishing those who stand for Left-wing politics. They believe it is the way to stop a Labour Government coming into power and carrying out a Left-wing, Right-wing, or centre manifesto. That is why powerful people are putting money into that campaign.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) not to be misled into thinking that there is no

  1357
  politics behind the campaign for proportional representation. It is political. It is designed to dish all sections of the Left.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I am against proportional representation in any Assembly in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a matter of principle. The dangers and disadvantages of most of the variants far outweigh the dubious potential advantages that are claimed by proponents of a different voting system. There is no possibility of any voting system abolishing so-called adversary politics. The most it can do is to drive the horse-trading that is now done in public into the back room.
  Many of the arguments advanced in favour of the amendment sound very like arguments for achieving an Assembly that is all things to all men. That cannot work.
  11.30 p.m.
  If we have proportional representation in whatever form for the Assemblies, it is likely to spread to this United Kingdom Parliament, probably with the Scottish system. I do not see why we should allow Scotland to prejudge the issue. In an amendment in my name and those of many of my hon. Friends there is a suggested way out of this difficulty. It is for the first Assemblies to consist of the Members of Parliament elected at the next General Election. They could then decide for themselves, without so great a danger of prejudging the case for the United Kingdom, how they would continue to be elected.
  However, I admit that that is a side issue, because the arguments in favour of proportional representation for a Scottish Assembly alone, to secure that it is not dominated by a narrow group, apply equally to every local authority that is dominated by one party. If we are to be consistent in saying that the political domination of minorities by majorities must be prevented at all costs, every town, city, county and district council should be elected on a system of proportional representation. But I must admit that most hon. Members find that complaints from their constituents about local government in no way reflect the political colour of the dominating party, but rather the effect of the administration on their
  1358
  lives. So it would not improve local government.
  I am against proportional representation because it is an excuse for not facing the facts. It is a method of trying to pretend that Members of Parliament are not over-subservient to party machines. It is a method of trying to pretend that we are not over-dominated by a minority of activists in our constituencies. I am against proportional representation because of the erroneous belief that it will make Parliament more representative without Members having to have the courage to speak up and vote the way that they really believe to be in their constituents' interests rather than in the way they feel they must, either to please their party in the House of Commons or to prevent trouble with their constituency party caucus.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) attributed all the troubles of the past 16 years to the electoral system and the fact that we had had minority Governments. He ignored the reason for the automatic majority in the House which enables a minority Government to force its policies through regardless. That was given away by my right hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) when he welcomed the Conservative Party's free vote, deplored the fact that there was no free vote for Labour Members, and regretted that the Tory Front Bench was not giving a lead. All that was really to say that we need party machines on our side before we can truly represent our constituents.
  That is where my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes went wrong. It is the fact that we cannot act without the party machines which has done the damage, not the method of electing Members. It is an illusion to believe that proportional representation will do any good. We have seen the degree to which independence of thought and vote has become obsolete in this Chamber.
  I am not necessarily opposed to a consensus if it is genuine—nor indeed to coalitions or national Governments. They are sometimes necessary. But I am against PR because the important thing is the supremacy of Parliament, the fact that the Queen's Government must be carried on only by a Government who can command support for their measures in this House.

  1359
  I wish that I believed that Parliament as it is now elected reflected not only the views of the people but the translation of those views into action according to the practicalities of the day. All too often people follow the manifesto with consistency rather than admit that circumstances have changed; they therefore use the party apparatus to support measures which no longer have any validity.
  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: Does my right hon. Friend feel that the supremacy of Parliament is less inhibited by the continual use of the referendum than by the introduction of PR?
  Mr. Macmillan: I view both constitutional innovations with grave suspicion. Proportional representation is being put forward as a soft option. If hon. Members voted as they really believed, there are many things on which this House could reach agreement but on which we are divided into the Lobbies because, for various reasons, hon Members do not vote according to their real views or the real interests of their constituents. Militant minorities, wherever they come, must be resisted. We must try to move to a Parliament in which support is not bought by automatic assent to measures which would be rejected on a free vote. One can give many examples from the recent past.
  Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. Friend continues to grumble at the behaviour of this Chamber under its present system. Why does he say that this is the fault of PR?
  Mr. Macmillan: I am saying that the reasons which I have given for the Chamber behaving as it does cannot be altered by the method by which it is elected. It is the composition and organisation of the factions and parties which make it up which are the problem, not the system of election. It is an illusion to believe that moving away from the first past the post system will necessarily lead to stability and continuity, that it will tend to moderate Governments, coalitions, or national Governments. If I may reassure hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is an illusion to believe that proportional representation will go against extremism or a Marxist minority. It was the existence of PR before the war in Germany which enabled the Nazi Party to keep a toe-hold in the
  1360
  Reichstag for 12 years before that same system ensured that it got support from the German people by a geometric rather than an arithmetic progression, when its support did start to increase.
  It is dangerous to compare the situation in this country too closely with that of other countries. For example, the Social Democratic Party in Germany is not reverting to becoming the political wing of the trade union movement. In Germany and in other countries the trade unions as such do not have votes at party conferences, nor is there a system whereby trades councils dominate Labour Party management committees.
  We have one peculiarity in this country. Whether we like it or not there is a tendency of supporters of Labour to vote for the ticket, regardless of the views of the Member they are electing. On the other hand, the Conservative Party and others have to work for votes. In the United Kingdom, PR, no matter how it is organised, will fragment the centre and the Right, and bring about a kind of popular front Government, consistently veering towards the Left.
  The argument is made that PR is fair. I think that is bogus. We are not here in this Parliament, and members would not be in the Scottish Assembly, just to reflect the views of the electorate at the time the General Election takes place. We are here, and they will be there, to reflect the continuing interests of the electors throughout the whole life of the Parliament. It is the will of the people that matters, and that will is not necessarily reflected accurately by a mathematical reflection of their views on election day.
  Unless we keep the present system, or something like it, I do not see how hon. Members can continue to be representatives rather than delegates.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Like the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. MacMillan), I am very sceptical indeed of the case for PR—in part because of the mixed and varied motives of the proponents of that system. Any system of electoral arrangements must be, in some sense, proportional. The motives of the proponents range from being against party politics as such to a belief that there would be no great swings of policy if there was an amorphous mass in the middle that was always in power—the great, grand coalition. This, it is

  1361
  claimed, would ensure that there was no steel nationalisation under one Government, followed by de-nationalisation under the next. It would ensure that there was no nationalising and de-nationalising of shipbuilding, and so on. In fact, the real danger would be that of complete immobilisation of politics without any possibility of radical shifts.
  Some people who consider themselves political are against the party system as such and against the possibility of any real change in politics, whether it be a change by a veering to the Left or to the Right. Also, some people support the system of PR as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) for quite a different reason—that is, that it will in some way dish the chances of the Scottish National Party.
  The argument that we have heard has been largely that there would be a danger with the first past the post system of the SNP having a plurality of votes and then being able to claim that it had a mandate for independence. This motive I also find very suspect and hardly a proper reason for a constitutional change of such a magnitude which could have such far-reaching implications not only for the Assembly elections and not only for Westminster elections. It will come, as surely as night follows day. If any form of PR is accepted for the elections for the Assemblies and is also accepted for the European Parliament—it is almost inconceivable that we should be out of step with all other Community members in not having some form of PR for European Parliament elections—it is inconceivable that, sandwiched between the two Assemblies and the European Parliament, the Parliament at Westminster would remain out of step.
  11.45 p.m.
  So it seems that this is very much the thin end of the wedge, the opening of the door to PR over the whole range of elections, even eventually for local government elections. That is why the Liberal Party has been so consistently in favour of PR. If PR, or any variant thereof, were adopted for Westminster elections, there would be only one certain result, and that would be that the Liberal Party would be permanently in Govern-
  1362
  ment. I personally do not think that that is a blessing.
  It seems to follow that we should have very much the situation that obtains in West Germany where the essence of political activity among the two major parties is an attempt to woo the centre party—the Free Democrats. Here it would be the Liberal Party. It would have an influence over the composition of Cabinets and over the direction of Government policy far out of proportion to its level of representation in the country as a whole. That is hardly in keeping with the basic requirements of democracy.
  Mr. David Steel: From his European experience will the hon. Member give an objective assessment of what is the most successful Government, the Social Democratic coalition in Germany or the Labour Government in Britain?
  Mr. Anderson: If one was to look at the economic performance of post-war Germany and the economic performance of this country over the same period one would say that West Germany was a success story in the way that this country was not. I cannot see in which way that can be ascribed to the electoral systems used in those countries. One of the great Liberal fallacies is that by some form of constitutional tinkering one can affect the basic economic performance of a country.
  I remember a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) during the last Queen's Speech debate. He argued that this country was going through a very difficult economic situation with the IMF breathing down our necks and with the levels of M1 and M3 being discussed by learned economists. Various economic formulae were being bandied about. But, according to the hon. Member, the answer to all the economic problems which beset this country over the decades could be found in one quick solution: out of the hat came proportional representation. This, I remember, was the great final paragraph, the great climax of the hon. Member's speech—that if we had proportional representation our economic problems, that have beset us through decades and longer, would melt away.
  Mr. Kinnock: Might it not be that, as a departure from custom and tradition, there was method in the madness of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on that occasion? The speech was made at a time when the Liberal Party had spent several months, even under its previous leader, carpetbagging around big business, begging for funds on the undertaking that in the event of proportional representation the Liberal Party could provide security by giving assistance to whichever party occupied the position of major party at the Westminster Parliament.
  Was it not the case, as faithfully reported in the Daily Telegraph, that Sir Kenneth Keith, Chairman of Rolls Royce uttered, in a deathless phrase to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), that either we had to have proportional representation in this country or we had to give more authority to the House of Lords because we could not let the pendulum swings go on for ever? Might it not be that the remarks of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North were rooted not so much in concern for popular democracy as concern for the dwindling coffers of the Liberal Party?
  Mr. Anderson: As always my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has made an excellent speech by piggy-backing on my own short contribution. As always, he has put his finger on the key issue, that what is being sold to us by the Liberals as the great radical innovation of proportional representation is, in fact, the stalking horse of far more sinister influences whose sole aim is to prevent any radical innovation in this country.
  If there are no clear-cut choices, there can only be some amorphous middle ground and no possibility of clear-cut decisions on the part of individual parties. One can see how the relationship between a Member and his electorate will be marred. No longer will a Member be able to go to his electorate with a manifesto commitment and say that he will do his best to ensure that certain policies will be put into effect if support is given to his party. He will know that the relationship he has with his electorate can easily be broken because his own party will be unlikely to have a majority. Indeed, with PR it is unlikely that any
  1364
  party will ever have an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons in future. It will mean, therefore, that that Member will have to go back to his electorate and say, "Yes, I did promise that, if elected, I and my party would carry out certain policies, but I regret to say that our coalition partners"—who will inevitably be Liberals—"would not have it, and though I am with you and should like to carry out my election commitments, this is not possible because of the wicked coalition partners with whom this system forced us into bed." At present, we do our best, according to prevailing circumstances, to carry out our election commitments.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: May I make what I hope will be a helpful intervention? The hon. Gentleman is projecting into the future the voting patterns which we have had under the first past the post system. If electors understand that they are voting under a system of proportional representation, are they not more likely to plump for the candidates and parties closest to their ideological or political position? Might that not result in a realignment which could be far more radical than the fudging and confusion that we have seen on both sides of this Chamber?
  Mr. Anderson: I do not see that realignment coming. The hon. Member and I both call ourselves Socialists, but I do not share his isolationist and narrow view on Wales. There would always be such differences of principle and PR would lead only to a multiplicity of parties.
  I base my view not on projections of voting patterns but on opinion polls, which show between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the electorate supporting the Liberal Party. That would be enough to ensure that neither of the major parties would achieve a clear majority under proportional representation. I do not believe that the system adumbrated by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) would make that 15 per cent., or 20 per cent. of the electorate suddenly ally themselves with the Conservative or Labour Parties.
  One of the great features of our politics since 1970 has been the move towards a multi-party system. In the 1974 General Election the two major parties won only about 75 per cent. of votes cast. If that

  1365
  pattern continued under PR, neither party would ever have a majority of seats—with all the effects on policy formation and enactments which that entails.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Do I gather that the hon. Gentleman reckons that support for the Liberal Party would continue to fluctuate at around 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. and would therefore prevent the big parties securing total overall majority? Do I gather also that his answer is to deny that 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. both influence and representation according to their votes?
  Mr. Anderson: It is a question of a balance of advantage. That 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. may be denied a part in government because their party is unlikely ever to be in a majority under the present system, but we have to consider the worse alternative: that under PR that group would have a say in government which was totally out of proportion to its numbers. The only certain effect of PR at Westminster is that that group will always be in government.
  12 midnight
  I shall use the analogy of the parties in the German system and the extent to which the CDU and the SPD have to tailor their policies to accord with the policies of the FDP at any time. That result is far less welcome than the result of our present system, which I accept does to some extent disfranchise that proportion of the electorate which identifies with the Liberal Party.
  I am bound to conclude that the sponsors of this motion have perhaps not followed through the implications of this bright, shiny radical idea. It would affect policy formulation and would certainly mean that the radical policies of a Labour Government could never be followed through. That fact and its implications have certainly been taken on board by the influences which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty noted. Proportional representation and the reduction in the number of Members in the House of Commons from Wales and Scotland could combine together to ensure that there could never be a radical Labour Government in future. That is a situation that neither I nor my constituents would want.
  1366
  I hope that the Government will continue their present opposition to a system of proportional representation, even during these long discussions at the midnight hour. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will stand firm, as he normally does on points of principle, and say "They shall not pass" to ensure that there is no proportional representation in our time.
  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I am pleased to rise for a few minutes, even at this late hour, to support the amendment.
  There has been a lot of talk about the great advantages of our political system when compared with those in Europe, but if results are the criteria, people should be more careful about making such claims. The system of election in seven out of the nine members of the European Community is by proportional representation, and they have not done too badly in the post-war period.
  I can remember the time when we put the current system of government into Germany to keep Germany weak. It might have been better if we had done it the other way round and had put our own system of government into Germany and adopted the present German system in this country. Since that time our rôles have been reversed.
  We should not criticise the way in which the majority of European nations govern themselves when we see the results they have achieved. I prefer to judge systems by the results which they have for the electorate rather than keeping any particular political system for the benefit of the rulers.
  It has been brought out in this debate that the Scottish position is completely different from the position in the United Kingdom as a whole. In Scotland we have been stabilised for some years, with three political parties each taking more or less one-third of the vote, and every argument says that in any electoral system for the Scottish Assembly we should have some form of proportional representation. It is fair to say that the Kilbrandon Report—and the Commission was composed of men of some sense—unanimously recommended proportional representation for the Assembly.
  I do not accept the idea that this would cause some sort of infection here at Westminster. I agree that as yet there

  1367
  is no case for proportional representation at Westminster, because we still operate under a two-party system. In the last century we had the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. In this century we have had the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. The transition from Liberal to Labour was pretty quick, rather unlike the position in Scotland today or the views of Scottish voters over the years.
  I do not accept the argument about precedent. It was this two-party non-proportional representation system of government in Great Britain which decided that it was right to put proportional representation into Ulster. I do not accept the argument that it cannot be introduced in one part of the country without infecting other parts of it.
  I agree that most of the numbers suggested are far too high. I believe that the correct number of members of the Assembly is about 100. Elections can be held immediately with an understandable method by which the people elect members to the 71 seats as they are constituted at present. Although hon. Members here do not seem to understand proportional representation, members in Ulster and members in Europe seem to understand it quickly enough, and anyone with the idea that the additional members involved in the topping-up from 71 to 100 would have nothing to do fails to understand the overload of business in the House of Commons. I suggest that it is laid down quite clearly that, after the initial election is over, the Assembly itself can settle down to look at its constituencies, at its members and at any changes thought to be necessary for the election, which will take place four years thereafter.
  I conclude with a reference to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman). He argued that it was ridiculous to set up these Assemblies and then make changes. But how can changes be made in an Assembly which has not been set up? It would be one of the worst things that could happen if we set up an Assembly for Scotland and rigorously stuck to the mistakes being made here. Here is a chance for a new start, looking at the problems and looking at the right systems for the Scottish situation. That is why I am glad to support the amendment.
  Mr. Foot: I know that many hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate. However, it may be helpful if I make some remarks at this stage, especially on the proportional representation aspects of the argument. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply somewhat later—though I hope not too much later—on some of the other aspects that have been raised. I am not suggesting that hon. Members who are called after me may not wish to refer to the proportional representation arguments that we have had, but I hope that this will be a convenient way for us to proceed.
  In replying to what my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said I hope that I am not basing the Government's case purely on insular and less still on chauvinistic arguments. I am not presenting my arguments on the basis that what we have in this country is so good that we should never contemplate any change in it. We should be prepared, of course, to listen to arguments for change on their merits and say what consideration we should give to what is proposed on that basis.
  It is on that basis that we have approached the matter, even though it is a reasonable case for the Government to make as part of their arguments that, in introducing a system of devolution and elections for Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, unless there are overwhelming arguments for changing the electoral system that we have known in this country, there is probably a good case for standing by it. Therefore, I think, the onus of making the case for change must be with hon. Members who are proposing change in the electoral system and a change which is a considerable alteration in what we have had as an electoral system in this country before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, if I understood him aright, in other aspects of the matter mentioned the suggestion of public opinion polls in Scotland about what might be the results there in certain circumstances, and he suggested—and others have suggested—that if an election had been held at some period over the last few years, the Labour Party would have had a majority and that in another few months it might have been the Scottish nationalists who would have

  1369
  had the first past the post majority. There was even the outlandish suggestion that at another period the Conservatives might have had an overwhelming majority on a first past the post basis. I understand that hon. Members are saying that it might occur now.
  All these surmises are based on public opinion polls taken between election times, and of all the useless pieces of knowledge presented to the world, public opinion polls between elections are probably the most useless. If a question is to be put to people in Scotland and the man in the street is wasting his time answering futile questions, one certain thing is that the person who is asked the question does not stop to imagine what his views would be if a General Election were to be presented at that moment, even if he had the power to do that.
  No piece of evidence presented to us is ever more futile and misleading than these public opinion polls. The only possible time when public opinion polls might be correct is just before a General Election itself. Then they are superfluous. We have found over recent years, in the instances of the 1970 election and the 1974 elections, that the guidance given to the public at large by public opinion polls up to a period very shortly before the election itself was grossly misleading and that wise people in both Governments have been misled by such polls. For us, or for anyone to cite public opinion polls in this debate is misleading. We should not base any argument on those grounds.
  Mr. Thorpe: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I ask him to cut through this rubbish and not deal with what he calls hypothetical cases. Let us deal just with the last General Election, when it was possible for a party to have 39 per cent. of the vote and to have a majority. That has also happened in Quebec, where 41 per cent. of the vote got a party 63 per cent. of the seats. It is possible in Scotland. It is irrelevant to deal with public opinion polls. He should deal with what might happen.
  Mr. Foot: That is a different argument.
  Mr. Thorpe: A much better one.
  Mr. Foot: I shall come to the other arguments in the course of my remarks,
  1370
  but this was one argument which was used, that one might have such bizarre and absurd results from a first past the post system and that we should try to change it on those grounds. I am entitled to reply to that as well as to other arguments.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Adley: I do not disagree that studying opinion polls between elections is a fairly meaningless operation. But does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is equally futile to try to assess what election results would have been if a different system of election had been in operation by assuming that what happened at the previous election would happen at the same time and in the same place under a different system?
  Mr. Foot: I agree. That is another argument against part of the case which has been presented. Different electoral systems invite different kinds of answers. With proportional representation, the responsibility which rests upon each elector is diminished because, if he has paid attention to the advice given by the leaders of the Liberal Party, he will know that, whichever way he votes, he will not have contributed to a certain result in the election. If he takes the advice of the Liberals on the likely outcome of any election, he must know that his responsibility is diminished. But if he takes heed of the opinion that the first past the post system can in certain circumstances lead to a full majority for one party, he takes that into account as well.
  This argument has entered into our previous discussions. I do not believe that the Scottish National Party will secure the majority which some people have prophesied for it. If those who are opposed to the policies of the SNP have properly and robustly put their case, the Labour Party has every chance of securing a full majority. I believe that the electoral system can assist in securing a clear result, whereas proportional representation tends to blur the issue. Some people want to blur the issue. Indeed, it is almost a profession of the modern Liberal Party to blur the issue, so it naturally favours proportional representation.
  Another suggestion or recommendation has emerged during the past few hours

  1371
  in favour of accepting the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. This argument was put forward particularly by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames, I think—
  Sir Nigel Fisher: Surbiton.
  Mr. Foot: The Surbiton part of Kingston upon Thames. If I were the Member for Surbiton, I am sure that I should prefer it to be called Kingston upon Thames. At any rate, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher), being a passionate advocate of proportional representation, said that one of his purposes was to ditch not merely the nationalists—that is one of his aims in life—but the Marxists. The hon. Gentleman thinks that proportional representation is a good electoral system for hitting those two nails on the head with the same electoral hammer.
  I do not believe that is a good basis for devising a particular kind of electoral system. Many hon. Members have made this point in the debate. Indeed, on this aspect I agree with all those who said that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) made the most revealing speech of all during the debate. I think that the idea of adopting an electoral system to ditch a particular section of candidates is unwise. As it is unlikely or less likely to achieve the desired result, I suggest that is a good reason for not adopting it.
  I think that it is even worse to propose that we should abandon an electoral system which has worked fairly well and served us for a number of years for the purpose of ditching a particular section of candidates. I think that the Committee and the country would be well advised to set aside all those arguments about adopting a proportional representation system in order to defeat a particular party or section of a party at an election.
  I fully acknowledge that what my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian has sought to do in the amendment, by adopting the scheme for the additional member system of proportional representation, is to overcome many of the arguments that the Liberals have neglected in the past. I think that the Liberals are supporting the amendment, but my hon. Friend's proposition is one that is different from the older
  1372
  systems of PR that were favoured for many years by the Liberal Party.
  The additional member proposition has the advantage, first, that it does not destroy the individual constituencies and the association between most of the Members of Parliament and their individual constituencies. I fully acknowledge that that is an advantage, because I have always believed that one of the most formidable arguments to be made against all other systems of PR—it applies in some degree to this system—is that PR breaks the link between the individual Member and his constituency.
  That is one reason, above all, why we should oppose a PR system, but there are others. Some of those are met in some degree by my hon. Friend's proposition, but that still has many disadvantages. It has all the disadvantages of first-class and second-class Members of Parliament, or whatever one cares to call them, or the differentiation between the different calibres or forms of members—those who are elected on the first ballot, if one can call it that, and those who come in on the topping-up system. Any system that leads to different layers of Members of Parliament must be looked at very carefully before being adopted—to put it very mildly. My hon. Friend's system still suffers from that disadvantage. He is not able to overcome it, although his system is better than the normal system of PR.
  However, my hon. Friend's proposal and, indeed, all other systems of PR do not meet the most serious objection. That is the point that has been underlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North, Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), and by many Opposition Members—the fact that any system of PR almost inevitably—I do not say absolutely inevitably—leads to some form of coalition Administration.
  From the Liberals' point of view—not necessarily from their party's point of view, but on the basis of their arguments—for them that is an advantage. For those who believe in consensus politics—I use the horrible word to describe the horrible thing—I fully understand that that is what they desire.
  The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) put the case very fairly. He said that he heard some putting an

  1373
  extreme case on one side about the electoral system, and some putting an extreme case on another side, and that, therefore, one might believe that wisdom lay in the middle. I have never believed that in all these matters, and I do not believe that our political system has held that wisdom lies in the middle in these matters.
  "Playing on his fuddled fiddle
  Somewhere in the muddled middle."
  I am not sure where that comes from, but it is one of the occupations that has been revealed in our politics. It is not an example that we should follow.
  Any form of PR, including my hon. Friend's proposal, leads almost inevitably to some form of arrangement after the election takes place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West says, and in my view, the great vice of that system is that it comes very near to invalidating the electoral process itself, because the very issues that are presented to the electorate one month are the issues that are to be denied the following month. Indeed the more the system tried to overcome that by explaining it beforehand, the more I believe that the electorate would be deprived of any clear choice whatsoever.
  My objection—I believe that this is the objection of most of my hon. Friends who take this view—to proportional representation in almost any form is one of principle. I believe that if PR is applied over a wide area it will generally undermine the whole principle of our political system.
  I do not believe that the Liberal Party has ever thought out the matter sufficiently carefully. In the great days of the Liberal Party there were few advovates of PR among Liberals. I know that there was one very great Liberal who advocated it—John Stuart Mill. He wrote a very fine book about it. However, many of the greatest Liberal leaders, such as Gladstone and others, had the opportunity of supporting PR. John Stuart Mill advocated it in the House and Liberal leaders could have heard him, the greatest spokesman for PR, putting the case. But they did not adopt it. Perhaps they did not do so because they were wiser in their generation than the present spokesmen for the Liberal Party are today.
  1374
  Although the Liberal Party has a deep interest in this matter, an interest that it does not often declare, I ask it—
  Mr. Pardoe: We want power.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman seems to have turned sour on the electoral process altogether, and for very obvious reasons.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman said a wee while ago before he went into that splendid patch of rhetoric that the PR system would—I quote him—"invalidate democracy". The logical follow-on is that in all the democratic countries of Europe, barring Britain and France, democracy is invalidated. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?
  Mr. Foot: I said at the beginning that I was not seeking to be insular in these matters. I believe that we are perfectly capable—surely we have a perfect right to do so—of defending our institutions that have served us over many years. We should not have such an inferiority complex as to imagine that we should abandon our present political institutions to adopt PR. I believe that the system works differently in many of the countries of Europe, but in this country we have not had coalitions except in extreme circumstances of war. We certainly had one in 1931, but that was not an example to follow but an example to deter. It led to the conditions of 1940 and the most extreme dangers that have ever faced the country in the whole of its history.
  If we consider the history of this country—even Liberals should be prepared to do so—the view cannot be contested that if we were to have the sort of system that is proposed our political institutions would suffer grave damage. After every election—this would apply in the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales as well as in England as a whole if we were to have PR—and after there had been the fight between the individual parties, two parties would meet to decide what programme they would have. That would deny the programmes on which they fought the election itself. I do not believe that we can introduce such a system without doing grave damage to our political institutions.

  1375
  It is my view—I believe that this is the overwhelming view of the House of Commons—that when introducing a new system of devolution to the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales we should not introduce this dangerous new principle into our system. It would be foolish for us to do so. It would certainly be a denial of our history. I know that that grates in the ears of some, especially those in the Liberal Party.
  I quoted Gladstone and some hon. Gentlemen have referred to Disraeli. Some hon. Members should remember why Disraeli said that England did not love coalition. It was because he believed in sustaining the demarcation lines between parties. One of the reasons he believed that was that he argued that if one destroyed the demarcation lines between parties one also destroyed the integrity of public men and the integrity of our politics as a whole. There was a great deal of truth in what he said.
  12.30 a.m.
  I therefore believe that we in the House of Commons should not be apologetic about our party system, particularly when what I and most of my hon. Friends are protesting about is that the one party State destroys democracy. But if we were to destroy the party system we could destroy democracy by that method also.
  We should therefore be very careful about taking steps which I believe could undermine the kind of party system that we have had in this country. I believe that system has contributed greatly to our democracy. I believe that we should be a little bolder and not have an inferiority complex in defending it.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman said that England was apparently not very keen on coalitions. Does he not appreciate that in the context of the Bill it is not England or the United Kingdom we are concerned about but Scotland and Wales? When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the existing party system having served this "country" well, does he not realise that in Scotland that party system has now been smashed?
  Mr. Foot: I do not believe that the party system in Scotland has been smashed. I think the electoral system
  1376
  from which the hon. Gentleman profited is still a party system. Whatever else should be done. I am certainly opposed to destroying the party system in this country. If that were to be done, it would be the gravest possible injury that could be inflicted on the political system.
  Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted past Conservatives but will he tell the Committee what happened in the 1920s which converted the Labour Party from a party that believed in PR to a party that was opposed to it?
  Mr. Foot: I was quoting past Conservative leaders for the very good reason that it is difficult to discover what the present ones think. We are still waiting to see what that situation may be.
  It may be that there have been members of the Labour Party in the past, as there are some now, who favour a PR system. But certainly it was not the official policy of this party. The official policy of this party is to sustain our present electoral system for the very good reasons that I have described.
  Mr. Whitehead: We must nail the point about the Labour Party being converted away from PR. Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the 1931 Bill was about the alternative vote, which is not PR?
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct and the interruption of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) was quite misleading.
  Mr. Pym: It was clear before the debate began that the Committee wanted to hold a substantial debate on PR and on the main amendment and its implications. That is what has happened. The whole of the debate, apart from a few sentences in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), has been entirely devoted to Amendment No. 50. Practically no speech so far has been addressed to the other 40 amendments linked to Amendment No. 50. I am sure that that is the arrangement the Committee wanted.
  It has been an extremely interesting debate. The motion was moved with great distinction by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and supported by my hon.

  1377
  Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). Passions have been aroused on both sides of the Committee. The strongest case against the motion was made by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), and the most powerful case in favour of it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who expressed his deep anxiety about the divisions in our country and put forward his reasons for feeling that a move to proportional representation might make a significant contribution to preserving its unity.
  What did not happen was what the Lord President sought to allege had happened. Those who argued in favour of the amendment did so not on the basis of trying to "ditch" one political party or another. I heard no speech in favour of the amendment that claimed in its favour that it would "ditch" anyone. That was an argument used by hon. Members who criticised the proponents of the amendment on the ground that that was what they intended. My right hon. and hon. Friends have approached the amendment on a free vote basis, which seems wholly appropriate.
  The Lord President seemed to be scared of an amendment that he represented as being novel and potentially devastating. He should not be so scared because it is clear that there are divisions in the Labour Party as there are in the Conservative Party—rightly so. The only appropriate Whip would be a Whip on behalf of the Liberal Party—which I suspect has been applied.
  All electoral systems have their weaknesses, including the first past the post system. It is natural for the House of Commons to favour the first past the post system because we have all been elected on that system and historically it has worked extremely well here. There is no stronger advocate of the two-party system than I, but it cannot be denied that the election figures in recent decades show a considerable change in the voting pattern of the electors who support the two main parties. There is no doubt either that the two-party system is increasingly being criticised and challenged. There are more calls today for constitutional reform and change than there have been for many years. Those calls do not arise without cause, and they re-
  1378
  quire our deep consideration and attention.
  We live in an age when change is invariably thought to be beneficial, and no change is thought to be undesirable. I do not subscribe to that view. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) did not, and I agree with him that there is no point in change for the sake of change. The circumstances and conditions in our country and in life generally continually change, and that change has always been reflected in our changing methods of government. We have gradually and continuously adjusted them over the decades and centuries. Now that those circumstances and conditions are changing more rapidly, it is logical for government arrangements to change also, and that is what the whole argument around this Bill is about.
  The Bill is an extremely good example of how not to bring about constitutional changes. That is not to say that everything should remain as it is. All parties accept the need to adjust the government of the United Kingdom as it affects Scotland and Wales. I regret the way in which the whole business has been approached. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that the method of approach is a real threat to the unity of the United Kingdom. Last week we spent a whole night debating the Bill and its effect on the unity of the United Kingdom, and that view was reflected most movingly again today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington.
  At any rate, this amendment is not about Westminster, although much of the debate has been on that subject. It is about the proposed Assemblies and how they should be elected. That certainly affects the unity of the United Kingdom. All the circumstances surrounding the Assemblies and their election are entirely different from those surrounding the election of this House. There is little similarity.
  I have no difficulty in contemplating elections to the proposed Assemblies on a different basis from that for Westminster. I should see some advantages in having a different system, advantages which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed out. Why should the system be the same?

  1379
  One of the strongest arguments in favour of the first-past-the-post system is that it produces a strong Executive, if not always, almost always. That is necessary in order to deal with the national problems of the economy, foreign affairs, defence and such matters, on which decisions are often needed quickly and upon which the Government of the day naturally require confidence that they will receive parliamentary support. That has worked very well. But the type of decisions envisaged in the Bill for the Scottish Executive do not include the type I have described. They are quite different, being confined to housing, education and environmental matters listed in Schedule 6. Therefore, why should the electoral system be the same?
  Several Hon. Members rose
  The Temporary Chairman: We must not have three hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
  Mr. Anderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the amendment?
  Mr. Pym: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait. I am dealing with the amendment. I said at the beginning of my speech that we on the Conservative Benches approached the subject with a free vote, which we think is wholly appropriate in the circumstances. There is no need for the Government to put on a Whip—I understand that they have put on a strong one—to protect their position. Hon. Members like the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and some of his hon. Friends are finding it a very convenient way, though opposing the Bill, to be in support of the Government. However that may be, I see no reason why the electoral system should be the same.
  There is another important difference between the Assemblies and Westminster, in that the situation in Scotland and Wales, but particularly in Scotland, cannot be described as two-party. All the evidence is that there are four parties, and five have been mentioned. The first past the post system is prone to exaggerate a relatively small advantage that one party may temporarily enjoy. For example, the Labour Party in Scotland has well over half the seats with only just over one-third of the votes. That
  1380
  has proved acceptable where strong Executives are required, but that is not the position of the proposed Executive in Scotland.
  If our first past the post system is to be acceptable, all the parties in the proposed Assembly will have to accept the constitutional basis of the Bill, which one of them does not. One of the parties in Scotland has a different and separate objective. That must be taken into account in any thinking we give to how the Assembly is to be elected. [Interruption.] I do not think that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has been here very much during the course of the debate. If he is so impatient, there are plenty of other places he can go to.
  The most powerful argument in favour of the amendment is that it makes it possible to ensure that no one party can obtain a majority of seats on a minority of votes. But the supporters of the amendment must not deny that it bristles with difficulties and complications, which must not be under-rated. We find that the difficulties start when we look into the detail and try to choose a system. There are snags in all of them. The amendment, upon which the hon. Members who drafted it should be congratulated, is probably the most workable system that anyone has yet come up with. It could be put into effect very quickly.
  12.45 a.m.
  The fact that this was not proposed by the Kilbrandon Commission must give one reason to pause. The Commission proposed the single transferable vote system. But that is proportional only if one links together five or six seats, which is a large and impersonal arrangement and would be done at considerable cost to general public support. The Commission did not propose what is now in the amendment. It also preferred the alternative vote system to the relative majority system but recognised its weaknesses in translating the voters' preferences into representation at the Assembly.
  Sir Nigel Fisher: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to be unfair about this. The Kilbrandon Commission reported before the additional member system had been worked out or published. It could not have considered it unless it had invented it itself.
  Mr. Pym: That is a fair point, but other hon. Members have advocated STV. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) did, but he was criticised by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). However, what my hon. Friend says is perfectly true, that this method had not been invented when the Commission reported. At any rate, it seems desirable, if we are to have proportional representation, that the result should be as strictly proportional as possible.
  Several hon. Members have criticised the additional member system. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) produced the criticisms which appeared in last week's Economist, which no one who has spoken to the amendment has yet sought to answer. Many hon. Members would like to know what the proposers think about those criticisms.
  I should like to know what would happen in the case of a by-election in one—or two or three—directly elected seats. Will it be necessary to adjust the topped-up seats to take account of any changes in balance which may follow the by-elections, or will any change have to wait for the next General Election in three or four years?
  Mr. Buchan: There is one other thing that we do not know—whether the right hon. Gentleman is supporting the amendment. Would he tell us?
  Mr. Pym rose
  Mr. Mackintosh: The right hon. Gentleman is being a little less than fair. The by-election system is set out in the amendment. We propose that if one of the directly elected seats becomes vacant, it will be filled by the normal system. If it is one of the topping-up seats, it will go to the next candidate on that party's list.
  Mr. Pym: But suppose a number of by-elections alter the balance, is it to be adjusted immediately or not?
  I do not agree with subsection (4) of the amendment which gives the Assembly power to adjust the system of holding these elections. It is true that under the new schedule in Amendment No. 275 Parliament retains the right to reject the proposals of the Assembly and retains control over it, but I do not think that the Assemblies should have the power to
  1382
  make any proposals in connection with fresh elections. The House of Commons should retain not only the final sanction but the power to initiate any legislation.
  In the case of Wales, there would be objection to amending a Bill about elections by order, which is the only way that it could be proposed because that is the type of legislative Assembly proposed for Wales. This is not a minor drafting point but a criticism of substance.
  This has been so far a major debate on a major issue and the Committee will want to vote on the principle rather than the detail. As I have said, we on these Benches are approaching the matter in the spirit—no, not in the spirit: in the actual fact—of a free vote—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh—I do not know why.
  For the Lord President to get up and deliver a speech which was so fearful of PR, knowing, as he does, that a number of his hon. Friends support it passionately, does not seem a very good posture. This is a matter on which the House has to make up its mind. We shall have a free vote and I am not presuming to give guidance from the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friends know perfectly well that my personal view is sympathetic to the principle of PR. I do not mind telling the House my personal view, but I do not think that will have one iota of influence on the way anyone else votes.
  This is the first time this major issue has been debated in the House of Commons for a very long time, and I do not think that a debate of seven or eight hours is long enough to enable us to go sufficiently deeply into the issues involved. The implications are far-reaching, and the possibilities that have been exposed in this debate are very wide.
  There has been criticism of first and second-class members of the Assembly and the contrast between the directly-elected and topped-up members requires further consideration. The point was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire about the difference between the directly-elected Member with a constituency to look after, and the other Members with their freedom. The House is not fully satisfied about the difference between the two categories. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington

  1383
  that what we are trying to achieve is adequate, appropriate and proper representation in the two Assemblies, and I do not believe that the House can reach a satisfactory conclusion on that in one debate.
  The vote later tonight is not the end of the matter. This is just the first round. It is the first bite at a very big issue. No matter what happens in the vote, I am sure that the debate will continue because the issues raised today are so large. Perhaps after we finish discussions on this part of the issue, we can continue the debate on the matter of the size of the Assemblies, which many of my hon. Friends want to discuss.
  I doubt whether the House is satisfied yet with this PR proposal. Circumstances in this country have changed, and the House of Commons and the system of government will have to change to take account of that.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: I hope that even at this hour, and after the speeches from the two Front Benches, I do not need to apologise for returning to Amendment No. 50, of which I was one of the original sponsors. [Interruption.]
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I wish to listen to the hon. Gentleman. If other hon. Members wish to withdraw, they should do so quietly.
  Mr. Stewart: I do not wish to recapitulate many of the arguments which have been put forward very thoroughly in the past seven or eight hours, but there are a number of important issues that have not been adequately put in this connection.
  It is difficult to separate in our minds, and certainly in the speeches we have heard, the party political and constitutional attitudes of individual Members. I do not say that in a sense of criticism. When looking at this amendment, each one of us—either consciously or subconsciously—is bound to be influenced not only by the effect on ourselves, our personal representation, and the party we represent but by the effect on the fundamental balance of the make-up of Governments as a result of majorities or combinations of parties in the House of Commons.
  Many contributions to the debate, quite reasonably, have been coloured by con-
  1384
  siderations of the way in which the House of Commons works. But we are not debating the electoral system upon which the House is based. It may be called in aid on certain points where comparison arises, but with all the amendments that have been tabled we are dealing with the electoral system that will operate for the devolved Assemblies. I apologise to the Committee for having to point that out at this stage, but sometimes our discussion has, not unreasonably, wandered a little far from this central point.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) made an interesting point which proved the exact opposite of what he intended. He said that if we introduced a system of PR for Scotland and Wales or for the European Parliament, that would inevitably mean that the same system would be introduced at Westminster for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament. But in the same breath he said that this was a very bad system of which he wanted no part. If it is a bad system and if it was introduced for elections to the Assemblies it would be shown to be bad and would not be introduced for Westminster elections. My right hon. Friend's whole argument therefore falls.
  Another point that he made by way of analogy was concerned with local government. This is a major consideration which has not yet received sufficient attention. We are not considering a system for the Assemblies comparable with the Westminster system. We are considering a system of election under which there will be more than one seat for each constituency. So we are not considering a first past the post system. We are considering a first and second past the post, or even, in certain cases, a first, second and third past the post system. That is much more analogous to our local authority system than it is to the system used in Westminster elections.
  Council elections give us the nearest thing we have to the way in which elections for the devolved Assemblies might take place. I was the Conservative candidate in Hammersmith, North just before and just after 1970. When I arrived a Labour Government were in office and Labour heavily dominated the borough council in Hammersmith. Elections to the borough council were then

  1385
  held and, in common with many other councils, there was in Hammersmith an overwhelming Tory majority. Then came the 1970 General Election and the Tory Party was returned to power at Westminster. A year or so afterwards more local elections came along and there was a vast swing to the Labour Party. Tory representation on the Hammersmith Borough Council was reduced to two or three members.
  The essential point about this is that the elections for the devolved Assemblies are due to be held at a fixed period of years, whereas the Westminster system operates on the basis of the power of a Prime Minister to call an election. Anybody who cares to look back at the record will find that Parliaments do not last five years, which is the maximum. They may have, say, an average life of three years, but that average embraces some Parliaments which lasted for almost five years and some which lasted for scarcely five months.
  1.0 a.m.
  What will be the consequence of this? It is bound to be the case that the elections for the devolved Assemblies will be out of phase with Westminster parliamentary elections. If there is to be any real power and influence accorded to the devolved Assemblies, they are likely for at least half the time to be represented in a way that will be politically diametrically opposed to the Government at Westminster.
  In the past, in the case of local government, that perhaps did not matter so much because it has not, on the whole, had much power. But we have already seen in recent years—as central Governments have arrogated greater powers to themselves over larger areas of our lives and laid down in detail the functions of local government in respect of education, housing and so on—the seeds of real conflict sown between central Government and local authorities.
  There was the case of the Clay Cross councillors who did not feel inclined to accept legislation passed by a Tory Government—I shall not put it any more strongly than that. Tory councillors at Tameside do not feel obliged, unless legally bound to do so, to go along with the education policy of the Labour Government.
  1386
  Those are instances within local areas and they affect housing and education. For the life of me I cannot think of two more important areas of policy that will be the concern of the Scottish and Welsh devolved Assemblies than housing and education.
  The Assemblies are likely, for almost half the time, not only to be diagramatically politically opposed to the Westminster Parliament but also be concentrating primarily on issues upon which they are most likely to be in conflict with the party policy of a Government of another colour. The consequences of having voting at four-yearly intervals for the Assemblies but having erratic dates for parliamentary elections is bound to lead to maximum instability. Nobody can doubt that there will be a real problem here because the institution in Scotland will not be the same politically as the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole.
  A point that has been made by many hon. Members—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) put it rather well—can be dramatically illustrated by the election result of October 1974 in Dunbartonshire, East. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) polled 15,551 votes, 31·2 per cent. of the votes cast, and she won the seat. She won it by a majority of 22 votes from the Conservative candidate who polled 15,529 votes and received 31·1 per cent. of the votes cast. The Socialist candidate was only 400 votes behind with 15,122 votes and that was over 30 per cent. of the votes cast. The three leading candidates polled within 1 per cent. of each other in the total vote. None of them polled more than 32 per cent. or less than 30 per cent. I would not believe that anybody would be willing to suggest that this does not demonstrate that there is now far greater division of political opinion and of the parties in Scotland.
  It could be argued, with some wishful thinking, that these are temporary aberrations from the North, but they are aberrations of such colossal size that they begin to take on significance. We all believe in proportional representation—up to a point. It is a matter of degree. No one would say that we should tolerate a system which gave a majority in the House of Commons to a party that polled

  1387
  less than 10 per cent. of the votes. Our individual sticking points might be at 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. It is a matter of degree.
  In Scotland that degree has been passed. It is a matter of opinion whether it has been reached in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is important to emphasise that in present circumstances the proposals for Scotland are not directly relevant to what happens in Westminster now or in future.
  I think that it is likely that there will be changes here. I am in favour of them, but they should not be introduced until sufficient hon. Members also realise the importance of these matters, public opinion feels strongly about them, and the case for change is much more clear cut. That is a relative position because this is not a black and white issue.
  In the old days we considered that a combined Labour and Conservative share of 95 per cent. to 97 per cent. of the votes constituted a two-party system. When that share falls to 85 per cent., the system is in jeopardy; at 75 per cent., it is in serious risk; and at 60 per cent., the case for change is made. That is the point we have reached in Scotland.
  The United Kingdom elections can wait upon events. I have no doubt that the passage of time and the way in which we get majority or minority Governments in future will settle the point. The situation in Wales is less clear cut, but the voting pattern in Scotland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Are the Scottish people to be given the chance to decide how they wish to the Assembly to operate and be elected? The amendment rightly gives the Assembly power to consider the operation of future elections. That is a constructive proposal.
  Some people have suggested that our attitude to the desirability of Assemblies is coloured by our views on the methods of voting to elect them. I do not believe that there is a simple, uniform relationship between opinions in these matters. I am apprehensive about a Scottish Assembly in the form proposed in the Bill; I am concerned about the method of election which may be adopted to put it into practice.
  Mr. Dalyell: Why is it thought that PR will make any difference to the sense of grievance and other problems which
  1388
  the hon. Gentleman has outlined? It will make no difference at all.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous attender at our debates and he may have diffculty in following all the arguments. I apologise if he has had difficulty, following my speech. Public tolerance of any system of government depends on whether it is regarded as fair and meeting practical needs. I have been suggesting that there is a considerable division between electoral opinion in Scotland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The Assembly is due to be elected on a different rhythm from the Westminster elections and this requires us to consider whether we should perpetuate a pendulum system in which the Westminster Government and the devolved Assemblies will be at the opposite ends of the pendulum's swing for a considerable time. If we adopted that system it would maximise the opportunities for political squabbles and constitutional clashes and conflicts of a very serious kind.
  My reservations about an Assembly are largely on constitutional grounds, because I believe that the integrity of the United Kingdom could possibly be seriously threatened as a result. That threat would be infinitely greater if we deliberately chose a system of election to the Assembly which would cause maximum conflict with the Government at Westminster.
  Mr. Adley: I have listened to most of the debate, and listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who is not in the Chamber now. There are not many other hon. Members by whom I could be more easily persuaded than the hon. Member, but so far he has not quite managed to persuade me to vote in favour of his amendment. The Member who came nearest to persuading me to do so was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who was not even trying so to do.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart) that the questions of whether one favours the establishment of a Scottish Assembly or the principle of devolution are totally different from that of proportional representation. I find myself in the difficult

  1389
  position of not sharing the views on proportional representation held by many of my hon. Friends whose general views on devolution I tend to share.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin spoke about arithmetic, and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian also talked about figures. Much of today's debate has been concerned with mathematics rather than principle. I want to consider the principle which has caused us to be discussing the issue of proportional representation at such a late hour in a Chamber which is surprisingly full in view of all the circumstances. I hope to be able to raise one or two points concerned with the present political situation in Britain which have not been raised during the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) referred to the breakup of the United Kingdom, a phrase which has been frequently used in the debate. I believe that I am right in saying that the Scottish National Party, even in its proposals for independence, does not propose any change in the position of the monarchy. Therefore the mere use of the phrase "United Kingdom", that most emotive phrase, tends to be a misrepresentation of the views on this issue of at least one party in the House.
  I submit that the reasons why we are discussing proportional representation and why we are discussing the Scotland and Wales Bill at all have a great deal to do with the United Kingdom's political circumstances prior to the General Election result of February 1974. I am not at all sure, even now, that all the votes garnered by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru were unrelated to the protests of people in Scotland and Wales about what they felt to be the inadequacy of the United Kingdom Government.
  One of the reasons why we are spending so much time discussing proportional representation is that we have become concerned about extra-parliamentary forces obtaining enough power and influence to bring about changes in the policy of Governments, and even changes in Governments themselves. If I mention the names of Mr. Scargill and Mr. McGahey it is not to raise old and contentious arguments. But few people doubt that, before and during the February 1974
  1390
  General Election those two gentlemen were instrumental in influencing the result of that election.
  1.15 a.m.
  What worries me about any discussion of proportional representations is that we are reacting to the fear of extra-parliamentary influence upon our affairs in the House of Commons by bringing ourselves to the belief that the solution to the problem lies in tinkering with our electoral system. I believe that this is yet another attempt by politicians and people in the country to try to find an easy answer to a very difficult question, namely, the loss of control by this House of Commons of the destiny of the nation's affairs.
  If my supposition is correct, what the nation needs from Parliament is strong government rather than weak government, and I make no party point when I say that in all the arguments that I have heard today, I have heard no one put forward the suggestion that proportional representation is itself likely to lead to stronger and more clear-cut government if one is talking of clear-cut parliamentary decisions unaccompanied by the need to find a so-called consensus.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the Quebec situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) was one, and I intervened in his speech to point out that I had been in Quebec just before that election took place. It was a very interesting situation. There is in Canada very widespread disillusion with the Trudeau Government, and the Parti Québecois went into that provincial election on a platform which made it quite clear that, should it win, it would not seek to impose independence on Quebec unless and until there had been a referendum in Quebec some two years after the provincial election took place. It was able to say to the people of Quebec "Use your electoral system to express your total dissatisfaction with and rejection of the Liberal Federal Government of Canada without fear that the way you vote will affect the future constitution of Canada or that of Quebec, because you, the people of Quebec, will be given an opportunity to vote on this issue."
  Mr. Thorpe: That is not now the view of many Ministers in that Government.

  1391
  I think that we shall see a change in the situation. They got in on one basis and they are now changing their tune. The hon. Gentleman has a little too much confidence in the Parti Québecois.
  Mr. Adley: Perhaps this is not the time or place to go into this in too much detail. I believe that Mr. Levesque is speaking in New York tonight. I am fairly well in touch with Canadian affairs. I hope to be in Canada again on Monday. I hasten to add that I hope to be back in this Chamber by Tuesday. In any event, I am trying to show that the example of Quebec cannot be used in any way to advocate the case for proportional representation.
  Another matter referred to by a number of hon. Members is this fear of what is called "the back stairs deal". It is inherently anti-democratic at an election for people to support a political party which subsequently finds itself holding the balance of power and, contrary to the assumed wishes of most of those who voted for it, it then goes into a coalition without reference back to those who voted for it. This cannot be the product of a democratic electoral system.
  I was not happy with the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian who, when he was asked what was the status of the 29 members not affiliated to constituencies, answered that they would be chosen from the losers. This was a proposition which did not encourage me to support his amendment.
  It reminded me very much of a bookmakers' advertisement which used to be shown in London some years ago. I think they were called Margolis and Ridley. Their slogan was "You win when you lose with Margolis and Ridley." That was very much the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian.
  My final point is that we are discussing the Scotland and Wales Bill. I abstained on the Second Reading because I feared one thing—that the power of the SNP, it seemed to me, was likely to increase dramatically in one way and one way only—if the people of Scotland were led to believe that their future would be dictated by the votes and speeches of English Members of Parliament. That is a view which I still hold very strongly. I do not, therefore, believe that it is right
  1392
  that this United Kingdom Parliament should make a fundamental decision tionment to accept an amendment which would foist on the Scottish Assembly, if it is created, and on the Welsh Assembly, if created, a new electoral system.
  The right place for the electoral system to be decided is in those Assemblies, if created, and by those elected to them. For that reason I an unable to support the amendment.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): As hon. and right hon. Members know, we are considering 41 amendments and there are some aspects of those amendments which have not yet been discussed. The Committee is to be complimented on having divided this into two parts so that we are discussing, almost exclusively, proportional representation and the question of the size of the Assemblies has been referred to only fleetingly by one or two hon. Members. Therefore I cannot accept the closure at this stage.
  Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order arising out of what you have just said, Sir Myer. May I ask you whether you will allow later a "clause stand part" debate? If I sense the mood of the House, the debate has been bearing entirely on proportional representation and it might be difficult to deflect it into the interesting question that you have canvassed. I am anxious to discover whether you will allow a debate on clause stand part so that any residual points not covered in this debate can be covered at that point.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he is reiterating what I have just said. We have had a debate on one aspect. What happens in the "clause stand part" debate cannot be anticipated at this stage.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: It is as well now to remind the Committee that there are 32 amendments grouped together and that so far only one speech has been about an amendment other than Amendment No. 50. I hope that the Chair will bear in mind that a great many hon. Members have come specifically to speak on other amendments, as I have.

  1393
  I intend to speak to the Amendment standing in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members, No. 74. Its content is similar to that of No. 526, put down by the official Opposition. I hope that I have not anticipated matters when I express the hope that they will be speaking on that amendment.
  My amendment seeks to have
  "one initial member for each of these areas".
  The object must be fairly clear. First, no boundary changes would be necessary. Therefore, the existing boundaries would constitute the boundaries of any Assembly constituency.
  It is right to remind the Committee that most people in Scotland do not want another layer of government, and certainly no one wants to pay for it. Therefore, the amendment seeks to make any Assembly less burdensome.
  There are proposals in the Bill which will undoubtedly lead to confusion. There can be little doubt that subdivision of constituencies, in whatever form, would mean considerable confusion for constituents seeking redress of grievances. They would be confused between going to a Westminster Member or to an Assembly member. Therefore, the purpose of Amendment No. 74 is simply that the constituency boundaries remain as they are and that one Assembly member should sit for the same constituency as a Westminster Member.
  I think that it would be wise to contemplate the confusion tht is likely to arise. It would be wrong not to refer to confusion in the affairs which will be delegated but for which some overriding responsibility will remain at Westminster. In no area is this more appropriate than housing and education. I mention these two subjects particularly, because together they constitute the subjects upon which most constituents seek help at either local or national level. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that these will remain the predominant subjects to be brought to the notice of all Assemblymen.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Lady raises the question of the overriding responsibility of Westminster and connects it to either housing or education. Is it not important, as some of us asked at 4.5 p.m. yesterday, that the Lord Advocate or other Law Officer should
  1394
  come to the Committee and spell out, for the benefit of a number of non-lawyer hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the precise legal interpretation of these overriding responsibilities, because they are extremely vague? Surely we should hear about them at this stage, not in three months.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. These matters affect the whole question of how many members are appropriate for any Assembly.
  Mr. Dalyell: Absolutely.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: It is unreasonable to expect hon. Members to judge this matter until they know the detail mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  There is a sufficient area of conflict in the Bill as a whole without engaging in the further conflict which these matters will bring. At least the two amendments would bring about some reduction in the inevitable conflict as well as in the confusion because there will be personality as well as other forms of conflict.
  I submit that it is unreasonable to suppose that we can remove from hon. Members the work that they have been accustomed to do and expect them to approve that same work in the hands of others. This is not a matter of personality alone, but more of human nature. That little regard has been paid to that aspect would become only too clear shortly after any Assembly was set up.
  No one has said that there are too few Members from Scotland at Westminster, but many people have said that there are too many. There seems to be a logical view that if 71 Members of Parliament can conduct the affairs of Scotland here, as they have done for many years, it is odd that twice that number should be required to conduct half the business when it is transferred to Edinburgh.
  That seems to be an almost unanswerable argument, and certainly we have not heard any supporting argument from the Government Front Bench. The Minister may say that he has not had the chance. I hope that he will not think me over-offensive when I say that when his chance comes shortly I hope that his arguments in support will be rather more

  1395
  convincing than his last endeavour to convince the Committee. This is a very serious point, because we got very little satisfaction last week, and on this point we require a great deal of information and reassurance.
  1.30 a.m.
  Concerning the size of the Assembly, I was rather diverted by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It depends entirely on the structure, and until we know more about how the conduct of the Assembly is to go ahead, with the division of responsibility, it is extremely difficult to judge the structure. I shall not return to that matter because I do not want to make a long speech, especially as I expect my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to be talking on the same topic from the Opposition Front Bench.
  However, we have said repeatedly that the weight and costs of these proposals are excessive, and at no time have I or my right hon. and hon. Friends given any support to the idea that there should be a full Executive. It may be that we shall hear an argument in favour of that Executive. Again, that is something that we have not yet heard.
  The point that I wish to make is the same point that I made at the beginning of my speech. It is that the weight of the bureaucracy which this proposal will impose is something that the people of Scotland do not want. What these amendments seek to do is to reduce that weight and greatly to reduce the cost.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): It would assist the Committee if the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) would be kind enough to move formally Amendment (a).
  Amendment (a) proposed to the proposed amendment:
  In line 6, leave out '14' and insert '24'.—[Mr. Gwynfor Evans.]
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: At this somewhat late stage of the debate I confine myself to one aspect of the Bill for which the electoral system has very significant implications. I confess that I did not concern myself at a very early stage with the question of devolution. I was therefore delighted to find within the Bill the firm
  1396
  provisions of Clause 29 that the Scottish Assembly should have a system of subject committees to monitor and advise on what the Executive does, including any proposed new legislation.
  I should like to quote subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 29 which spell out precisely what the rôle of these subject committees shall be. Subsection (5) says
  "A committee shall examine the exercise by members of the Scottish Executive of powers with respect to matters to which the functions of the committee extend and advise and assist in the formulation of policy with respect to such matters; and members of the Scottish Executive shall, so far as practicable, consult the committee on that policy."
  Subsection (6) says
  "The standing orders of the Assembly shall include provision for securing that no Bill is introduced in the Assembly"
  —subject to certain urgent exceptions—
  "except after consultation with the committee exercising functions with respect to the matters dealt with in the Bill."
  We in the House of Commons have become increasingly concerned in recent years with how Back Benchers can exercise more control over the Executive and how Back Benchers can examine and probe more effectively on a continuing basis the success of policies that have been followed by the Executive and the chances of success of policies and legislation that the Executive are proposing to pursue. Although I cannot speak for my colleagues, I know that there are many among them with considerable experience in this place who feel with me that we should move some way at least towards the American committee system, which would provide a restoration of the historic rôle of Back Benchers in the exercise of control over the Executive.
  If we are to see this welcome innovation succeed in the Assembly, I do not believe that it can be set against the background of volatility of membership of the sort described so clearly a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart). If a subject committee is to have a chance of calling a Minister to examination, effectively probing policies and influencing the preparation of legislation, it must contain members with some length of experience.
  I support PR for the Assembly—I speak not with the knowledge of some of my colleagues from north of the border but from what I can learn of the political

  1397
  situation in Scotland—because I believe that it is likely that we shall see a repetition of what happens in local authorities when elections are not simultaneous with Westminster elections, there being the especially significant feature in Scotland that one of the three parties does not have a history of government from Westminster. I am not one who advocates PR so as to ditch the SNP. However, it is a fact that that party will enjoy an inbuilt advantage at least for some time because it will not carry round its neck the stigma of having carried out unpopular policies at Westminster in the run up to an Assembly election.
  If the subject committees are to have a chance of success, I believe that the Lord President must accept PR or examine closey—I realise that this is not within order but I shall confine my remarks to one sentence—the fixed four-year term and decide whether the disadvantages to the Assembly of having to hold its election at irregular intervals are not outweighed by the general efficiency of operation of the Assembly. Not only will supervision of the Executive by the back bench members of the Assembly be made difficult if there is the volatility of membership to which I have referred, but I can see the Executive changing with such rapidity that, far from being a democratic control of Scottish affairs, there is a conceivable risk that true power will pass to the administrators, the bureaucrats and civil servants. They may do the job very well but that is not what we have given up a whole Session of Parliament to create.
  I hope that the Lord President will consider the practical points that I have raised. The subjects that fall within the province of the Assembly are not conflicting subjects and I believe that the Assembly will want to pursue solution politics, not antagonistic politics. However, it will not be possible for it to develop the full use of the Assembly for the Scottish people if because of the electoral system and the lack of simultaneous elections there is a volatility of membership that provides constant changes and a lack of experienced Assembly members.
  Mr. Graham Page: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I am something of a rogue elephant in
  1398
  this debate on PR. I want to deal with one of the amendments in this group that has nothing to do with that. That is Amendment No. 55 which has the effect of removing Clause 2 and substituting another procedure for the election of members to the Assemblies.
  Amendment No. 55 would present a simple formula for membership of the Scottish Assembly. Clause 2 as it stands provides for the worst of both worlds. It provides for a period for multi-member constituencies and then switches after four years to a single-member constituency system. It provides that those initial members of the Assemblies shall represent the existing parliamentary constituencies but in a very make-shift way.
  There are to be three members in some constituencies and two in others. I can appreciate that this is all done as a matter of expediency. Whether it shall be three members or two members depends upon the size of the electorate in a constituency as compared with something called "the electoral quota", which we find in Schedule 1. There will be an electoral quota for each constituency. It is all very make-shift and is all a matter of expediency.
  But the Bill recognises that after four years new constituencies will be formed on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and that there shall be one member per constituency. The new Assembly constituencies will come into being under the procedure set out in Schedule 1, which is already familiar to us under the present law relating to this Parliament. Again, for convenience, it is materially truncated in the Bill. I do not think that the procedure to form the new constituencies need take four years. Under an amended procedure in the Bill it could take a much shorter time.
  In Amendment No. 55 I am proposing to do away with the two-tier creation of the Assembly constituencies. At the moment the Bill says that we shall take the existing constituencies and we shall put three Members in that one, two Members in this and so on. We shall spend four years trying to find the right set-up and the right new constituencies.
  I am suggesting in Amendment No. 55 that we go straight to that. I suggest it, first, because the Bill itself recognises that

  1399
  it is right to have one-member constituencies. I personally do not disagree with that, but I consider that it would be wrong to get there by two stages. It would be confusing to the electorate to start off with multi-member constituencies only to be told at the next election that they are turning into one-member constituencies for different areas. That would cause confusion and would start the Assemblies off on the wrong foot.
  There is no need for us to rush the start of it in that way. The first Assembly could wait until the new constituencies are formed under the shortened procedure under the Boundary Commission's recommendations and the order of the Secretary of State. Perhaps it is cynical to say that there will be plenty of time to do this while we debate the Bill, but heaven knows how long we shall be debating the Bill.
  We should try to get the composition of the Assembly right, from the beginning. Amendment No. 55 seeks to go straight to an Assembly of members elected in and representing the new constituencies. The Assembly constituencies will be discovered by the system of recommendation by the Boundary Commission and by order of the Secretary of State.
  1.45 a.m.
  To proceed by way of two stages will cause an immense amount of extra trouble, expense, confusion and difficulty. Because I feel so strongly about this, I hope, Sir Stephen, that you will allow a Division on Amendment No. 55,
  unless the Minister gives an assurance that it will receive deep consideration and that a properly drafted amendment will be tabled later. The amendment is separate from the argument about proportional representation, and it is important and material.
  Amendments Nos. 268 and 271 remove certain parts of Schedule 1 and are consequential upon the acceptance of Amendment No. 55.
  Amendment No. 265 is a purely drafting Amendment. Perhaps, for the first time in the debates on the Bill the Minister will accept the amendment. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 provides that:
  "The electorate of any Assembly constituency shall be as near the electorate of any other Assembly constituency comprised in the same parliamentary constituency as is practicable".
  Does that mean as near geographically, in relationship, in space, or what? The drafting is clumsy. I understand the intention is that the constituency shall be as near as practicable in numbers. Why not say so? That is what Amendment No. 265 does.
  To come back to the more serious Amendment No. 55, the Bill would be improved by the abolition of the initial procedure of the multi-member constituency.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Beith.]
  The Committee divided: Ayes 79, Noes 240.

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES

  [1.50 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (East File)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Baker, Kenneth

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Robert

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Monro, Hector

  Benyon, W.

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mudd, David

  Brittan, Leon

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Newton, Tony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Pardoe, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Penhaligon, David

  Budgen, Nick

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Cope, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  James, David

  Rees Davies, W. R.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Emery, Peter

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  MacGregor, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Younger, Hon George

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Mr. Russell Johnston.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Fry, Peter

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Anderson, Donald

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Archer, Peter

  George, Bruce

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Ashton, Joe

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Golding, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gould, Bryan

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Newens, Stanley

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Graham, Ted

  Noble, Mike

  Bates, Alf

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bean, R. E.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Ogden, Eric

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ovenden, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Boardman, H.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Padley, Walter

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Palmer, Arthur

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Park, George

  Bradley, Tom

  Henderson, Douglas

  Parry, Robert

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hooley, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Buchanan, Richard

  Horam, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

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

  Prescott, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Huckfield, Les

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Radice, Giles

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Reid, George

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hunter, Adam

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Conlan, Bernard

  John, Brynmor

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cowans, Harry

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ryman, John

  Crawford, Douglas

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cronin, John

  Judd, Frank

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Kelley, Richard

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Kerr, Russell

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sillars, James

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamond, James

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Deakins, Eric

  Litterick, Tom

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stoddart, David

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Luard, Evan

  Stott, Roger

  Dempsey, James

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Strang, Gavin

  Doig, Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Swain, Thomas

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacCormick, Iain

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Eadie, Alex

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Edge, Geoff

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thompson, George

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scu)

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Tierney, Sydney

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tinn, James

  English, Michael

  Maciennan, Robert

  Tomlinson, John

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Madden, Max

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mahon, Simon

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ward, Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Watt, Hamish

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michaet

  Weetch, Ken

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Welsh, Andrew

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mikardo, Ian

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  White, James (Pollok)

  1402

  1403

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. Peter Snape and

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment to the proposed Amendment be made.
  2.0 a.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: I want to speak briefly on the size of the Assembly. With great regularity, both Front Benches address the nation and tell people to improve their efficiency and bring themselves up-to-date. There are 71 hon. Members representing Scotland at present, and before we got ourselves involved in this Bill we should have given some thought to the size of the House of Commons.
  My father was a Member of this House in 1910 when there were few, if any, telephones, no such things as dictaphones, no aeroplanes, and cars were in their infancy. The only things which went as fast as they do today were the railway trains. Despite the lack of facilities in 1910, the House of Commons had 707 Members. This number was reduced to 615 in 1922. I think it is asking a great deal of our constituents to expect them to accept that in a situation in which we have done nothing to modernise our own procedures we are now establishing an Assembly for some Scottish affairs—not all—which will require two people to do the work which one person does at present.
  I understand that if we have PR it will be necessary to increase the number of Members. But there is no reason whatsoever initially to increase membership of the Assembly beyond 71. There are also difficulties in Schedule 1 in trying to get constituencies of the same size. [Interruption.]
  The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Joyce Butler): Order. It would be a help if we could have some quiet. If hon. Members wish to talk, they should leave the Chamber.
  Sir J. Gilmour: I do not think that there is any justification for the Government insisting on more than 71 Members. The only justification would be if they could say, in relation to the working of Clause 29, that it would be impossible to
  1404
  man sufficient committees with only 71 Members. We have a membership in this House of 635, but we can do a great deal of our work with 16 Members. We put through the reorganisation of Scottish local government with a Committee of 35 Members. I do not believe, therefore, that it would be impossible to work an Assembly with 71 Members.
  If we started off with a large number of Members it would be impossible to reduce them. We should, therefore, begin with a smaller number, and if experience showed that the number was insufficient for the efficient working of the Assembly we could consider an increase. To tell everyone else to modernise and to bring themselves up to date but for us to retain 71 Scots Members in this House would be completely unsupportable.
  Mr. Sproat: As this debate weaves its way through the Committee we shall no doubt witness some strange alliances. I found myself convinced by the Lord President's comments about PR.
  It is worth drawing attention to the continuing opportunism of the SNP in looking upon PR as the chance to do away with adversary politics. We in this country have been fighting for hundreds of years for the right to criticise each other in Parliament. To pretend that somehow the Scottish Assembly under PR and under SNP guidance will eliminate adversary politics is to make a cheap appeal to the most ignorant critics of this House.
  Let me turn to Amendment No. 61. If there is to be a directly-elected Assembly the least bad form it could take would he to have existing Scottish hon. Members sitting in Edinburgh on suitable occasions. I am a Unionist. I do not believe that any solution that I have so far heard would be any better than a reform of our existing institutions. This Bill is a disaster. Any form of separately-elected Scottish Assembly would be a disaster.
  I support the amendment because it would be at least preferable to anything we have so far heard, and would have a number of advantages. One of the reasons why hon. Members are supporting the

  1405
  Bill is that they feel that the sense of Scottish and Welsh identity—very real, if intangible, commodities—is not being sufficiently recognised by the House. I do not accept that. But if Scottish Members sat on suitable occasions in Edinburgh that would do something to answer the hon. Members who hold that view.
  Mr. Anderson: Would the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) consider an amendment to his suggestion, to rename the body and call to it the Scottish Grand Committee?
  Mr. Sproat: That is a pretty good point or, at least, 95 per cent. of a good point. The Scottish Grand Committee, as opposed to the body that I suggest, has hon. Member from England and sometimes from Ulster sitting on it. I propose that elected Members representing Scottish constituencies should come together in Edinburgh. That would be approximately the same body as the Scottish Grand Committee, and I dare say that the same principle would apply to the Welsh Grand Committee.
  Such a body would give a physical identity in legislative form to the feeling of Scottish nationhood. To that extent, it would perhaps do some good. It would certainly emphasise what a few people in Scotland have begun to realise, and that is the amount of devolution that Scotland already has. What people do not realise is that any law that affects Scotland must go through the Scottish Standing Committee upon which none but Scottish Members sit. I cannot think of any occasion upon which something that has been through Scottish Standing Committee has been reversed by the House, whether sitting in Committee, on Report or on Third Reading. There may be examples, but I cannot think of them.
  Scotland already has its own Secretary of State. It has its own Scottish civil servants in Edinburgh who have powers to implement decisions made by Scottish MPs and the Scottish Secretary of State on housing, education and so on. The House has already granted a considerable degree of devolution to Scotland. That degree is the maximum that we can, and ought to, have within the Union. What I suggest is a way in which we could perhaps give a more concrete physical expression to the devolution that we
  1406
  already have. It would enable the Scots to see that devolution physically.
  Those are the positive advantages of such a scheme, but it also has great negative advantages. Such a solution would mean no more government. One of the prime objections in principle to the Bill is that it would mean that a country that is already over-governed would have yet another tier of government. This scheme would require no increase in the tiers of Government.
  Another objection to the Bill is that it will create more bureaucracy. There was a very interesting report in the last edition of the Sunday Times that showed that the Government have seriously underestimated the amount of bureaucracy that it will create. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he can answer the point. Civil servants working for the British Aircraft Corporation have said that even if some of their authority was devolved to Scotland they would tolerate no cut in the number of civil servants working for BAC in England. That is one example of the way in which bureaucracy will be increased by the Bill. Under the scheme that I propose, with Scottish Members sitting in Edinburgh on suitable occasions, there would be no increase in government and bureaucracy. There would be only a marginal increase in costs resulting from the need to staff the place where the hon. Members would meet.
  There would be no question of raising extra taxation—and that is a threat that is still hanging over our heads. The Government have, for the moment, removed the power of the Assembly to tell the regions to levy extra rates to pay for the Assembly. But the Government are looking for another way to do it. Under this scheme there would be no such threat because hon. Members sitting in Edinburgh would be totally integrated with the House and would have no power—just as the Scottish Standing and Grand Committees have no power—to raise taxation contrary to the wishes of the House.
  Most important, such a scheme would cut out the element of divisiveness, conflict and bitterness between Scotland and England, and between England and Wales, that would inevitably and tragically follow the Bill if it were passed as

  1407
  at present drafted. Scottish Members sitting in Edinburgh would remain, as now, totally integrated with the House. There would be no question of conflict.
  2.15 a.m.
  Everything would be resolved in the same way as now, with Scottish Standing Committees reflecting the balance of the House of Commons. There would be no question of a Labour Assembly seeking to oppose a Conservative Government here or vice versa. It is this potential conflict which leads many of us to believe that, although it is not what they seek, the Government are encouraging the break up of the United Kingdom by this Bill.
  The system which I have suggested, while creating no more government, bureaucracy, expenditure, threats of creating powers of taxation or divisiveness, would give physical expression in Edinburgh to the feelings of Scottish identity and, combined with a reform of the procedures of this House and the establishment of Select Committees or Congressional-style committees, would enable us to give closer scrutiny to the Government and the Civil Service. It would improve the quality of government without adding an expensive, vast, lumbering, devisive superstructure as the Bill seeks to do.
  I shall not divide the House on the idea, but I commend it to hon. Members. It has none of the disadvantages of the Bill or the ludicrous separatism of the SNP, but it will show the people of Scotland how much power is already devolved to them and it will maintain all hon. Members here within the present system.
  Mr. Budgen: I suspect that many hon. Members will have warmed to the conventional arguments of the Lord President with which he so convincingly demolished the case for proportional representation. However, some hon. Members will say that there are special circumstances in Scotland which will persuade them to vote in favour of PR there alone. They argue that the huge block vote of the Strathclyde Region will produce a narrow, selfish, SNP-dominated majority in the Assembly and argue that the way to avoid such a problem is to have PR for the elections.
  We have twice experimented with PR in Ulster. Some hon. Members have
  1408
  claimed that the results show Ulster as the exception which proves the rule. I cannot draw that friendly conclusion; I contend that Ulster is the example which proves the rule.
  Proportional representation was tried in Ulster between 1922 and 1929 precisely because it was feared that there would be a permanent majority of Unionists in the Province and that they would not always treat the minority fairly. By 1929 the system had been abandoned. Ulster was dominated by one party and continued to be so dominated for the next 50 years.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Surely they abolished PR in 1929 in order to make sure that their domination continued?
  Mr. Budgen: It may have been partly for that reason, but perhaps it was also because, having got their own Parliament, they were in such a strong position that they could demand changes in the electoral system. If the amendment were passed, much the same situation could occur in Scotland. A devolved Assembly could become strong enough to say that it had been given PR and that now it wanted a winner-take-all system. If any devolved Parliament had proportional representation or winner-take-all powers, it is difficult to see how we at Westminster could prevent it from. on occasions perpetrating injustices against minorities in its area or doing what some Members from the North-East of England fear, that is, using devolved power in Scotland, for instance—
  Mr. Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Westminster never does unfair things to Scotland?
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Just unfair things to England.
  Mr. Budgen: I am suggesting that an hon. Member might be too close to a problem and might be prejudiced as a result of his own experience or the experience of his constituents. The hon. Member then has to bring the problem before Parliament at Westminster to be considered by hon. Members who can view it with greater objectivity.
  So long as we retain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, and

  1409
  so long as each Member sits as a representative and not as a delegate, when individual problems are brought before this House there is always the certainty that they will be considered by at least some hon. Members in an objective and disinterested way. To give a personal example, it may well be that when I am considering the issue whether fiancées should be allowed into this country from the Indian sub-continent I am too close to the problem to do justice to those wishing to come into this country. It may perhaps be that when the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) is considering the rights of landlords in London he is too close to the problem to do justice to the landlords of London. But when we bring these problems before the Westminster Parliament there are other Members farther away from the problem who can see it with a more objective eye. So it is that a problem can never be brought before a body which is too close to the problem or too bigoted.
  So long as we adhere to the twin principles of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament and the importance of the role of the Member of Parliament as a representative and not as a delegate, there is every possibility that all parts of the United Kingdom can be ruled in such a way as to avoid the narrow, selfish, unpleasant and almost racialistic instincts of those who might dominate Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. The history of the Westminster Parliament is a history of Governments at least attempting to rule the United Kingdom in the interests of the whole Kingdom.
  The more we consider proportional representation, particularly in relation to Scotland, the more we should remember that there can be no devolved government in any part of the United Kingdom without putting the unity of the United Kingdom at risk. That unity is essential to the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, which is the principal bulwark against unfair or unjust treatment of any minority in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Honourable Members may laugh, but surely the history of Ulster supports the proposition which I am putting forward. We must remember that Stormont was set up to appease the most strongly Unionist element in the United Kingdom.
  1410
  The people of Ulster wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, above all else. So, paradoxically, we in the Westminster Parliament gave them the mechanism which was designed to help them to break up the United Kingdom, and it is a paradox, indeed, that after 50 years many of those most Unionist people had transferred their affections from the Westminster Parliament to Stormont. They, who most of all wanted to continue to send their Members to Westminster and to think about Westminster as the centre of their affections, began to think of Stormont as their natural centre of government and began to transfer their affections from Westminster to Stormont.
  Perhaps the extent to which this new machinery has distorted their affections and their principles of government can be seen from the fact that, after this West-minister Parliament had dissolved Stormont, there were many within the Unionist ranks who, while asserting their traditional Unionism, none the less contended that they wished to be indedependent. What a paradox that the Unionists who wanted Union above all else nurtured within their ranks some at least who were prepared to contemplate independence from the remainder of the United Kingdom, and it was machinery which we had wished upon them which encouraged them to think of a solution to their problems which was diametrically opposed to their history and very beginnings at the time that we gave them Stormont.
  There is no way in which we in Westminster can give Scotland a devolved Parliament which will avoid the risk of the break-up of the United Kingdom. Those who believe that by saying to this devolved Parliament in Scotland "We can avoid this problem by giving you proportional representation" are avoiding the central issue. Proportional representation will make no difference to the problems. It will make no difference to the risk of a narrow sectionalist majority in Scotland perpetrating injustices either upon England or upon minorities in Scotland.
  These proposals for devolution are inconsistent with the unity of the United Kingdom. They are also inconsistent with any fair or just government for minorities in Scotland or those who live

  1411
  near Scotland in what is now England, a part of the United Kingdom. Justice and sense demand that we kick out all the Bill and do not fiddle with the details.
  Mr. Stanbrook: In addition to the many excellent arguments which have been advanced against proportional representation by so many hon. Members, including those by the Lord President himself, I wish to advance another. It is based upon the fallacy, which seems to be im plicit in the thinking of those who support Amendment No. 50, that government is by political parties.
  Democracy is, or should be, government of the people, for the people and by the people. But those who believe in proportional representation seem to think that it is government by political parties. That may be a quite easy and natural mistake to make in the circumstances and realities of today, but it is a fundamental error and one which could lead us into greater difficulty and greater constitutional trouble if we allowed it to continue any longer, because the whole argument about proportional representation and electoral reform generally is based on a concept of unfairness.
  2.30 a.m.
  But unfairness to whom? The stock answer is the Liberal Party, because it got so many votes. But we do not run our elections on the basis of which political party is the most popular. If we did and people really voted for political parties we might get some surprising results. Hon. Members may have read of a public opinion poll run in Italy recently. Of course, I exaggerated but I understand that 10 per cent. voted for the Christian Democrats, 10 per cent. said they supported the Socialists, 40 per cent. said that they did not know and 40 per cent. said that they did not care. That sort of reaction from the electorate is what one would expect, even in this country, if it were a question of the popularity of individual parties, because our system, thank goodness, is based on representative government, on voting for the individual and not necessarily for the party.
  So, when many hon. Members, in support of the amendment, quoted Germany as an excellent example where their form of proportional representation
  1412
  has worked, I would point out that Britain is the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world.
  Hon. Members: And the best.
  Mr. Stanbrook: And the best.
  Hon. Members: Iceland.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Compared with us, the Germans are merely experimenting. They have a lot to learn about parliamentary democracy. They came into existence as a democracy, ready-made, as it were, and fully equipped. They went for a system which accepted a certain inherent virtue about political parties.
  The way we have evolved our democracy has been long and often based on experience. It has been based upon the individual. As a result, we still believe in representative government based on individual Members in this House.
  That points to the fundamental mistake being made by those who are in favour of proportional representation.
  It is true that the existing system has its disadvantages. No one would pretend that there are not many disadvantages, especially in the present confused state of this country, with its lack of prosperity and lack of confidence. It so happens that almost any alternative system of voting has more disadvantages. One could almost say that the first-past-the-post system is the least bad system. I would not dispute that alternative suggestions put up, including the one in the amendment, show even greater disadvantages.
  The additional Member system has the grave fundamental difficulty of establishing two classes of Member, first and second. There can be no doubt whatever about that. Members directly elected in their constituencies who have borne the heat and burden of the day, and the blood, toil, tears and sweat involved in being a constituency Member, holding surgeries, taking deputations to see Ministers and raising constituency matters in this House, are worth a lot more and deserve a lot more than those who, by some chance, having lost the election and because of their relative position in their party and their party's relative position, have got themselves propelled into an Assembly where they have no responsibility, but no doubt the same pay, entitlement and privileges and

  1413
  the ability to take a grand view of everything without the disadvantages and responsibilities of their companions.
  That sort of system cannot last and will speedily engender so much hostility between the two classes of Member that it will not be found possible for it to survive.
  The transferable vote system seems to have a fundamental defect. It is wrong that a decision by the second votes of the least popular candidate should be regarded as valid. After all, if we are to evolve a comprehensible and well understood system in which the voter knows what he is voting for or against, our system is just such a one. But a system under which, somehow by the back door, one of the candidates is suddenly promoted to the top by the votes of people who did not vote for him or the person who originally obtained the majority of votes, without taking into account the second preference of any others, must be wrong. That alone is a sufficient argument against the transferable vote system.
  The basic defect in all proportional representation theories is that most electors do not see political parties in any order of preference. Most Conservative voters would vote for their Conservative candidate and would not, if given the choice, in any circumstances vote for any of the other candidates. It could be said and assumed that the next best thing to voting Conservative might be voting Liberal rather than Labour. That choice should not be forced on anyone. We must take account of the strength of feeling of people on polling day. On such an occasion they may be so strongly of opinion that one candidate stands for what he believes in and none of the others does that they wish to vote only for him. Under a proportional representation system they would be compelled to put the others in some order of preference when they have no desire to advance their claims and when any such order will bring some benefit to the others and may be decisive in the result.
  The first past the post is a simple and traditional system. It is simple to operate and is easily understood. It will operate and serve this country well provided that Members of Parliament do their jobs properly, take less notice of the party
  1414
  machine and the party, realise that there is no inherent virtue in the party, and represent all their constituents.
  It was noteworthy that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), as it were, gave the game away when he revealed that Conservative voters in his constituency were not represented by him. If Members of Parliament take that kind of attitude, they deserve that others should take their places on the basis of some contrived system of injecting them into the Assembly.
  If our system is to work, every Member of Parliament must represent all his constituents. It does not follow that he must represent their political opinions. Political opinions do not necessarily cover the whole spectrum of representation in a constituency. Many subjects are covered ably without political questions of a party nature coming into them.
  I consider that I represent the 40 per cent. of voters in my constituency who voted Liberal. I dare say that many of them, if they got the chance today, would continue to vote Liberal. Meanwhile, I believe that their views are properly represented by me. However, as 47 per cent. of voters voted for me, I feel that their views deserve greater weight. Equally, the 13 per cent. who voted Labour deserve representation at all levels. I take their political opinions into account, too. Surely that must be the position of all Members of Parliament if our system is to remain healthy.
  Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a fascinating argument. Does it mean that, when he sees a Minister about any particular problem, he says "Of course, 47 per cent. of my constituents want you to do this, 40 per cent. want you to do that, and 13 per cent. want you to do something else"?
  Mr. Stanbrook: That is just the point. One does not have to think in those terms at all if one is representing the whole constituency. If that is the way in which the hon. Gentleman approaches a Minister, I deplore it. But, of course, that is not the proper way of doing things. We can leave aside party-political issues most of the time if we are frank about matters. We bring party-political issues into the Chamber too much. Too few hon. Members are approachable by people outside

  1415
  their party organisations. We should stand for all our constituents. By doing so we could remedy many of the defects and disadvantages of our present system, which is better than any other. Therefore, our system deserves to be encouraged to cure its own defects by hon. Members doing their jobs properly.
  Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order, Mrs. Butler. Is it not now clear to the Committee that the pattern is all one way, and is it not equally obvious that we have been here for so many hours already and that later in the day we shall be faced with this situation once again? Surely the Committee would not agree that we are expected to listen, as we have been doing, to what is tedious repetition. I therefore appeal to you, Mrs. Butler, to allow the two winding-up speeches and then for heaven's sake let us all get home and get to bed.
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order, and, of course, as long as hon. Members continue to try to catch my eye I shall have to note that, and I shall call them.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I intend to speak only briefly. With respect to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones), many of us feel very deeply about these issues. I have been in the Chamber, with the exception of a few interludes, since the debate started, and I think that I have the right to speak.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that by repeating the issues he is enhancing the argument?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If one simply repeated all the arguments that had gone before, perhaps that would be repetitious, but many of us have had the views of constituents, and they are entitled to have those views put forward by those who represent them in Parliament. There are new points and aspects of the different problems, and it is right that they should be properly and fully aired.
  I agree with many of the arguments that have been advanced, and I intend to add my weight to them and to make one or two fresh points.
  First, I strongly support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife,
  1416
  East (Sir J. Gilmour) about the numbers of the Scottish Assembly. I cannot see why we require, because we are to have a Scottish Assembly, three people in each constituency to do the work currently done by one person. It does not make sense to me, it will add to bureaucracy and to expense, and it ought to be resisted.
  I appreciate that there is one argument from the Government Benches that if we have an Assembly of 71 Members it may be difficult to draw an Executive from one party. There may not be a sufficient number to support it. I ask the Government to look again at this matter. We are talking of something that is not comparable with the United Kingdom Parliament. There will not be the same number or range of Departments. We shall be administering a smaller country and fewer people. Clearly, they will not require the same number of Under-Secretaries and so on as we have in this Parliament. Therefore, it should be possible to devise an Executive that could still have the support of the Assembly. Even if the party forming the Executive in that Assembly gets only just over one-third of the votes, it still ought to be able to do so, given the responsibilities and the range of Departments.
  I beg the Government to look again at this matter, because it is this kind of increased bureaucracy and expense that makes many people in Scotland who want more political control of Scottish affairs nervous about the consequences and results of having that. I hope that the Government will be forthcoming on that score.
  2.45 a.m.
  My second point concerns proportional representation. We are talking of new constitutional arrangements for the United Kingdom, and it is wrong for us blindly to adopt procedures that have applied to the United Kingdom Parliament and the elections to it. The debate has been valuable and useful in that we have discussed alternative methods. I always favoured the first-past-the-post system but I follow very much what was said by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). In recent years I have come to question the efficacy of that system in providing a fair and true form of election, especially as in

  1417
  Scotland we are facing a party system that is based on four parties and not two. I make that comment in respect of Scotland and I do not think it necessarily prejudices the position of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill deals with Scotland and we are trying to deal with the realities of the situation in Scotland. I ask my colleagues who have not yet made up their minds on the issue to consider the realities and to remember that in Scotland we have four parties. In that light we must ask whether the first-past-the-post system produces a result that is fair.
  The test of fairness that I apply is fairness to the electorate. I am much persuaded by the argument of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. He said that a system of PR would help put some restraint on extreme views. It is the multiplicity of parties that tends to push me away from the first-past-the-post system, but I am inclined to take that view because of the way we have gone in politics. The same is true in Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It seems that political views between the major parties are becoming more extreme.
  I believe that a system of PR puts a restraint on extreme views. That applies to Governments and Executives. It leads to moderate views, and in my experience in Scotland the majority of people want moderate views and policies, as do the people in the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, they are crying out for them.
  I shall make some practical points in support of the method of PR that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. His system is right given the time scale and the need to base something on the existing system. There is a practical point in his favour that he merely touched on and I think that he has been quoted a little unfairly. He said that those who vote for the Conservative candidate in his constituency—that candidate comes a close second—have the feeling that they are not being represented. He did not mean that he does not represent them. In fact, he does represent them. But those who vote for the other candidate feel that they are not being properly represented.
  1418
  That is a situation that arises in England in respect of Liberal voting and sometimes leads to tactical voting. In some instances electors feel that they are wasting their votes by voting Liberal, for example. They feel that there is no chance of their candidate being elected—this does not apply to the election in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—and they transfer their vote to the candidate of another party because they want to defeat the candidate whom they do not like. In that way we get voting patterns that do not truly represent either the policies or the type of candidate that the electors want.
  Given a system of PR, the elector knows that his vote will have influence in respect of the added Members that go into the Assembly. He is more likely to cast his vote for the party, the policies or the type of candidate that he truly supports. In that practical sense there is an added advantage in the system that the hon. Gentleman advocated which, I believe, makes it right.
  I accept the argument of those who believe in the first-past-the-post system that the onus falls on those who have put forward the amendment. I accept that they do not want change. In one sense I accept what they have said—there are imperfections in a PR system. There are imperfections in the particular system put forward in the amendment. But there are imperfections and unfairness in the existing system.
  What we have to balance up is whether the imperfections of a PR system as proposed in the amendment are worse or better than what we have at the moment. My conclusion is that the imperfections of a PR system are fewer than we have at present and for that reason I support the amendment.
  Mr. Younger: Perhaps I can intervene briefly at this stage to explain the thinking behind Opposition Amendments Nos. 523, 524, 526 and 527. Their purpose is to reduce the proposed size of the Scottish Assembly to 71 seats in all.
  I hope the Minister will take this as an entirely serious suggestion. I hope he will consider carefully the arguments that have been put forward not only by myself but by a number of hon. Members,

  1419
  including my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson).
  Many commentators who have discussed the Government's Bill have made the point that there is a good argument for saying that the Government's judgment with regard to the size of the Assembly has not been right. We believe that they have pitched the size of the Assembly too high. I have not heard anyone argue, and I doubt whether I shall, that we need to have a larger number of Members for the Assembly because otherwise the constituencies would be too large for the Members to look after their constituents properly.
  We now have 71 hon. and right hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies in this House. So far as I know, each one by and large handles them reasonably conveniently. I see no argument for having a larger number of Members in the Assembly purely in order to get a smaller number of electors.
  To many people looking from the outside it appears that the Government's choice of numbers for the Assembly has been done in a very haphazard manner and with no very good reason why this particular formula was decided.
  The Kilbrandon Commission clearly preferred the number of Members to be about 100. Yet the Government have chosen to double the present number of Parliamentary Members that we have in Scotland, add on a few to deal with some particularly large constituencies, and hope that this is about the right number.
  I do not think they have addressed themselves to the real problems, which ought to be: how small can this Assembly be and yet be able to do its job effectively? The larger the Assembly the more it will cost. In many ways the effectiveness of the Assembly could be less than otherwise if it were large.
  I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said, there are good arguments for saying that we have too many Members in this House. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who feel this to be the case.
  In our amendments we propose a Scottish Assembly of 71 seats with the same boundaries as we have at present for
  1420
  parliamentary elections. I am sure everyone would agree that this would be the simplest of all solutions. It would involve the least change and cut out any need for new boundary changes and new considerations of boundaries—which would have to be done under the Government scheme or any other scheme—until normal boundary changes took place under our present system.
  The public is used to the 71 constituencies. People know what constituency they are in. They know their local Members. The simplest thing would be to have an Assembly Member covering exactly the same constituency.
  It can hardly be denied that a reduction in the number from 148 to 71 would save some money. The Government may argue that the amount of money is relatively trivial in terms of government expenditure as a whole. It is estimated in the Bill that the cost of wages, salaries and related matters and Assembly Members, staff and the Executive is about £6 million. Many people think that that is probably an under-estimate, and it may turn out to be more than that. Halving the number of Members is likely to provide a significant saving.
  There is a better reason than that for reducing the number. If the Government wish to get the Bill through, they will have to give something to the critics both outside and inside Parliament. The criticism we hear from all over the country is that the cost of the new Assembly and its Members will be very great. The Government can effectively meet that criticism by saying that the case has been well made that the number is too large and by agreeing to reduce it from 148 to 71. That would be a very important selling factor for the Government. They could sell the Assembly to a sceptical public if they could demonstrate that it would be smaller than at present planned.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in speaking to Amendment No. 50 was careful not to recommend to hon. Members the way in which they should vote. The amendment to which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is speaking is incompatible with Amendment No. 50.
  Mr. Younger: The amendments are framed on the assumption that the present method of election continues. We

  1421
  could have put down a separate amendment to cover each eventuality, but I am content to wait to see what the Committee decides on the method of election. That does not invalidate my feeling that the number should be less than 148. Amendment No. 50 involves a reduction in the number from 148.
  Mr. Dalyell: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "selling factor"? To be charitable, it may be 3 a.m. fuzziness, but how can there be selling factors for the Bill?
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is being more obtuse than usual. The Committee as a whole perfectly understands what I mean. I presume that the Government are trying to put the scheme across to the people of Scotland and to get as many as possible to support it. "Selling factor" is a fairly common colloquialism, which I am sure hon. Members understand.
  For the Assembly to carry out its business effectively, will the number of hon. Members need to be 148, as proposed by the Government? As several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, it can be argued that 71 Members would not provide a large enough Assembly to man the Committees and provide the Executive. That is a tenable argument, but I do not believe that it holds much water. No one can say that the functions the Government propose to give the Assembly are greater than those now tackled by the Scottish Members of Parliament. Not only do we cover all these matters already, as best we can, but we carry out our duty in connection with United Kingdom affairs, and some of us also go to the European Parliament. We are pretty hard-pressed at times, but I do not think that it can be argued that the new Assembly will need double the number of Members to do only a proportion of Parliament's work, a point well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East.
  Let us look at other legislatures, taking first the Australian Federal Parliament, which has to run major affairs for the whole of Australia with a total of 125 Members in the main Chamber. It manages to provide a whole Government,
  1422
  with all the panoply of Governments throughout the world, and deal with matters adequately. Denmark, with a population of 5 million, similar to that of Scotland, has a Chamber of 179 for the purposes of running an entire Government, not just the functions that the Scottish Assembly will take. The Netherlands, with a population more than twice the size of Scotland's, at 13 million, manages with 150, about the same as the Government propose for the Scottish Assembly, which has fewer responsibilities. New Zealand, a Commonwealth country with a population of over 2½ million, manages with a main debating Chamber of only 87. It is admittedly a smaller country, but the spread of responsibilities is much greater. Norway, another country frequently quoted here, has a population of about 4 million and I think, 116 in the main Chamber, to deal with much wider responsibilities.
  I hope that I have made these points well enough to show the Minister that I do not believe there is a tenable argument that the Scottish Assembly's responsibilities are so wide that it must have more Members than some of those Assemblies and nearly as many as most of them. The Assembly proposed by the Government is too large.
  I take finally what are perhaps more nearly parallel cases, although even then I do not think that the parallel is very good. I refer to the States and Provinces in some Commonwealth countries. New South Wales, with a population of 4,600,000—rather less than that of Scotland, but not that much—has an Assembly of 96 to carry out responsibilities which are bigger than those proposed for the Scottish Assembly. I understand that all the States in Australia run a full Government, including a Cabinet and Prime Minister, which is a rather larger apparatus than is proposed for the Scottish Assembly. The State of Victoria, with a population of 3½ million, has 73 Members.
  I now turn to Canada. Ontario, with a population of over 7½ million, has 117 in its Chamber, and the much-quoted Province of Quebec, with 6 million, has 108.
  That is overwhelming evidence that the Scottish Assembly would be well out of line with similar Assemblies throughout the world if we agreed to its having 148

  1423
  Members. I hope that the Government will take as a constructive suggestion something that is liable to make the Assembly more acceptable to the public and cheaper to the public purse, and make it in many ways able to conduct its business more effectively with a more reasonable, smaller number of Members.
  The Minister will be well briefed with many arguments for sticking to the total that the Government have chosen, but I hope that he will not shut the door. I hope that he will listen not just to me but to the concerted argument that the one truthful criticism of the Assembly is that it will be too large. If the Government mean to be flexible, this is one thing on which they should think again. I hope that after listening to the debate they will do so.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I rise with some diffidence and uncertainty at this late hour—
  Mr. Russell Kerr: I should think so.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Member, who makes all his speeches from a sitting position, could always seek to make his own speech, but whether he would make a notable contribution is open to question.
  I am diffident because the theme of the debate is proportional representation, and I do not propose to address myself to that subject, which has already been well canvassed, notably by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). I am uncertain because it is difficult to know which of the four or five themes covered by the amendments to select. However, optimistic that we shall have a "clause stand part" debate, I shall deal with the two points of principle raised by Amendments Nos. 521 and 523.
  Those amendments can be read geographically or functionally. As I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), neither Scotland nor Wales, contrary to the vociferous, persistent and almost boringly repetitive arguments of Plaid Cymru and SNP Members, is homogeneous, ethnically, spiritually, culturally or even historically. They are as diverse as hon. Members who seek to represent them exclusively. It would
  1424
  be interesting, if they ever assumed responsibility, to test the position of individual SNP Members on, for instance, the preservation of the independent schools versus the extension of the State system. At the moment they project themselves as latter-day members of the Congress Party, concerned only with independence. It would help to know where they stand on these great issues, especially those which will be devolved.
  But there will be time enough for that. It is self-evident, even to a Welshman or Sassenach like myself, that Scotland is not homogeneous. The kingdom or counties of Orkney and Shetland have a different historical past. If the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) were to grace our debates—evidently more important business keeps him away—he would no doubt tell us that his constituency has a different historical and ethnic past from that of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson).
  Mr. Henderson: Does that not prove the point, since my right hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and I represent different parts of Scotland? Nevertheless, we are united in our desire to see Scotland independent as one nation.
  Mr. Rees: It may be that the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend are united to a degree on one issue. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) are also united on a different approach to the Bill. Also, it may be that on other issues I can detect some cracks and fissures between the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East and his right hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles.
  Mr. Henderson: That only happens in the Tory Party.
  Mr. Rees: But hon. Members in the Scottish National Party never venture a point of view on the other great issues which agitate the House. They are singularly silent on questions such as education. We have heard the cry of "Scottish oil" from them, but nothing on other big issues. They should let the voters know where they stand.

  1425
  My point is that Scotland is not a homogeneous entity. I hope that my Scottish friends will forgive me for saying that. This truth is even more apparent in Wales, which has never been one historic entity. I cannot call to mind that country ever having been ruled as one kingdom in historic times. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) will be happy to be ruled from Cardiff. Does he think that the views of his constituents will be treated as sympathetically by Cardiff as they are by Westminster?
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: As far as my part of Wales is concerned, we shall be more than happy to be governed from Cardiff. We are already governed from Cardiff in a large area of devolved administration. What my constituents want is democratic control. They want decisions made in Cardiff by elected representatives.
  Mr. Rees: I wonder whether the hon. Member has paused to consider whether Cardiff will react as sensitively to electors of Caernarvon and Merioneth as hon. Members of this House. There will be time enough to find the answer to that.
  The nationalists have never looked beyond the moment when these two Assemblies are set up. What happens thereafter remains a mystery. It will be time enough then to explore their differing aspirations and points of view. It could be that General Cope had—
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mrs. Butler. I was not under the impression that we were searching the last two centuries of history. I thought that we were discussing the numbers of Assembly Members. Perhaps the hon. Member should be reminded of the amendment to which he is supposed to be speaking.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not out of order so far.
  Mr. Rees: Obviously, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) has lost the thread of my discourse. Maybe it is that I have not explained myself very clearly. I think it is more likely that, not having been here to intervene in the debate so far, he is singularly unversed in the matters we are discussing. Perhaps as the weeks go by he will come a
  1426
  little closer to the real issues which should be agitating this Committee.
  3.15 a.m.
  Before that interruption I was seeking enlightenment about whether there were as many Scotsmen in the regiments commanded by General Cope as there were in those commanded by Bonnie Prince Charlie. That is an interesting historical byway that we might explore on some other occasion.
  Considering the diversity of Scotland and Wales, is it right that they should be represented by one Assembly each? Should we be considering whether the various regions of those two countries should have separate representation? On an earlier occasion I remarked that the historic county, Monmouthshire, which was specifically incorporated into England by Henry VII—
  Mr. Powell: Henry VIII.
  Mr. Rees: I always hesitate to correct the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of history is so much greater than mine, but I think that he will find that it was a statute of Henry VII that incorporated Monmouthshire into England. But whether it was Henry VII or Henry VIII, there is an unanswerable case for treating Monmouthshire quite separately.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that under the Welsh Language Act 1967 Monmouthshire was officially and finally incorporated back into Wales?
  Mr. Rees: Finality is something we rarely achieve. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has reminded us that even the referendum on Britain's adherence to the Common Market cannot be regarded as final. Am I to accept that a mere Act in 1967 should be regarded as definitive and final in this matter?
  Mr. Anderson: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I once had the honour to represent a large part of the greenery of that county, and I believe that he or his family could once be numbered among my constituents. Is he also aware of the argument that the line of demarcation should be along the Usk?
  Mr. Rees: I certainly had the privilege of being the hon. Gentleman's constituent, but I am not certain that he could

  1427
  have claimed my vote. I would prefer to see that boundary drawn a little further west. Monmouthshire is recognised as a historical entity and should be treated as such. I hope we shall have the opportunity to debate the new clause—
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not a little out of date? There is no such animal as Monmouthshire. The new county is called Gwent.
  Mr. Rees: I have observed before that the name "Gwent" has about as much historical connection with Monmouthshire as the name "Ghana" has with the Gold Coast.
  A new clause has been tabled in my name and that of one of my hon. Friends providing that there should be a separate referendum in which the electors of Monmouthshire should be entitled to express their views whether they should be regarded as part of England or part of Wales for the purposes of the Bill. The hon. Members who have interrupted me have shown by the very breadth of their views that Wales and Monmouthshire cannot be regarded, except in a sporting sense, as one homogeneous entity.
  If we are to defer to the susceptibilities of the Scots and the Welsh, we should also defer to the susceptibilities of the various integral units inside Scotland and Wales. We should have not one Assembly for each country, but two or maybe even three. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton ascribed three Assemblies to Scotland, and there is an unanswerable case for the same number for Wales.
  That is the geographical case supporting Amendments Nos. 521 and 523, but there is also a functional case. It is singularly appropriate that the Bill should have been presented by the Leader of the House because he battles arm-in-arm with the right hon. Member for Down, South in the fight to preserve a second Chamber for the United Kingdom Parliament. That fight will find an echo in our debates on the Bill. It would be interesting to know whether the Leader of the House now believes that we should no longer have a bicameral situation for the United Kingdom. Obviously, what is fitting for the United Kingdom must be fitting for Scotland and Wales.
  1428
  The only precedent that we have had for devolution so far has been Ulster. The United Kingdom Parliament, in its infinite wisdom, endowed that historic Province with two Chambers. There were a Senate and a Lower House. Who are we to deny Scotland and Wales that which was conceded to Ulster? Although there has been a breath of criticism of Stormont from Labour Members, I have never heard any serious criticism levelled at the Ulster senate. If there was a case for a Senate in Ulster, and if there was a case for a second Chamber in the United Kingdom Parliament, there must be a case for second Chambers in Cardiff and Edinburgh. Indeed, the logic of the argument surely is that those who wish to see greater powers devolved to those Assemblies must concede that the Assemblies should have second revising Chambers.
  If the Assemblies were to be only debating Chambers, I agree that it would perhaps be unnecessary and tedious to saddle the Scots and the Welsh with revising Chambers. But the more substance that is to be given to the Assemblies, the greater will be the need for them to have revising Chambers. It may well be that the Leader of the House may later try to catch the eye of the Chair in order to reaffirm that the Government believe in a bicameral system in the United Kingdom and that, therefore, the same should apply in Scotland and Wales. I hope that the Minister who will speak for the Government later in the debate will make the Government's position clear.
  If we are to have devolution, let it be wholehearted and let there be a fully fledged bicameral system. Surely that which is good enough for the United Kingdom parliament must be good enough for Scotland and Wales. I therefore support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.
  Sir A. Meyer: I shall be brief since I am speaking so exceptionally late in the debate. I respectfully point out that if it was the practice of the Chair to call earlier in debate those hon. Members who had indicated that they would be brief, that that would be one way of abbreviating debates.
  It is easy for me to be brief because my main point has already been fully

  1429
  made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart). I am fiercely opposed to devolution—at any rate for Wales—but if devolution is to come I would like to limit the damage as far as possible. I accept that, because of the differences in timing between the Assembly elections and general elections, there will inevitably be a different political position in the Assemblies from that in Parliament. One of the admitted features of our first-past-the-post system is that it exaggerates swings in public opinion in terms of parliamentary representation. It is, therefore, almost inevitable that the position in the Assemblies will be the opposite of that in the House of Commons. Conflict is built in.
  I am happy to support Amendment No. 50. The additional Member system is the least unsatisfactory method of ensuring proportional representation. It is easy to introduce and it preserves the link between a Member and his constituency. It is also a method to reduce the unnecessarily large size of the proposed Assemblies.
  Every system has drawbacks, and it does no service to the argument put so ably by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) to pretend that the AMS does not also have serious drawbacks—though they are not as serious as was suggested in an astonishingly jejune article in The Economist recently. One drawback is that in some constituencies one Member will have another breathing down his neck. But that is precisely what the Government propose for hon. Members; we shall have one or two Assemblymen breathing down our necks.
  That is why I strongly support Amendment No. 537, which has not been referred to yet, but which I hope will be dealt with soon by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). In proposes that constituencies for the Assembly should not be parliamentary constituencies but local government districts. Fortunately, there are about the same number of such districts as constituencies in Wales.
  Amendment No. 537 would produce a marked improvement, and I can see no reason why the Government should not accept it. It recognises that the Assem-
  1430
  bly's activities will be more closely related to what goes on in local government than to what goes on here, but it will avoid the invidious duplication of roles between hon. Members and Members of the Assembly.
  I hope that after the no doubt devastating case which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke will deploy in favour of Amendment No. 537 it will be accepted.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: As we have just had the first mention of Amendment No. 537, I hope that it will be thought appropriate if I intervene at this stage to refer to it.
  The amendment would reduce the membership of the Welsh Assembly from 79 to about 50 and would change its basis to one which would be related to local government rather than to parliamentary boundaries. It seems a sound rule to say that if there is any doubt about the required size of a body, we should aim for the least rather than the most. Not only are we more likely to arrive at the right answer—as there is always a tendency to exaggerate requirements—but we should impose greater discipline and economy.
  I sometimes wonder whether our failure to manage our affairs with any particular success is related to the fact that we have one of the largest legislatures, in relation to population, in the world. Certainly size is no measure of efficiency. If we are to have an Assembly, the public are entitled to know that it will be no larger than is absolutely necessary. Clearly, the cost of the whole operation will be closely related to the number of elected representatives. It is not just a question of office space, facilities, allowances, supporting staffs, electoral expenditure, and—perhaps not least—the tendency of elected representatives to create activity in order to justify their existence in one way or another.
  3.30 a.m.
  So strong are the arguments for economy, and so strong the pressures to enlarge and exaggerate, that when it comes to the question of size the onus of proof must lie with those who want a larger body than is necessary. No doubt it will be said that many county councils have more members than the proposed

  1431
  Welsh Assembly, but I think that this arises largely from the perfectly legitimate desire to get truly local representatives to deal with the local issues which concern such councils. The Assembly will be dealing with the broader strategy of Welsh government.
  We are not suggesting larger electoral areas than the Government propose. The areas which we propose in the countryside are in many cases substantially smaller. On the basis of the functions to be given to the Assembly we would do better to look at the federal Governments that exist elsewhere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr Younger) gave some of the figures. Bearing in mind the huge discrepancy in geographical areas, I cannot see why we should need 79 elected Members when West Australia can manage with 51, South Australia with 47, and Tasmania with 35. Even Victoria, which is vastly larger in terms of both size and population than Scotland, and has legislative duties to perform, manages with only 73. In Canada there are similar precedents. Surely if the Government of British Columbia can be run with 55 Members we can run Welsh affairs with a body of comparable size.
  We may be told that a committee structure cannot be made to work without at least 70 to 80 Members. I do not think there is anything sacred about the committee structures chosen by the Government, but we can discuss that later. The fact is that Powys runs a committee system with 53 members, and, although it is true that the other county councils are all larger than the proposed Assembly, a large number of district councils are smaller, yet they still seem to operate a committee structure without too much difficulty. The Local Government Act 1963 limited the size of the London boroughs to not more than 60 members, and all of them have succeeded in operating a committee structure, many with an even smaller membership.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has argued the case for a larger Assembly in Scotland, mainly because he wanted to establish an Assembly that would one day become the Parliament of an independent Scotland. But the vast majority of Members intend that the Welsh
  1432
  Assembly should have a more limited role, and I can see no case for a larger Assembly in Wales.
  I turn now to the nature of the electoral base and the kind of constituencies which the Assembly should have. There are real advantages in taking local authority boundaries as a base rather than parliamentary boundaries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) observed, in a modest way this will help to reduce one source of conflict and difficulty between Westminster and the new Assembly. I am sure that all Members will understand the real difficulties which could arise if representatives were elected to the Assembly from constituencies which exactly matched parliamentary constituencies. There would then be two individuals representing precisely the same area and with overlapping responsibilities for the same subjects, one with responsibility for dealing with the passing of legislation, and the other with responsibility for dealing with the secondary legislation and administration. They might be men and women of the same party or of different parties. In either case, they might hold very different views. As they each represent their own idea of their constituents' interests, there may be cause for irritation and disagreement. Each, as he acts, will have standing behind him a shadow of equal or comparable status, and it will be pretty uncomfortable for both of them. Discomfort on its own would not justify the adoption of a particular solution. But if we can avoid it when there are so many other potential causes of friction, so much the better.
  We do not avoid the overlap entirely, and it would be misleading to suggest that we do. There will about 14 cases where the boundaries will be the same or very similar. But that means that at least in more than half the parliamentary constituencies in Wales this situation will not occur. In any event, it seems eminently sensible and desirable that, so far as we are able, we should strengthen the links with local government and the co-ordination between local authorities and the Assembly. We are more likely to do so in a system where the Assembly Member speaks for the same area as each district authority. It is likely to lead to an identification of interests. It will enable the views of the districts to be heard in the Assembly. Apparently

  1433
  that is the view held by the Association of District Councils, which broadly supports the idea of Assembly constituencies with a district base.
  Both the Assembly, if it comes into being, and the local authorities will be concerned directly in the administration of government, and there must be a strong argument for basing the electoral structure of both administrative bodies on the same electoral base and for identifying in the public mind the links and interests which exist. At Westminster there is a distinction between the executive and the Legislature which sustains it. But both in the Assembly, with its proposed committee structure, and in the local authorities this distinction will be much less evident. Because both bodies will be concerned directly with the administration of government and with the day-to-day decisions which affect people, the relationship will differ from the present relationship of local government and local government members with Members of Parliament who sit in this place.
  If the Welsh Asembly comes to allocate the priorities in Wales, real difficulties may arise between districts, and it will be easier for one Assemblyman to represent the interests of a single district area. I take my own constituency as an example. The interests of Prescelly and those of South Pembrokeshire do not always coincide. An Assemblyman carrying out the task of translating legislation into effect might find himself in a more difficult position if he had to speak simultaneously, in the kind of situation that we shall have in the Welsh Assembly, for both areas. Similar considerations apply, for example, in Caernarvonshire and in Carmarthen.
  Our solution also enables us to overcome a difficulty which the Welsh counties regard as important and have raised with the Government. They point to the fact that the population and area of the Brecon constituency are a good deal larger than those of Powys and that the Assembly Member representing Powys may come from a part of the constituency in the area of the Welsh valleys. I am not sure that it matters enormously where the Member lives, but, clearly, there are considerable differences of interest between the industrial area in
  1434
  the south of the present parliamentary constituency and the vastly larger rural section of that constituency.
  There are other advantages in what I propose. The ratio between the largest and the smallest constituencies is reduced to less than two and a half to one. In this proposal the largest seat would be just under 49,000 voters and the smallest about 21,000, with less extreme differences than in the Government's scheme.
  I accept that multi-member representation of some cities, particularly Cardiff, might be objected to because a minor swing would take a whole block of seats one way or another in electoral terms, but there would be little difficulty in dividing Cardiff into wards. In any case, the Government have put forward a number of multi-member constituencies with as many as three Members.
  One advantage of our proposals is that Members in the rural areas will be responsible in many cases for much smaller constituencies. That is true in Caernarvon, Clwyd and the old counties of Pembrokeshire and Carmarthen. In none of the rural areas do we get a larger constituency by this method.
  In trying to deal with the problem of what the White Paper called the "far-flung rural constituencies", the Government have finished up giving the far-flung rural constituencies of Abertillery, Ebbw Vale and Merthyr Tydfil additional Members, giving additional Members to Merioneth and Montgomeryshire. I am not sure that there is much logic in that solution. Certainly there is more logic in a solution which divides Caernarvon, Pembrokeshire and Denbigh without adding to a single industrial seat.
  It seems to me that the Government's proposals are based on a careful analysis of what is needed to achieve a purely arbitrary doubling of the parliamentary representation with an adjustment to deal with two gross discrepancies of size which occur. The case for a local government base is powerful, irrespective of the size of the Assembly.
  As to size, I press those who argue for more members to establish their case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) suggested, in a speech in Wales last week, that this would cause serious suspicion that the argument for size was an argument for

  1435
  jobs for the boys. Whatever the views on devolution, he said, the Welsh people did not want that.
  As an opponent of the Assembly, perhaps I should not press this point, but I am sure that the Welsh people will be more generous in their attitude to the Assembly if it is compact and economic. Certainly, if we are to have an Assembly that is what this Committee should insist it should be.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I shall be extremely brief, but I make no apology for returning to the central issue started so long ago by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), proportional representation.
  I have to say that I do not think it is a burning issue in Pudsey. I am happy to say that, after considerable challenge by the Liberal Party over the years, the problem of proportional representation has receded as a local issue. Long may it recede.
  In this debate it has been rightly and fully aired. We are no doubt coming now to the closure of these proceedings. The standard of the debate this afternoon and night has been high. The issue has been well and constructively discussed.
  I wanted to make two brief points. There is considerable confusion running through the whole devolution Bill around the argument that more government somehow means better government. I suspect that when it comes to arguing about electoral systems, the argument is that change is change for the better.
  Those who express anxiety about proportional representation starting in Scotland and creeping into the Westminster system should take note that that would be the case only if the proportional representation system were shown to be working better there. If it were shown not to work effectively in Scotland, it could not be argued that it should be applied to the Westminster model.
  3.45 a.m.
  Therefore, the anxieties which many hon. Members have expressed about this being an experiment to be feared are over-played. I suspect that there could be a strong argument for saying that proportional representation, and possibly its burial, as an alternative system to the
  1436
  first-past-the-post system in the United Kingdom would be better achieved if it were adopted for the Scottish Assembly, as is proposed in the amendments, and properly tested within the United Kingdom, observed and discarded, than by merely rejecting the proposal.
  We are discussing an entirely new system of government, albeit with many demerits or disadvantages within it. Therefore, it seems proper that a new system of election should be considered for that new system of government. I do not believe that the anxieties about it spreading are sensible. If it is proven to be better, the Westminster system should clearly adopt it. If it fails in Scotland, it fails for all time. That in itself could almost commend the amendment to the Committee.
  I declare myself to be in favour of the amendment. However, I suspect that the total proposition of the Bill will rightly go down as a major morass.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I intervene briefly to rebut some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) in speaking to Amendment No. 537. I do not want to impute any motives to the hon. Gentleman at this early hour of the morning, but initially he wanted to kill the Bill, then he wanted to take Wales out of it, and now he is seeking to emasculate the Assembly, if it is established, by reducing its membership to 50. Plaid Cymru will resist that proposal.
  We believe that it will not be possible to run an effective tier of democracy in Wales on the basis of having only 50 Members of the Assembly. After all, the Assembly will be responsible for devising policies for Wales and allocating resources over many areas: health, personal social services, education with the exception of universities, planning, water, local government—particularly housing—tourism, roads and transport, the countryside, national parks, and so on. These major functions cannot be handled effectively by an Assembly whittled down to 50 Members.
  That does not take account of my hope that the Assembly will use the provisions of Clause 86 to take over the role of nominated bodies, thus preventing many people who belong to the Conservative Party and are now members of nominated bodies being so placed in future by

  1437
  successive Conservative Governments at Westminster. No doubt the hon. Member for Pembroke anticipates that by having a smaller Assembly of 50 Members there will still be jobs for the non-representative Conservative boys on nominated bodies in Wales.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke pretended to be in favour of more effective representation and talked about basing the Assembly on the district electorate. Indeed, he referred to the importance of representation for rural areas. I am gratified that he should be concerned about that matter. But how does it improve representation in the Assembly to whittle the membership down to 50? That very act would lessen the effectiveness and sensitivity of the Assembly.
  The hon. Gentleman has been going round North, North-West and North-East Wales making speeches in which he suggested that those who live in those areas will be dominated for the rest of their days by those who live in South and South-East Wales. Some of us have greater confidence in our comrades in the valleys. We are sure that we shall be sensitively treated by people in South and South-East Wales. An Assembly with a substantial membership representative of all areas in Wales will ensure that it can effectively devise policies for the whole of Wales.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The hon. Gentleman has levelled imputations at Conservative Administrations. I am aware of only one in the past 10 years. Will he list the bodies which he suggests have been the subject of lavish Conservative patronage?
  Mr. Thomas: I shall not be drawn on that matter, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman is present when we debate Clause 86 at a later stage, I shall name the names.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has dismissed the argument about the local government base entirely on the ground of size. It is fair enough to do that, in that the two things are in the same amendment, but will he at least advance his case for rejecting the local government base in more general terms, because it could be applied irrespective of the size of the Assembly?
  Mr. Thomas: I was about to come to the district base and the question of functions. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the constituencies ought to be devised in order to obtain a parallel area of functions, the logic of his argument would be to use the counties as the base, because most of the functions in the Assembly are parallel functions with those of the county councils rather than those of the district councils. Housing is the major function which is in parallel with the district councils.
  The hon. Gentleman also seemed to argue that there would be a conflict breaking out between the Westminster Member and the Assembly Member because they were representing coterminous constituencies. That seemed to me, again, to be rather illogical. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there will he less conflict in relation to an Assembly Member because he happens to represent and is coterminous with the district council?
  I suspect that the main motive for using the district as a base and talking so much about the need for parallelism with local government is again to lower the rôle and status of the Assembly, and for the link in the public mind to be with local government and not with Westminster—which in the hon. Gentleman's view would increase the status of the Assembly, and the Assembly would be seen more clearly by the Welsh electorate as vying for power and challenging Westminster in some way. However, it seems to me that the intention of the amendment is to lower the status of the Assembly and to emasculate its effectiveness. On that basis, we shall resist the amendment.
  Mr. Peter Fry: This is the first and, perhaps, the last time that I shall try to take part in the debates on the Bill. I do so because I feel that from the Opposition Benches there has not been sufficient representation of the very strong opposition to the idea of proportional representation. Many of the speeches from these Benches have been in support of the amendment. I believe that the majority of English Conservative Members are strongly opposed to the amendment. I say that because many people in England are opposed to the whole Bill, and they are deeply suspicious

  1439
  of the proposals outlined in the amendment.
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) had to say when he suggested that the new Assemblies were likely to be elected in some kind of conflict with Parliament at Westminster. I should have thought that any Assembly elections that preceded elections to the House of Commons would be more in accord with the changes that would take place in a subsequent Westminster election, because the swings against the party in Government are likely to be felt in a more violent way before a General Election than they are afterwards. Therefore, my hon. Friend's argument is not really tenable.
  The question of Northern Ireland has been raised several times in the debate. I cannot see that the idea of bringing in PR in Ulster helps the cause of those who have put forward the amendment. Those who argue that it had very little effect upon the actual proportion of seats that transpired almost admit that there was very little point in bringing forward PR in the first place.
  Furthermore, to try to transpose that argument into bringing this form of election into Scotland and Wales, let alone into the elections for the European Parliament, denies the argument often put forward that this would have no effect upon elections to the House of Commons. It would be very difficult indeed to resist a complete change in the election of Members of the House of Commons if we had elections to any kind of Northern Ireland Assembly, to Assemblies in Scotland and Wales and to the European Parliament on a PR basis. That is why I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Many of those who have supported Amendment No. 50 want exactly the change that is proposed for election to the House of Commons. They are using the debate about Scotland and Wales to fly a kite for PR in England. There are strong forces at work. It cannot be doubted that a tremendous amount of money is now being devoted to electoral reform inside the country. Money is being supplied by British business because it believes that this is the way to secure a certain sort of result at future General Elections. I happen to believe that the right way to approach politics is to pre-
  1440
  sent the British people with a clear choice. The great danger of trying to muddy the issue and proposing electoral reform is to deprive the people of that fundamental choice.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I have been accused of being wet and now I appear to be muddy as well. Surely the hon. Gentleman will concede that it is possible in politics to have more than two views. Surely that is demonstrable not only in Scotland but throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. There are more than two views, and people wish to express them in votes and to see their votes translated into representatives.
  Mr. Fry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are more than two views. There may well be three, four, five, six or even seven views. I answer the hon. Gentleman by quoting the West German system, which has been held up as a wonderful example of the way in which we can change the system. By most of the rules the Christian Democrats clearly won the General Election in Western Germany last year. But because of the system of PR the Free Democratic Government remained in power although it was unable to win one seat on the first vote. Every seat allocated to the Free Democratic Party came from the so-called list system. In direct confrontation with either of the other two major parties it failed to obtain one seat. At least the Liberal Party has been able to achieve more than that in this country. However, the Free Democratic Party was enabled, in effect, to prevent a change of government, a change that was quite clearly the will of a great many people in Western Germany. Far from proving the case for PR, the West German election of 1976 should be the clearest warning to the British political parties.
  This is a fundamental issue. Many people have told me that they are totally against this change in our constitution. It would be a great mistake for the records of this debate to be construed as indicating that there was a majority of Conservative Members of Parliament in favour of the amendment. It may well be that many of my colleagues will not go into either Lobby tonight, but I and one or two colleagues have determinedly stayed on because we shall vote with the Government on this issue and against the

  1441
  amendment. We do so not because we are supporters of a Labour Government but because we believe that one of the essentials of democracy is to give the clear choice that is presented by our present electoral system. There is absolutely no mandate for any kind of major change in the electoral system. To accept this amendment tonight would be to open the gate to a series of consequences which could well lead to the dissolution of parliamentary democracy as we know it and to the kind of deals behind closed doors which too often result from a system of PR. I shall be very pleased to oppose this amendment.
  4.0 a.m.
  Mr. John Smith: I hope the House will forgive me if I do not traverse the ground of PR, which has been fully covered in the many hours of debate. I have obligations to reply to some of the points raised about the many other amendments in this grouping.
  The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) immediately catches my eye. The hon. Gentleman tabled a most unusual amendment, which reflected his well-known ingenuity. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that it does not find favour with the Government since he proposed three Assemblies for Scotland and two for Wales. That would take us towards a readjustment of regional local government rather than devolution, as we understand it. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we want to see the existing administration for Scotland and Wales democratised to some extent.
  The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) talked about two other amendments. One was Amendment No. 55, in which the right hon. Gentleman suggested that instead of having the two Member and three Member system based on existing parliamentary constituencies we should move straight away to defining the new Assembly constituencies.
  I follow that argument entirely, but the Government wish to see the Assembly in action as soon as possible. It is physically not possible to go through the propositions of the Boundary Commisssion without delaying the implementation of the Bill by up to a year.
  1442
  The right hon. Gentleman will know that there must be detailed examination and time for appeals as well as time for orders under the partliamentary procedure. I follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is no time for us to have a reconstruction of the constituencies, nor could we form constituencies within the time scale that the Government believe to be desirable.
  I have considered the right hon. Gentleman's drafting Amendment No. 265 carefully, and have taken specific advice on it. The right hon. Gentleman may accept that he may not have given sufficient attention to the definition of the word "electorate". The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt table many more drafting amendments, and we shall look at them carefully, but I do not think that this is one of his best ones.
  One of the main points in the debate concerned the size of the Assemblies. I want to come directly to that, because it is the matter of most interest to the Committee. There is a slightly different argument with regard to Wales. I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have had to say. There are fundamental differences of view.
  The Government do not believe that it would be wise to base this on local government districts. One of the main reasons is that the Assemblies' new functions are being derived from central and not local government. We ought to keep that firmly in mind when we are considering this matter.
  One of the weaknesses is that it is a multi-member constituency scheme. In the case of Cardiff, for instance, five Members are likely to be involved. The Committee should bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said about the difficulties of multimember constituencies in the context of the PR debate. I agree entirely with that in the context of the single transferable vote.
  We would prefer to base the scheme for both countries on the parliamentary constituencies. I notice that in the Conservative amendments Scotland would vote according to parliamentary constituencies, although for some reason a different system is proposed for Wales.

  1443
  I listened with care to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and Ayr (Mr. Younger), who all spoke about the size of the Scottish Assembly. Slightly different motives are at work here. The right hon. Lady is slightly less enthusiastic about the prospect of devolution than are the two hon. Gentlemen. I take seriously the question of the size of the Assembly, and it is something that the Committee has to discuss.
  I shall briefly outline the Government's attitude on the proposed size. There is a case for giving the electorate greater representation than it has at Westminster. We also have an important obligation to create Assemblies of a reasonable size to carry out the responsibilities devolved to them. As the hon. Member for Ayr said, it is a matter of judgment. It is hard to be dogmatic about the right size for the Assembly. The answer varies throughout the world. I do not know how far international comparisons help, because they have to be examined carefully in their own domestic and political setting.
  The Scottish Assembly must have sufficient Members to be able to select an Executive of competence and talent to carry out the important functions entrusted to the Assembly. The hon. Member for Pentlands postulated a 71-seat Assembly, in which there might be 18 Members of the Executive and a party with 36 Members in power. One in two of all Members elected would have to be members of the Executive. Several Members of the Assembly, for personal or professional reasons, might not wish to serve on the Executive, and that would cut down even further the number of Members available. It is principally for that reason that we feel that 71 is too few. It does not follow that double that number—142—is right. There is the practical problem, if we wish to hold an early election, of finding any other basis for the number than the existing parliamentary constituencies.
  Mr. Mackintosh: It could be done by accepting my amendment.
  Mr. Smith: That amendment involves a different principle. I must not anticipate the decision that the Committee will
  1444
  take on my hon. Friend's amendment, but that would be a different proposition. There is a practical difficulty in devising another method. No doubt that is why 71 is suggested rather than, say, 100.
  If hon. Members can think of any practical method whereby we can create an Assembly sufficiently large to carry out its responsibilities but perhaps smaller—I am not saying by how much—we shall carefully examine it. On Report we shall review some decisions taken earlier in the light of subsequent decisions about the functions of the Assembly. We shall consider carefully any amendment put down on Report.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister accept that, whether or not any proposal can be brought forward to fit in with the time scale for which the Government hope, the mere fact that the Government wish to hold elections in 1978 rather than in 1979 is not in itself a good enough reason for the Assembly to be far larger than even the Government now appear to think desirable?
  Mr. Smith: I am being careful in what I say. The hon. Gentleman must not interpret what I say more widely than I mean it to be interpreted. I am not saying that that is the sole reason. It is one of the practical reasons that has to be taken into account. What I said was by way of illustration. There is difficulty in finding a happy medium between 71 and 142. I have been quite frank. If the hon. Members apply their minds to this question and come up with a proposition we shall consider it carefully.
  Mr. Dalyell: Am I right or wrong to infer that the Government think that a minimum of 100 Members is necessary for the Assembly?
  Mr. Smith: It would be difficult to have fewer, but 71 is too few to carry out the responsibilities. It is not proper to be dogmatic. We have seen many examples of various systems, and I was asked not to shut the door. I hope that that does not finally shut the door, though I know that it does not keep it wide open. We shall certainly explore any suggestions. I hope that it will be felt that I am being as constructive as I can be in the circumstances.

  1445
  That was the main point raised in the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) will not think that I am disregarding his arguments if I do not go into them in detail, but I am under some pressure of time.
  I hope that the Committee will reject Amendment No. 50 and the Opposition amendments.
  Question put, That Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 25. Noes. 221.

  Division No. 46.

  AYES

  4.11a.m.

  Crawford, Douglas

  Penhaligon, David

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Watt, Hamish

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Reid, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Henderson, Douglas

  Sillars, James

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  MacCormick, Iain

  Thompson, George

  Mr. D. E. Thomas

  Pardoe, John

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kinnock, Neil

  Anderson, Donald

  Eadie, Alex

  Lambie, David

  Archer, Peter

  Edge, Geoff

  Lamborn, Harry

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lamond, James

  Ashton, Joe

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  English, Michael

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ennals, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Litterick, Tom

  Bates, Alf

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bean, R. E.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Luard, Evan

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Flannery, Martin

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Bishop, E. S.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Forrester, John

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Boardman, H.

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  McElhone, Frank

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Bradley, Tom

  George, Bruce

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Ginsburg, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Golding, John

  Madden, Max

  Budgen, Nick

  Gould, Bryan

  Mahon, Simon

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Campbell, Ian

  Graham, Ted

  Marks, Kenneth

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cant, R. B.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Carmichael, Neil

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Mikardo, Ian

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

  Coleman, Donald

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Corbett, Robin

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

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Cowans, Harry

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Newens, Stanley

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Huckfield, Les

  Noble, Mike

  Cronin, John

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherharm)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ovenden, John

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hunter, Adam

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Padley, Walter

  Davidson, Arthur

  Janner, Greville

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Park, George

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  John, Brynmor

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Prescott, John

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dempsey, James

  Judd, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Doig, Peter

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberta, Gwilyrn (Cannock)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ward, Michael

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Weetch, Ken

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Stallard, A. W.

  White, James (Pollok)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Rooker, J. W.

  Stoddart, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Swain, Thomas

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Woodall, Alec

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Woof, Robert

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Tomlinson, John

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Silverman, Julius

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. James Tinn and

  Snape, Peter

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mr. Frank R. White.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 62, Noes 244.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES

  [4.23 a.m.

  Baker, Kenneth

  James, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Beith, A. J.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sillars, James

  Benyon, W.

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Bottomley, Peter

  Knox, David

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  MacCormick, Iain

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Crawford, Douglas

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Monro, Hector

  Thompson, George

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Mudd, David

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Newton, Tony

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Pardoe, John

  Watt, Hamish

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Penhaligon, David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Reid, George

  Younger, Hon George

  Henderson, Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. John P. Mackintosh and

  Hurd, Douglas

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Anthony Kershaw.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Archer, Peter

  Cohen, Stanley

  Emery, Peter

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Coleman, Donald

  English, Michael

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ennals, David

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Banks, Robert

  Corbett, Robin

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cowans, Harry

  Fell, Anthony

  Bates, Alt

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Bean, R. E.

  Cronin, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cryer, Bob

  Forrester, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Boardman, H.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Freeson, Reginald

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Fry, Peter

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bradley, Tom

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Deakins, Eric

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Budgen, Nick

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Ginsburg, David

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Dempsey, James

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Campbell, Ian

  Dolg, Peter

  Golding, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dormand, J. D.

  Gould, Bryan

  Cant, R. B.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunlop, John

  Graham, Ted

  Carson, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Cartwright, John

  Eadie, Alex

  Grist, Ian

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Edge, Geoff

  Grocott, Bruce

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mahon, Simon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Meacher, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Horam, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Snape, Peter

  Huckfield, Les

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Sproat, Iain

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Molyneaux, James

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Moyle, Roland

  Stoddart, David

  Janner, Greville

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Stott, Roger

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Newens, Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  John, Brynmor

  Noble, Mike

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Swain, Thomas

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Ogden, Eric

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ovenden, John

  Tierney, Sydney

  Judd, Frank

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Tinn, James

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Padley, Walter

  Tomlinson, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Kerr, Russell

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Palmer, Arthur

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lambie, David

  Park, George

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Ward, Michael

  Lamond, James

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Weetch, Ken

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Pendry, Tom

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Leadbitter, Tad

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  White, James (Pollok)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Prescott, John

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Litterick, Tom

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Luard, Evan

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McCusker, H.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Woodall, Alec

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Woof, Robert

  McElhone, Frank

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  MacKenzie, Gregor

  Rooker, J. W.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mr. Joseph Ashton.

  Madden, Max

  Sandelson, Neville

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Following the earlier announcement by the Chairman of Ways and Means, I would inform the Committee that separate Divisions may be called on Amendments Nos. 521, 55, 525 and 526 when they are reached in the clause, if the hon. Members concerned so wish.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Mr. Pym: The House would consider this an appropriate moment to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. We have had a major debate on substantial matters. It was nobody's fault that, unfortunately, during our proceedings amendments have had to be grouped together. That damaged the debate in some respects. But we have had a major
  1450
  discussion on PR and reached a conclusion at 4.30 a.m. The Government's decision to report Progress indicates that they feel that disposing of this large group of amendments in one sitting has been a reasonable day's work. We had thought that the Government might want to make further progress, but they obviously feel that so much has been adequate for one day. Naturally, I do not intend to oppose the motion. There seems to be some mirth on the Labour Benches, but I think that the House will support the motion.
  Mr. Foot: If there is disappointment at what we have proposed, we can have a vote and continue the debate. In the future organisation of debates we shall take note of what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has said, but I think that it is for the general convenience of the House if we report Progress now.

  1451
  We shall proceed to get the Bill through, and I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of that fact.
  Mr. David Steel: We note that the Government are keen to call it a day and are satisfied with the progress that we have made. They should note that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are ready to carry on, but we are always willing to be flexible in these matters and if the Government wish to call it a day, so be it. We shall not seek to oppose them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 15th November 1974 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) be amended by leaving out Mr. James Wellbeloved.—[Mr. Harrison.]

  MERSEY TUNNEL (TOLLS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  4.37 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: This is not the most appropriate time to debate any subject, but I welcome the opportunity to raise in the House the difficulties and anomalies created by the imposition of toll charges for the use of the Mersey Tunnel.
  This is a short debate, but I hope that it will help to persuade my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the Government of the unity and determination of all hon. Members from Merseyside, the tunnel operators and users of all kinds that the Mersey Tunnel tolls have to be brought to an end.
  I begin with compliments rather than complaints—first to the Prime Minister for re-establishing the independence of the Department of Transport and his good sense in his choice of Ministers for the Department. The Secretary of State has his origins in Liverpool, even if he is now —as is the Under-Secretary—a Geordie. Some time ago, I spoke to them the three
  1452
  words "Mersey Tunnel tolls" and they recognised the message.
  We hope that the new Ministers will bring a new approach to transport matters, and not least to estuarial tolls. The Under-Secretary is well aware of the achievements and problems of Liverpool and Merseyside.
  Liverpool is the hub of a fine road and rail network and of the inter-city motorways. From Westminster to my constituency, the M1, M6 and M62 provide 200 miles of motorway from city to city. The M62—a wonderful feat of creative engineering—links Liverpool to Humberside, across the Pennines. From Liverpool, the M57, M62, M53 and M56 all link with the M6 and the M1 either north to Scotland or south to the Midlands, and with the M5 and M4 to South Wales and the south-west of England. The M53 Wirral motorway, the M58 to Skelmersdale, and the M57 Liverpool outer motorway have yet to be completed, but when they and the city inner ring road are completed Liverpool and the ports of the Mersey will have the finest road network anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  We have had no more than our fair share of roadway expenditure in the North-West, and have had proportionately much less than Scotland, Wales, the North-East and certain other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Last Thursday, in the debate on transport policy, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Under-Secretary confirmed that they recognise the importance of motorways for industry, commerce, and the social life of any area. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows how important roads are for employment and industry on Merseyside.
  The River Mersey provided the people of Merseyside with the opportunity to create the Merseyside ports, which could yet be the finest in Western Europe. The Mersey is itself a means of transport, but it is also the major barrier to communications between its banks. Ferries have operated across the river for hundreds of years. They are part of the Mersey scene, but they are not just picturesque; they have a useful rôle and ought to be maintained. We shall certainly say more about ferries when we discuss the Merseyside Passenger Transport Bill.

  1453
  Tunnels under the Mersey pioneered the way to the construction of tunnels in many other parts of the United Kingdom and overseas. The first rail tunnel opened in 1885 and is now being incorporated into Liverpool and Merseyside's own metropolitan loop line. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), this is an example that I hope the Tyne and Wear Metro will be able to follow.
  The Queensway road tunnel was begun in 1925 and was opened in 1934 by King George V, and the Kingsway road tunnel was opened in 1971 by Queen Elizabeth II. Both the rail and road tunnels had setbacks and disappointments in the years between the first proposals and the opening of the tunnels. They had their opponents then, but they have none now. Their success has encouraged me in my determination that the Channel Tunnel project is not finished, but only deferred.
  In 1976 the Mersey road tunnels were used by more than 20 million vehicles of all kinds. The importance of the tunnels to Merseyside is greater even than the motorway network of which they are a vital part. Yet the tunnels are financed entirely differently, quite separately from other motorways and roads. We can use 200 miles of the M1, M6 and M62 motorways to travel from London to Liverpool, without having to pay a charge at the time of use. I can cross the Mersey by the Thellwall Viaduct at Warrington or by the Runcorn bridge, which are both free. Yet I and my constituents, and industry, must pay tolls to use three miles of road under the Mersey, between Liverpool and Birkenhead or Wallasey.
  It is not simply a matter of the costs of construction, in whole or in part. There are 350 miles of motorway between London and Carlisle, for which we do not have to pay a charge at the time of use. The M62 over the Pennines floats on concrete rafts, cuts through high hills or rides on gigantic viaducts for mile after mile, and all this is free when we use it.
  Why is there this difference between different parts of what is essentially one motorway system? The answer is amazingly simple or, put the other way, simply amazing. Tolls are not imposed for cross-
  1454
  ing roads or rivers—pure or impure—or for crossing mountains, valleys, hills or dales. One does not even pay to cross the Menai Straits by road. Tolls are imposed simply for crossing estuaries. Therefore, the imposition of tolls depends not on the kind of use, or the cost of construction, or the importance of any road, bridge or tunnel to industry or commerce; it depends on a simple calculation of the percentage of salt in the water under or over which it crosses. This applies to the Severn Bridge, the Tamar Bridge, the Forth Bridge, the Dartford Tunnel and the new Humber Bridge.
  This may have made sense in the past, but not now. The principle of tolls must end. It is not a new principle. In May 1924 the Government first offered financial assistance towards the cost of the first Mersey Tunnel, but this was conditional on the tunnel being a toll-free highway. The second Government offer, in September 1924, was again conditional on the tunnel being toll-free.
  We are asking the Government to return to the principle which the Government of the day favoured when the tunnels were begun. It was only in 1925, when Winston Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that tolls were allowed. This was to be for a limited period of 20 years.
  The ending of tolls has not been possible locally, because of the additional costs of the second tunnel—which are £38 million and not £27 million—high operating costs due to inflation, extreme risk in interest rates, and the low level of economic growth. Government aid was refused in 1970 and 1974. Governments come and Governments go, but there seems to be a custodian of estuarial tolls in the Department of Transport who survives changes in Ministers and everyone else.
  Approaches were made to the Government in 1971 and 1973, and the Merseyside County Council, as the tunnel authority, has put a number of proposals to the Department of the Environment.
  Unfortunately, and unusually, in this instance, it was only last week that the county council decided to try to involve local Members of Parliament in this issue, and only after reports of this debate appeared in the newspapers. Its proposals —and these are known to my hon. Friend

  1455
  —are, first, that the first Mersey Tunnel was grant-aided in 1934 and that similar aid should be given now to the Mersey Tunnels as was given in 1938 to the Dartford Tunnel and in 1967 to the Tyne and Wear Tunnel. Secondly, Merseyside is a special development area, and so powers exist for special grants to be made. Thirdly, the Wallasey Tunnel is effectively a private road, which will link the M53 and M62 motorways, and these are financed entirely by the tax payer. Fourthly, the Mersey tolls are the highest in the country and would be much higher if interest debts had not been capitalised. The power to capitalise interest ends on 31st March 1977, but it can be extended to March 1980 by permission of the Secretary of State. This is one of the urgent matters that we want to bring to his attention.
  The present tolls are 1p for pedal cycles, though I have never seen a pedal cycle in the Mersey Tunnel—but that is still on the statute book—10p for motor cycles and three-wheeled vehicles, 20p for cars and light vehicles, and 50p for coaches and vehicles over three tons. Mersey County Council proposes that these be increased to 15p, 25p and 60p. There is a real risk that these increases will inevitably reduce the number of tunnel users, and, if they were increased further, they would damage the viability of the tunnels.
  I hope that the Minister will not merely suggest that the tunnels should be operated more efficiently. Operating costs are only 30 per cent. of the total financial costs. The introduction of automatic tolls will save £279,000 in the next five years, and, for example, the rationalising of policing arrangements will save another £40,500 per year. But 70 per cent. of the costs are due to capital and interest repayments. These are heavy burdens for the people of Merseyside.
  I put four requests to the Minister. He knows of these already, and I hope that he has considered them.
  Will he agree to meet representatives of the Merseyside County Council? Time is short. It needs permission to continue the capitalisation powers for at least some years to come.
  1456
  Will my hon. Friend accept an invitation to visit Merseyside and meet tunnel operators and users to hear at first hand the strength of feeling that exists on this matter?
  We recognise that, even though Merseyside is a special development area and so qualifies for special action, the principle applies to all estuarial crossings. Will my hon. Friend consider convening a special conference of all estuarial crossing authorities? If he cannot or will not, the pressure on Merseyside to take the lead in this will be very great.
  My main request to my hon. Friend is that he recognises and accepts the principle that estuarial crossings are part of the motorway network and ought to be financed as any other part of the motorway system.
  We are responsible people, and we recognise that to be a Transport Minister at this time is not the easiest job in the world. It is difficult enough in a spending Government. It is more difficult than ever with present restrictions on Government expenditure. We ask that the principle be accepted, even though this can only be implemented in an order of priorities.
  The Secretary of State for Transport last week confirmed the importance of transport and said that higher priority must be given to the maintenance of projects directly affecting industrial and commercial capacity and growth in Britain. In the same debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirmed that we must make the best use of the present road system before adding to it. On both those counts the Mersey Tunnel qualifies.
  The portals of the Queensway tunnel bear the plaque
  "Opened by H.M. King George V, 1934"
  and the Kingsway portals have the plaque
  "Opened by H.M. Queen Elizabeth II, 1971".
  I should like my hon. Friend to support these proposals and ideas and that this would make it possible for another plaque to be put up saying "Freed from tolls by Bill Rodgers and John Horam". This is our hope and it is my hon. Friend's opportunity. I hope that he

  1457
  will begin to make the first moves to remove the Mersey Tunnel tolls.
  4.51 a.m.
  Mr. Robert Parry: The case put so clearly this morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is unanswerable. Even at this unearthly hour I pledge my full support to the points he has made. The Chairman of the Mersey Tunnel Committee, Councillor Hugh Carr, an ex-colleague of mine on Liverpool City Council and a constituent of mine, has asked for the full support of all Merseyside Members for my hon. Friend. I am certain that he has the support of all Merseyside Members from this side of the House. I am speaking as a Liverpool Member. The Liverpool sides of the two tunnels are in my constituency. I speak also as Chairman of the Merseyside Parliamentary Labour Group.
  Over the last couple of years many of my colleagues from the group have taken part in many meetings and delegations to Cabinet Ministers. I believe that the Prime Minister is the only Cabinet Minister we have never met. In the few minutes at my disposal can I beg my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby and to consider them? We on Merseyside need support from the Government. In the present economic position we need any moral boost, any boost at all, which can help us and I hope that he will bring these points to the attention of the Secretary of State.
  4.53 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) for giving me the opportunity to clarify the Government's attitude to the charging of tolls on crossing like the Mersey tunnel. I know his great concern and that of my other hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) who has also spoken this evening, or rather this morning, about these matters of long standing concern. I respect the diligence with which my hon. Friend for Liverpool, West Derby has prepared his case and his willingness to make the points
  1458
  clear to me so that there can be no doubt where we stand.
  I hope that if nothing else happens as a result of his long efforts they will put up a small plaque to him and our hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange at the entrance to the tunnel for their efforts during these long years towards making the tunnel toll-free. He may know that apart from the fact that the Secretary of State was born in Liverpool I was born in Preston and spent a long time in Southport, and know the tunnel well because I have friends and relatives in the Wirral.
  I shall not be commenting, as such, on the application for a toll increase, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has only just received as a formal application. He will want to consider all the arguments before making any judgment upon it.
  There are some points of general application that I want to make and that I hope hon. Friends will find helpful. I shall also try to answer the specific questions that my hon. Friends have asked.
  Perhaps I can begin by setting the tunnels in context. The Mersey Tunnel is one of six major English estuary crossings built this century. The others are the Dartford and Tyne Tunnels, the Severn and Tamar Bridges, and the new bridge over the Humber estuary, which should be opened early in 1979. All are toll crossings. All except Severn, which is a trunk road motorway bridge, are at present run by local authorities. Changes in tolls are subject to my right hon. Friend's approval. Toll levels are related to the cost of repaying with interest the loans raised to finance construction of the crossing and of operation and maintenance. For the Mersey and Dartford Tunnels, where in each case a second tunnel has been provided to increase capacity, the two tunnels are taken together for revenue purposes.
  Tolls are, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, still an exception on the road system. We have not developed an extensive system of tolled motorways like some of our continental colleagues. The only other parts of the road system which are tolled are the 40 or so minor toll roads and bridges, mainly in private hands, which survive from the last

  1459
  century, and projects like the Itchen Bridge in Southampton. But that does not mean that the rest of the road system is free. There is no way in which we can have any of our roads or, for that matter, any of the transport system for nothing. The only question is: who pays—the taxpayer, the ratepayer, or the user?
  Estuarial crossings are tolled—whether they are part of the national motorway network, as at Severn, or on local roads, as at Mersey—because they offer exceptional benefits for which it is thought right that the user should pay. That is the real principle behind the longstanding practice.
  I do not think that anyone on Merseyside would deny the enormous benefits that the linking of the two sides of the estuary has produced. Estuaries create major natural obstacles to travel. Without a bridge or tunnel, those living on either side must use a ferry or make a major detour inland. The latter will be both time-consuming and expensive.
  Before the Severn Bridge was built, for instance, a motorist waiting to go from Bristol to South Wales had to make a detour of 60 miles. At the Mersey it would be about 25 miles. Ferry services are better than nothing, but they are not easily adapted to meet the convenience of everyone. Their capacity is necessarily limited. Timetables cannot suit every traveller.
  By contrast, a purpose-built crossing is almost always "available on demand" at whatever time the journey is conveniently undertaken. It offers the shortest and most convenient route from one side to the other with substantial savings in time and cost to the traveller.
  But convenience and benefit of this kind are also very costly, as my hon. Friend will be aware. Successive Governments, at least for the last 50 years—my hon. Friend will know better than I what happened before then—have taken the view, and Parliament has endorsed it, that users ought to pay for them directly.
  I do not think that the case is in any way weakened by the argument advanced by my hon. Friend that tolls should also be charged on non-estuarial crossings or motorways which are no less beneficial to users and often no less expensive in total cost, if not in cost per mile. I should
  1460
  not deny that the theoretical case for direct charging is just as good in those instances. But we cannot be blind to the practicalities. The Blackwall Tunnel and the Avon Bridge, both frequently quoted cases, are not tolled because they are too near other untolled alternative crossings. Any charge at one and not others would inevitably divert some traffic, and it would make no sense to push drivers off the suitable crossings on to unsuitable ones.
  The same is true, on a larger scale, of motorway tolls. Successive Ministers of Transport have considered them and successive Ministers have, after weighing the arguments, rejected them. There is much to be said for them. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Transport is on record, albeit 18 years ago, as being a supporter of tolls, because they contribute directly to the undeniably high costs of motorway construction. But to introduce tolls on a network now largely complete would involve very high costs in the installation of equipment and construction of toll plazas, increase the amount of land required and be very expensive to operate, not least because of the frequency of access points. Perhaps the most important argument against tolling motorways is the danger of diverting traffic back on to the roads which the motorways are designed to replace.
  A more serious objection, to which I would give greater weight if it could be substantiated, is the danger of tolls preventing estuarial crossings, such as the Mersey Tunnel, producing all the benefits that they could.
  It is sometimes argued—I think that I detected a note of this in my hon. Friend's argument—that tolls are a barrier to the proper development of the region and that they inhibit commercial, cultural and social contact between the areas that they link. However, there is no strong evidence that this is necessarily the case.
  For example, in relation to other costs of operating vehicles, such as the fuel and maintenance costs for heavy lorries, or the costs of other forms of transport, tolls at all crossings have been relatively low. Here I am thinking, in the case of Merseyside, of the underground railway and the cost of a ticket on that. It does not seem that the tolls, which my hon. Friend rightly quoted as 20p for a car, are necessarily excessive. I wonder

  1461
  whether, in fact, if they were increased, as the Merseyside County Council is asking, there would be a substantial diversion of traffic.
  It seems in many instances—and I can certainly cite one, the Tyne Tunnel, putting on my Geordie hat—that the problem is the capacity. It is the problem with the Mersey Tunnel, which is why we had the second crossing. There is certainly some doubt about the evidence in that instance, and I recognise that this is an important point.
  Against that background, let me turn to the particular case at Mersey. When the first Mersey Tunnel opened in the 1930s the toll for cars was is 6d. In today's money that is about 50p. The toll is now 20p, and the county council is now proposing that it should be raised to 25p. If one cares to think of a comparison for example, I do not recall offhand what the cost of one stop on the Mersey Underground would be, but on the London Underground it is about 10p, so we are talking of going right across the Mersey for 20p or, under the new proposal, 25p. One stop on the London Underground is 10p, so I do not think that the costs are all that far out.
  Before tolls were last increased, in November 1975, the county council came to us for financial assistance. The debts that the council had incurred were growing and the council believed that it had a case for Government subsidy—which again my hon. Friend has deployed this morning. The arguments that the council put forward were very much those expressed by my hon. Friend—the alleged unfairness of tolls and what was seen as an unreasonable burden on users. Those arguments were very carefully considered.
  The then Minister explained fully at the time that he thought that the tunnel finances could be brought back on to a sound footing with reasonable toll increases, and that he saw no case for departing from the principle that the motorists and goods vehicle operators who now use the tunnel should pay for the expensive facilities provided for them. That is precisely what the Mersey legislation provides and the principle that the Mersey authorities established when they sought parliamentary approval of, and Government loans towards, the construc-
  1462
  tion of two tunnels. It is the principle that the Government still stand by.
  My hon. Friend asked me whether I would visit Merseyside and meet the tunnel users. I thank him for the invitation. I certainly hope that I shall be able to take it up at some time. I appreciate, too, his concern for the tunnel users. However, I do not think that it would be right for me to meet the tunnel users, who after all represent only one of the groups who have an interest in the financial state of the tunnel—ratepayers, too, have an interest—at this particular stage of an application for a toll increase. Any intended increase will have to be formally advertised in due course. Users will then have an opportunity to put their views forward, and they will be given our full attention.
  Nor do I see any reason to call together all tolled crossing authorities. My Department keeps in close touch with all the authorities and knows the circumstances of each case. We are always very willing to discuss any particular problems—as we are, indeed, tonight. The general principles on which we operate are clearly laid down by the relevant legislation and are in our view quite appropriate, for the reasons that I have generally advanced.
  However, I shall be happy to meet representatives of Merseyside County Council in due course, if that seems desirable to them and to my hon. Friend. to discuss their applications—
  Mr. Ogden: By 31st March, before the deadline.
  Mr. Horam: Well, that is the point. At whatever time seems appropriate, in the light of this discussion, I shall be happy to meet them to discuss their applications for toll increases and for an extension of their powers of interest-capitalisation which are the two immediate issues. But we have only just received the council's formal application and my Department and the council have a fair amount of groundwork to go over before any discussions with my hon. Friend and his colleagues would be fruitful. We must be clear on the facts before we can take any view of the merits of this particular application for a toll increase.

  1463
  I think that I have covered all the points that my hon. Friend has raised. I salute again his tenacity in raising this matter at this unearthly time in the morning. I am sure that it will be well noticed on Merseyside. I hope that we
  1464
  shall come to some sensible conclusions when, and if, we eventually meet on this topic.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Five o'clock a.m.

ENERGY
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
  Participation Agreements
  Participation Agreements
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TAMWORTH
  TAMWORTH
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  DEFENCE CHIEFS OF STAFF
  DEFENCE CHIEFS OF STAFF
  MR. ANDY BEVAN
  MR. ANDY BEVAN
  NEW WALTHAM
  NEW WALTHAM
  SHETLAND
  SHETLAND
  CORNWALL
  CORNWALL
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  GENERAL HAIG
  GENERAL HAIG
  NEWPORT (MIDDLESBROUGH)
  NEWPORT (MIDDLESBROUGH)
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF (REPORT)
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF (REPORT)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON DISTRI BUTION OF INCOME AND WEALTH
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON DISTRI BUTION OF INCOME AND WEALTH
  STATUTES (1950–1976)
  STATUTES (1950–1976)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Kiosk Sales
  Kiosk Sales
DEFENCE
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  NATO (Expenditure)
  NATO (Expenditure)
  Scientists and Engineers
  Scientists and Engineers
  Army Firing Range (Pentlands)
  Army Firing Range (Pentlands)
  Naval Review
  Naval Review
  Attack Capability
  Attack Capability
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  North Sea
  North Sea
  Anti-submarine Cruisers
  Anti-submarine Cruisers
  Warships
  Warships
  Officers (Speeches and Publications)
  Officers (Speeches and Publications)
  Central Ordnance Depots
  Central Ordnance Depots
  Gibraltar (Industrial Dispute)
  Gibraltar (Industrial Dispute)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Missiles
  Missiles
  Training
  Training
  Army Communications Equipment
  Army Communications Equipment
  Armoured Vehicles
  Armoured Vehicles
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Life Sentences
  Life Sentences
  Drinking and Driving
  Drinking and Driving
  Open Prisons
  Open Prisons
  Fines (Non-Payment)
  Fines (Non-Payment)
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Drunkenness
  Drunkenness
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Theft
  Theft
  Vagrancy
  Vagrancy
  Police
  Police
  Bill of Rights
  Bill of Rights
  Bookmakers
  Bookmakers
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Mr. Richard Nixon
  Mr. Richard Nixon
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Metropolitan Police Recruitment
  Metropolitan Police Recruitment
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Standards of Conduct in Public Life
  Standards of Conduct in Public Life
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Christmas Parole
  Christmas Parole
  High Court (Civil Actions)
  High Court (Civil Actions)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Calthorpe School, Birmingham
  Calthorpe School, Birmingham
  Teachers (Mentally Handicapped Children)
  Teachers (Mentally Handicapped Children)
  Headmasters and Headmistresses
  Headmasters and Headmistresses
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Departmental Studies
  Departmental Studies
  Commonwealth Day
  Commonwealth Day
WALES
  A494 (Llanbedr)
  A494 (Llanbedr)
  Industrial Investment and Expenditure
  Industrial Investment and Expenditure
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
ENVIRONMENT
  R. and D. Richardson Ltd (Planning Application)
  R. and D. Richardson Ltd (Planning Application)
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Local Government Staffs
  Local Government Staffs
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Departmental Inspectorate
  Departmental Inspectorate
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court
  Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court
  Local Councillors (Attendance Allowance)
  Local Councillors (Attendance Allowance)
  Departmental Estates Division
  Departmental Estates Division
  Community Land
  Community Land
  Planning (Public Participation)
  Planning (Public Participation)
  British Urban Development Services Unit
  British Urban Development Services Unit
  Cesspools
  Cesspools
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Location of Offices Bureau
  Location of Offices Bureau
EMPLOYMENT
  Houghton Regis (Chimney Demolition Proposal)
  Houghton Regis (Chimney Demolition Proposal)
  Work Experience Programme
  Work Experience Programme
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Youth Employment Subsidy
  Youth Employment Subsidy
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
  Professional and Executive Recruitment Service
  Professional and Executive Recruitment Service
  Jobcentres (Salary Costs)
  Jobcentres (Salary Costs)
  Energy Sector
  Energy Sector
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Wages Council (Unlicensed Places of Refreshment)
  Wages Council (Unlicensed Places of Refreshment)
  Wages Council (Retail Foods)
  Wages Council (Retail Foods)
  Reduction of Redundancy Rebates Bill
  Reduction of Redundancy Rebates Bill
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Employers and Employees
  Employers and Employees
  Chemical Factory, King's Lynn (Explosion)
  Chemical Factory, King's Lynn (Explosion)
INDUSTRY
  Post Codes
  Post Codes
  Employment (Wales)
  Employment (Wales)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Endowment Mortgages
  Endowment Mortgages
  Consumer Advice and Protection Service (Wales)
  Consumer Advice and Protection Service (Wales)
  Spectacles and Contact Lenses
  Spectacles and Contact Lenses
  Bread Delivery (Industrial Action)
  Bread Delivery (Industrial Action)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Unit Pricing
  Unit Pricing
  Accidental Poisoning
  Accidental Poisoning
  Prices Information
  Prices Information
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Pharmaceutical Products
SCOTLAND
  Ambulance Services
  Ambulance Services
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Corporal Punishment in Schools
  Corporal Punishment in Schools
  Smokeless Zones
  Smokeless Zones
  Prefabricated Houses
  Prefabricated Houses
  John Hastie Factory
  John Hastie Factory
  Environment Conservation (Inspectorate)
  Environment Conservation (Inspectorate)
  Re-Chem International
  Re-Chem International
  Industrial Pollution
  Industrial Pollution
  Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board
  Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Dunfermline College, Cramond
  Dunfermline College, Cramond
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
TRADE
  Newsprint (Belgian Imports)
  Newsprint (Belgian Imports)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  South Africa (British Employers)
  South Africa (British Employers)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Elderly Persons (Hospital Beds)
  Elderly Persons (Hospital Beds)
  Naproxen
  Naproxen
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Brent Health District
  Brent Health District
  Bookmakers
  Bookmakers
  Alcoholics
  Alcoholics
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Earnings Disregard
  Earnings Disregard
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Classified Documents
  Classified Documents
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Occupational Pensioners
  Occupational Pensioners
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Cirrhosis of the Liver
  Cirrhosis of the Liver
  Employees' Earnings
  Employees' Earnings
  Medical Consultants
  Medical Consultants
  Whooping Cough
  Whooping Cough
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Gloucestershire Royal Hospital
  Gloucestershire Royal Hospital
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
  Tax Refunds
  Tax Refunds
TRANSPORT
  Road Construction Programme
  Road Construction Programme
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Service Licences
  Service Licences
  Commuter Associations (Vehicle Licensing)
  Commuter Associations (Vehicle Licensing)
  Traffic Commissioners
  Traffic Commissioners
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Road Accidents (Preston)
  Road Accidents (Preston)
  Preston Dock
  Preston Dock
  Kirkhamgate-Dishforth Road
  Kirkhamgate-Dishforth Road
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
  Pensions
  Pensions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Barclays Bank International
  Barclays Bank International
  Passports
  Passports
  Foreign Visitors (Official Tours)
  Foreign Visitors (Official Tours)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Company Taxation (Stock Relief)
  Company Taxation (Stock Relief)
  Alcohol (Tax Yield)
  Alcohol (Tax Yield)
  Tobacco (Tax Yield)
  Tobacco (Tax Yield)
  School Fees (Insurance)
  School Fees (Insurance)
  Discount Rates
  Discount Rates
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Borrowing Costs
  Borrowing Costs
  Tax Arrears (Interest)
  Tax Arrears (Interest)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Allowances (Departmental Staff)
  Allowances (Departmental Staff)
  Travellers on Business
  Travellers on Business
  Inland Revenue Department (Parliamentary Commissioner)
  Inland Revenue Department (Parliamentary Commissioner)
  Investment Capital
  Investment Capital

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

FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE EEC
Lord CHELWOOD: 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 what agreement has now been reached with the other EEC countries to further political co-operation in foreign affairs and defence policies; and whether all procedural distinctions between these and subjects explicitly covered by the Treaties have at last been abolished at all levels.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the European Council on 30th November endorsed the view that when the Foreign Ministers meet, whether in the Council of Communities or in the political co-operation framework, they should be able to take into consideration all aspects of questions under discussion. As the current holders of the Presidency, the United Kingdom has the job of making this possible in practice. The appropriate procedures for work falling within the framework of the Communities and for inter-Governmental co-operation will continue to be followed. As to the first part of the noble Lord's Question, Her Majesty's Government continue to attach importance to political co-operation among the Nine, of which the aim is the search for a common external policy.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, does that reply, which is encouraging so far as it goes, mean that the artificial separation between foreign policy and matters covered by Treaty really has been brought to an end, as was recommended in one of his
324
most practical and realistic suggestions by M. Tindemanns in his report?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has summed it up very fairly. In substance and in practice there is a unity of consideration of both categories of foreign questions. Procedures continue to be as they have been, until of course further thought, discussion and decision as to procedure in both categories take place.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the Government agree that they are unlikely to get much "forrader" in the practical harmonisation of foreign policy, and indeed of defence policy, until they can establish some kind of secretariat—one might call it a political secretariat—in a centre in which the political directors can habitually meet and in which the agendas for their meetings can at least be prepared?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the question of what is called "a centre" with no doubt some at least of the implications mentioned by the noble Lord, is, as he knows, a matter for consideration. There is much force in what he has said.

THE ROMANOV FAMILY: HISTORICAL RECORDS
2.39 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that there are no documents connected in any way with the fate of the Romanovs retained by any Department or branch of the Government including the files of the Intelligence Services which are not open to inspection by the public under the 30-year regulation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord EIwyn-Jones): My Lords, I am answering this Question in view of my general responsibility for the Public Record Office.

325
As my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts told the noble Baroness on 14th October last, all the available documents in the possession of Her Majesty's Government relating to the fate of the Romanov family are open to public inspection at the Public Record Office and I have nothing to add to my noble friend's statement.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. In view of the fact that the Question answered by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is a bit "scarce", is the noble and learned Lord aware that my interest is to get history accurately recorded; and is he further aware that, until fairly recently, a document containing a great deal of interesting information was retained in the Foreign Office, and I have an affidavit from a certain friend of mine to that effect? Am I right, therefore, in assuming that all documents are now available?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend gave assurances to the noble Baroness that nothing is being withheld from the historian or the public in this matter; that we are anxious that anything that is known about the Romanov tragedy should be published. I admire the impeccable historical interest of the noble Baroness, but I hope that now she will accept, for at least the second time, this assurance from me.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who has been given access in the past eight years to a document produced at the Foreign Office and identified at the time as a section of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty dealing with the safety of the Romanov family.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, any document which could conceivably meet the description given by the noble Baroness which might exist among the records of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would probably have been transferred to the Public Record Office
326
by now, but I regret that from the description given in the Question it has been impossible to identify the document in question.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that a document was seen? I have seen the affidavit to this effect. Am I to understand from him that the particular document, which is slightly controversial from the British point of view at that time in the War, has been transferred?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, again I can assure the noble Baroness that we have made every endeavour to find any document that might correspond to the document she has described. The indexes of the Foreign Office have been searched and no such document has been found which could be described as a section of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty dealing with the safety of the Romanov family. So, in so far as such a document exists, it is not known to exist by any Government Department. I again want to assure her—I do not think I have persuaded her even now—that the Government are very willing to disclose every jot and tittle of information available.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, may I ask whether the United States of America have any documents?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Alas! my Lords, my jurisdiction does not extend to the Library of Congress.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that, when the Russian Revolution took place and the Romanov family were disposed of, there was tight censorship and no relations existed with the outside world? Can he guarantee that the documents now in question are authentic?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can give no guarantee as to what might have happened in that time of bloody revolution. Anything might have happened to the documents. I can only answer for documents which we know to

327
exist. There is reasonable belief that they are authentic; but even as to those I cannot give an assurance on oath.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while the Government are making sure that documents relating to the Romanovs are made available, may I ask whether they will also ensure that documents of the period relating to Trotsky are made available for study, especially for the benefit of researchers at Transport House, in view of the rising influence which Trotsky and his theories seem now to be exerting within the Labour Party?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I cannot believe that that question was seriously intended.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, arising from that question and reply, will my noble and learned friend also ensure that there may be made available to the House some of the documents relating to Suez, which might also throw interesting sidelights up on our history?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that again is interestingly irrelevant to the original Question put to me.

FOOD HYGIENE REGULATIONS
2.45 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: 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 how frequently hotel and restaurant kitchens are inspected for cleanliness and food hygiene; and whether, following successful prosecutions for dirty kitchens, as in the recent case in Sutton, Surrey, the kitchens are closed down until the required standards are attained.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, responsibility for enforcing the Food Hygiene Regulations rests with the local authorities. The Regulations do not specify how frequently inspections should be carried out and this varies according to local factors, such as the previous standard of particular premises, the availability of staff and any complaints that
328
may have been received from the public. The Food and Drugs (Control of Food Premises) Act 1976 empowers the courts, under certain conditions, to order the closure of food premises, following conviction for offences against the Regulations, where there is danger to health, and also empowers the courts to order immediate closure, pending prosecution, when there is imminent risk of danger to health.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in this particular case prosecution took place some nine months after the inspector first discovered that the kitchens were, in his own words, "filthy, infested with cockroaches, with refrigerators that do not work" et cetera? At the end of nine months he again inspected the premises and found that they were far from satisfactory. It is perfectly true that a successful prosecution was carried out; but it is extremely disturbing to those people who during that period of nine months may have been eating there.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern. It is perfectly true that from the application of a summons to the hearing of the case there is in many instances quite a prolonged period; but that does not prevent the public health officer from issuing instructions—as were issued in this particular case—for certain things to be done during the intervening period. In fact that was done. Since the convictions to which my noble friend refers, the conditions of the premises have improved quite considerably, and the public health officers are obviously watching the situation.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, does not the Minister think that the House has done rather well today—four Questions in 11 minutes?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend the Leader of the

329
House will repeat a Statement on the visit of the Federal German Chancellor. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts repeating a Statement on Rhodesia.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to impose time limits on the duty of housing authorities to notify their decisions on applications under Section 27 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a —(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Deer Act 1963; to provide for the better management of deer in England and Wales; to prevent the poaching and the illegal taking, killing and injuring of deer in England and Wales; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Northfield.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [H.L.]
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide public lending right for authors, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Willis.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—.(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 4 [Stop notices]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved the following Amendment:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel that I must apologise to the House for moving an Amendment on Third Reading, but the Committee stage was taken a good deal later than I thought it would be and there was no Report stage. Moreover, in the other place, a Bill has been produced which has some bearing on what we are discussing in this Bill. My intention—and I think it is a reasonable duty—is to try to clarify some of the issues in this Bill, which has certain (shall I say?) rather strong, perhaps even Draconian, powers taken into it. Under Clause 4, which is new Clause 87, stop notices are limited by three conditions. Those three conditions—(a),(b) and (c) in subsection (2)—start respectively with the words "shall", "may" and "may". I know that we have had a great many discussions at one time or another on what the words "shall" and "may" mean. However, there are two peculiarities about this. The first is that instead of the Secretary of State being the subject of the clause, the planning authority is the subject. The second peculiarity is that in each case the word "shall" or "may" is followed by the word "not". In each case is that requirement obligatory? Is it a categorical imperative imposed on the planning authority?
The word, "may" is a very peculiar word. If one were to say, for instance, "He may not come into the House", those words would have two meanings. They may mean that he may or may not come into the House or they may mean

331
that he is not allowed to come into the House. I take it to be—and I believe it is—the Government's intention that each of these conditions is imperative. I should like to have that assurance. I also want to ask the noble Lord why he does not use the word, "shall", which would leave the Government's intention beyond any doubt. This is not unimportant because if the word means, "allow", it would leave a discretion with the planning authority which I do not think is intended in the Bill.
Subsection (2)(b) says that a planning authority may not put a stop notice on a permanent residence. That would be quite reasonable. If a person is living in a permanent residence, to put a stop notice on it, which I suppose would mean pulling down the house or something like that, would probably be rather harsh. Secondly, a stop notice may not prohibit the continuation of an undertaking which has been in existence for 12 months. I should like a categoric statement on that and I should also like an explanation why a more definite word has not been used.
The second matter to which I draw attention arises in subsection (2)(a) of the same clause. It says:
"A Stop Notice—(a) shall not prevent any person from taking any steps necessary to comply…"
What do the words, "any person" mean? For instance, do they mean that if someone erects an unauthorised garage next door to my house I can pull it down? Do they mean, in effect, that if someone stands a caravan next door on someone else's ground I can take it away and perhaps burn it? Is that the intention? The words, "any person" are very wide and I should like to know whether that sort of interpretation is the Government's intention or is permissible under the Bill.
The third matter I wish to raise arises in subsection (5)(b) of new Clause 87. It says that on conviction or indictment a person would be subject to a fine. There is no indication what the fine should be. Is it intended that the fine should be based on the wickedness of the individual, on the cost of putting right what he has done or on the conceivable profits that he might make by doing some nefarious deed? Would it not be better to indicate to the courts what that fine should be? There is a limit as regards summary offences and this is only on indictment. I know that this
332
will come before the sheriff court or the Court of Session but should there not be some indication of the fine? I ask those questions because, above all, it is important in town and country planning, which heaven knows is complicated enough, to be clear about the Government's intention and whether the Bill effectively carries out their intention. I beg to move.
2.55 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this clause is a completely new departure in the planning Acts, both North and South of the Border. I moved a like Amendment in Committee, when my noble friend Lord Selkirk was unable to attend. However, a great deal has happened since that debate in Committee. When I inquired whether a completely new departure was taking place in England and Wales, the Minister informed your Lordships' House that a Private Member's Bill was being introduced in another place. The following day it was announced that such a Bill was being introduced and later we discovered that a Member in another place who was successful in the ballot had adopted a Bill, with Government support, with the equivalent for England and Wales of Clause 4 in this Scottish Bill. The matters that we are discussing in the Scottish Bill are of interest to England and Wales as well as Scotland. Moreover, the Bill in another place affecting England and Wales was published and printed only in the last two or three days—it has only just become available. We have been comparing its text with Clause 4 of the Scottish Bill.
Although I received some representations before the debate in Committee on my Amendment, I must make it clear that the body which seems primarily concerned is the Confederation of British Industry. It is not the landowners or property developers, but the CBI who have expressed concern, because they believe that unless this clause is carefully drafted it could cause delays to industry and to industrial projects. I remind your Lordships' House that the Prime Minister himself has said that the Government wish to give priority to the interests of manufacturing industry. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider carefully the wording of this clause.
As my noble friend said, the clause seeks to extend the use of stop notices. Although

333
we on this Bench are not opposed to stop notices being used in circumstances additional to those in which they are now authorised, this clause is very far-reaching. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
"A stop notice will be able to prohibit unauthorised uses of land and breaches of conditions or limitations attached to planning permission, in addition to operations alleged to be in breach of planning control."
There may well be difficulties in practice about interpreting the situations which are visualised. There could be disputes about whether a change of use has or has not occurred. At present I would remind your Lordships that the planning Acts, both North and South of the Border, apply with regard to stop notices only to building operations, engineering or mining. It is not very difficult to prove that those sort of operations are taking place or whether they have been authorised. However, in cases of other uses of land, alleged changes of use and whether or not a use has been established for a period of time in the past, there is great scope for differences of opinion and argument. I warned the Government in Committee that there was this concern and the Minister certainly registered the point.
I turn to what is being proposed for England and Wales. I understand that the weeks between the Committee stage of this Bill and the publication of the Bill for England and Wales two or three days ago have been usefully spent in consulting the organisations and interests concerned. I believe that the Government have had a quick round of consultations—certainly they have been in touch with the CBI. I hope that any changes which they have thought worth making and which have been included in the Bill for England and Wales will be considered also for Scotland.
The Bill for England and Wales has been adopted by my honourable friend Mr. Dudley Smith, it has sponsors from both the Labour and Conservative Parties, and I understand that it has Government support. It is the second item of business on this coming Friday. In another place only the first six Private Member's Bills are first business on a Private Member's Bill day, but if the Bill which precedes it, that on insurance brokers' registration, is considered well before four o'clock, then there is every opportunity of the Bill for
334
England and Wales having a Second Reading debate this week, in three days' time. I hope that the drafting of that Bill will also have taken account of the comments which were made here, before Christmas, during the debate on Committee stage of the Scottish Bill.
I would urge the Government not to be shy about having second thoughts and proposing changes to the Scottish Bill if, in the light of the consultations which they have been having and the representations they have received, they think that some changes are necessary. The drafting of the Bill for England and Wales is different at various points from Clause 4 in the Scottish Bill, although it follows the same general form. I would not ask the Minister to describe the differences now, but I hope that when the Scottish Bill reaches another place the Government will avail themselves of any good advice they have received, and will suggest such changes as they think necessary to the Scottish Bill in its further stages.
To sum up, we from this Bench are ready to help with improving the present situation as regards stop notices under the planning Acts, provided that the new proposals are well thought out and practicable; and this applies both North and South of the Border.
3.3 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I have been in correspondence in regard to his Amendment. I think we are agreed that the noble Earl is concerned mainly with subsection (2) and subsection (5)(b) of Clause 4. The noble Earl is worried by the use of the words "may not" at the beginning of paragraphs (b) and (c), whereas paragraph (a) uses the phrase "shall not". As I have explained to the noble Earl in writing, there is no difference in the practical effects of these different forms of wording. I am advised that the difference is purely a matter of drafting preference. I can perhaps draw a distinction between paragraph (a) on the one hand, and paragraphs (b) and (c) on the other hand which will help to explain the difference in wording.
Paragraph (a) states that a stop notice shall not prevent any person from taking any steps necessary to comply or secure compliance with an enforcement notice.

335
It is really concerned with a possible unintended consequence of a stop notice. For example, if a wall is being erected without planning permission, the planning authority might decide to serve an enforcement notice on those responsible, requiring them to remove the wall and restore the land to its former condition. At the same time they might serve a stop notice prohibiting further operations on the site, meaning building operations, but unintentionally including demolition operations as well. This could put the recipients of the enforcement notice and stop notice in an impossible position, because they are prevented by the stop notice from doing what is required by the enforcement notice, in this case carrying out operations to remove the wall. The purpose of paragraph (a) is simply to provide that in this kind of circumstance the enforcement notice overrides the stop notice, and the latter cannot stop anyone who is required to comply with the enforcement notice from doing so.
If I understand the noble Earl correctly—and from some informal conversation we had on this point I think that I do—he has somehow got the impression that paragraph (a) makes a stop notice almost like a vandals' charter, whereby all and sundry can go around knocking down walls declared by the planning authority to be in breach of planning control. Let me say at once that this is not the case. This provision is concerned only with people who, but for the stop notice, would legally be in a position to take the steps required by the enforcement notice. It in no way disturbs the protection of people's private property afforded by the criminal and civil law, even if that property was built without planning permission.
If I may return to the distinction between "shall" and "may", while paragraph (a) deals with an unintended consequence of stop notices, paragraphs (b) and (c) are concerned with the intentional actions of the planning authority. These provisions say what the planning authority, in serving a stop notice, may not do. A stop notice which purports to prevent someone from using a house or caravan site as his permanent residence has no effect whatever—and I think the noble Earl mentioned that point—and a planning authority who attempt to serve such a notice will be overstepping their
336
legal authority. There is no way in which a stop notice can have that effect, or in which it can stop an activity commenced more than 12 months beforehand. The words "may not" therefore have the same effect as "shall not", the only difference being that in the former case we are dealing with the conscious decisions of responsible local authorities, whereas in the "shall not" case of paragraph (a) we are dealing with unintended consequences. It is for that reason that the drafting distinction is made.
I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He very correctly says that this, as we see it, improvement to Scottish planning procedure, carries a fair measure of cross-Party support, as is evinced by the fact that one of his honourable friends in the other place is sponsor of a Bill which will have some Government support. I shall certainly take note of his observations remarking, as he has, that it will be necessary to make sure that the English and Scottish legislation march in step. In so far as this is practical within the terms of my responsibility I shall undertake to see that this is done.
I think I should say to the noble Lord that over the last three years there has been an ongoing review of Scottish planning procedure, largely in response to pressures upon the Scottish Office from those most concerned and interested, and this is one more example of just that. I think it is right to remind your Lordships' House, on the assumption that in the not too distant future there is the creation of a Scottish Assembly, that then of course Scottish planning matters will stand devolved, and this is a factor which T would have to consider.
I should also say to the noble Lord that I am not impressed that the CBI need to worry too much. Planning authorities must be regarded as responsible bodies. I think we should accept that as an a priori assumption, and that it is in their own interests to assist and not to hinder industry in their own area. With that observation, I would urge on the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that his fears are without foundation, and in the light of my explanation I am confident that he might feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I have no intention of continuing this discussion. I still think that subsection (2)(a) is a trifle wider in meaning than the noble Lord suggests, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Marriage of related persons]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("of paragraph 1").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 25 and 26. As these Amendments are framed at present, Clause 2 and Schedule 1 would be unlikely to cause any practical difficulty because marriages involving the forbidden degrees are rare and those involving the remoter degrees are well-nigh non-existent. The Bill has been criticised, however, by a university lecturer writing in the Scots Law Times who has suggested that the proposals as set out would give rise to as much confusion as exists at present. While it is arguable whether all of the criticisms made are well founded, it may be accepted that some of them seem to have force. Certainly in the view of the Government if there is any area of doubt, that doubt should be removed.
The Amendments, by setting out comprehensively the position with regard to related persons, will ensure that the forbidden degrees in Schedule I represent the complete list of forbidden degrees and that any marriages between persons related outwith the specified forbidden degrees will not be invalid because of the relationship. The separation of the relationships by consanguinity, affinity and adoption as is done in the Amendment to the Schedule will render the list more easily understandable. There is no change in the composition of the list as presently set out in Schedule 1. It accords with the recommendations of the Kilbrandon Committee, apart from the question of adoption, and is in effect the same as the list which is currently applied in Scotland and in England and Wales. While arguments may be advanced for the inclusion or exclusion of particular relationships, there does not seem to be any good reason for amending the existing law, which has worked acceptably in the past; and very strong reasons would need to be advanced to justify establishing different forbidden degrees for marriage in Scotland as compared with those in the rest of Great Britain.
The Schedule to which Amendment No. 26 relates, which is Schedule 1, amends the list of forbidden degrees foreshadowed by the Amendments to Clause 2. The list is precisely the same as it is in the print of the Bill except that it has been broken into its component parts of relationships, as I have been saying, by consanguinity, affinity and adoption. This change clarifies the groups and makes the list more easily understood.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: One of the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, suggested should be discussed with No. 1 is No. 25, in my name, and I agree that it is best to have a general discussion on the subject of the forbidden degrees of relationship where marriage is concerned. The intention is excellent—that the Bill should set out afresh and clearly the forbidden degrees and so attempt to clarify the law as it exists at present—and the list must be considered under the three heads which the Government have now put in by their Amendment No. 26: consanguinity, which is common ancestry; affinity, which is relationships through marriage; and adoption.

339
Schedule 1 as amended also appears to carry out the recommendations of the Committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, but the Law Society of Scotland considers that there is an additional relationship which should be prohibited, and that is dealt with in my Amendment No. 25, to which I shall come shortly.
As Lord Kirkhill said, there may still be some confusion because of the existence of common law and because of the Incest Act 1567. It was the university lecturer, Mr. David Sellar of Edinburgh University, who wrote about this in the Scots Law Times. He has averred that by repealing all the Scottish marriage laws, but not the Incest Act, doubts and anomalies will remain and, to quote from his article:
"The proposals in the Bill are ill-thought out and poorly drafted and would, if translated into law, give rise to as much confusion as exists at present."
I recognise straight away that the Amendments which the Governent have put down at least meet some of that criticism. At the time that the Incest Act was passed in Scotland in 1557 a Marriage Act was passed, in the same year, and the two measures were then complementary; but since then there have been alterations to the latter, the Marriage Act, without corresponding adjustments to the former, and this has created what Mr. Sellar describes as a labyrinth of confusion law. This could of course be happening again because the Kilbrandon Committee was asked to consider the law in relation to marriage and not the incest legislation.
Mr. Sellar contends that, for example, marriage with a deceased husband's brother could again become forbidden because the previous legislation on marriage is being repealed but not that on incest. This reminds us of the 1906 Election issue; whether the law should be changed to permit a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. This could all come up again. As a result of that Election issue the law was changed by the 1907 Act, but not before one leading politician at that General Election, when needled on the subject at a public meeting, declared that not only was he in favour of enabling marriage to a deceased wife's sister—it should be compulsory.
340
The Government's response to Mr. Sellar's views has been the Amendment to Clause 2, and I think the new subsection (3) attempts to clear up the general point about confusion. The Law Society of Scotland certainly welcome it, but that Society draw attention to certain ambiguities which they believe remain in the Bill, this arising from the fact that the Kilbrandon Committee, on whose recommendations the Bill is based, was dealing with marriage and not incest. They now suggest that Clause 2 and Schedule 1, which we are now discussing, should be taken out of the Bill altogether and that a new Bill should be introduced on that. I recognise that this may not be practicable in Parliamentary terms for the Government to do, but I must tell the noble Lord that that is what the Law Society are now suggesting.
Now I come to my particular Amendment, Amendment No. 25. The effect of this would be to prohibit marriage with a grandchild through adoption. There are not many cases where this is likely to present itself as a possibility because of the difference of age that is likely in such cases. None the less, the Law Society of Scotland believes that it should be included and, certainly, some marriages which have received publicity recently have involved very wide differences in age.
The Kilbrandon Committee on pages 15 and 16 of its report stated that one object of these prohibitions was to preserve the stability of the family, in particular where a person was likely to become in loco parentis. This is a case where this could well happen; in a situation where both parents of an adopted child had died and a grandparent was still alive, that grandparent would in most cases be the person who would be expected to act in loco parentis.
That is the kind of reason why the Law Society believes that this relationship should also be added to Schedule 1 as a prohibited relationship. The adopted son or daughter relationship is already covered and this just takes it a generation further. There may be good reasons why the Government have decided not to do this; we shall be interested to hear what they have to say on Amendment No. 25.
Lord KIRKHILL: I should like initially to respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, anent

341
Amendment No. 25. I concede that a case can be made out for the extension of the list of the forbidden degrees in the adoptive relationship and I agree that this was recommended by the Kilbrandon Committee, as the noble Lord has just said. However, the whole question of the forbidden degrees in the adoptive relationship was considered by the Houghton Committee on Adoption. That Committee rejected the proposals of the Kilbrandon Committee and recommended that only the existing prohibition on the marriage of an adoptive parent with his or her adopted child should be continued. The Houghton Committee's recommendation was given effect to in the Children Act 1975. The Government do not think it desirable to make a further change so soon after Parliament has confirmed that the forbidden degrees in the adoptive relationship should remain as at present. It is the Government's view that it is desirable that the list should continue to be the same on both sides of the Border.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has mentioned, as I did in earlier remarks, criticism of part of the Bill by Mr. David Sellar in an article in the Scots Law Times. It might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to set out as briefly as possible the Government's response to a number of points that have been raised. Mr. Sellar's main criticisms were as follows: first, the Bill would nullify all the amending legislation of this century in relation to forbidden degrees, or at least render its effect doubtful. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has made mention of this. Existing marriages within the degrees permitted by the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960 would arguably become void. My comment on that is that, in his reference to previous amending legislation, Mr. Sellar referred specifically to the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960 and suggested that its repeal would revive the prohibitions on marriage which that Act permitted. It is probably the case that, with the repeal of the 1567 Act, all the forbidden degrees in respect of marriage fall because the terms of the 1567 Act do not allow there to be forbidden degrees other than those specified in "the Word of God" made part of our law by that Act. However, the new subsection (3) puts the matter beyond doubt. The forbidden degrees listed in the Bill are to be exhaustive.
342
A further criticism made by Mr. Sellar is that, as the prohibition on the grand uncle/grand niece marriage rests on common law, it will still be prohibited under common law because the Bill does not say that marriages contracted outwith the prohibited degrees are valid. I would comment upon that that there cannot be common law forbidden degrees other than those specified in the 1567 Act.
A further criticism made was; that there is doubt as to the validity of a marriage of a man with his wife's illegitimate sister, or with her niece and that between grand uncle and illegitimate grand niece. I would comment upon that that any such doubt will be removed by the new subsection (2), combined with the fact that marriages outwith the list of forbidden degrees as specified in the Schedule will not be invalid because of relationship between the parties.
Mr. Sellar argued that it should be made clear that marriage between a man and his adopted sister and marriage between direct ascendants or descendants by adoption (apart from a adopter and child.) are valid. I would comment that no charge is being made in the existing law on this matter, but in any case, the Government Amendments will make it clear that such marriages are not invalid because of the adoptive relationship.
It was further averred that the Bill does not remedy the confused state of the law regarding what constitutes incest. Specific reference has been made to this point by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I would comment that it is recognised that there may be a good case for amending the law on incest, but the law on incest and on forbidden degrees for marriage is based on two separate Acts. Incest is a criminal matter. In the Government's view, it would have been inappropriate to deal with it in a Bill on the civil law of marriage. It may be the case that there is some social relationship between the purposes of the two laws, but the forbidden degrees of marriage should not necessarily coincide with those for incest, nor should they necessarily be dealt with in the same Statute. Certainly, in the Government's preparations for the Bill the law of incest was not ignored. It is accepted by the Government that the law is obscure and that modifications may be required in the specifications of the relationships

343
within which sexual intercourse constitute the crime of incest, but the law of incest has not been the subject of the kind of study that is appropriate for the modernisation of an ancient law. The Kilbrandon Committee was clearly of the opinion that incest was outwith their province and so did not make recommendations about it. So it is no part of the Bill's contention to deal with incest. To do so would be outwith the ambit of the Long Title.
However, the Government have concluded that a study of the law of incest should be made before any restatement of that law is attempted. They consider that a reference to the Scottish Law Commission is the most appropriate course. The Government are now engaged in consultations with the Law Commission about the remit and the form it might take.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: It does not seem that anyone else wishes to discuss these Amendments and I shall start by saying that, in the light of the noble Lord's reply about the difference of opinion between the Kilbrandon Committee and the Houghton Committee, I am only sorry that neither noble Lord is with us. Having chaired their respective Committees with distinction, they could have argued the point out here in our debate.
However, I see that the Houghton Committee considered the whole question of adoption and that its recommendations related to the United Kingdom and were not confined to Scotland, whereas the Kilbrandon Committee was considering the marriage law in Scotland. I agree that, in the interests of uniformity, there ought to be one law covering the whole country in these matters. What the noble Lord has said will no doubt be read carefully by the Law Society of Scotland and we shall hear at later stages in the Bill whether they have any further comments to make.
The noble Lord also answered the comments which the Law Society of Scotland had made about the Incest Act by saying that this was not an appropriate Bill for making changes on that subject because there was a difference between altering the criminal law and making the changes proposed in this Bill to the Marriage Acts. I do not know whether that will satisfy the Law Society
344
of Scotland. That is the Minister's answer, but no doubt in due course we shall hear further observations from the Law Society on the Minister's reply.
In the light of his reply I would commend to the Committee the Minister's Amendment No. 26 which is the same in substance as Schedule 1 to the Bill but puts in headings, helpfully. I would not press my Amendment No. 25, but I was glad to have the Minister's views expressed upon it, and I think that the other Amendments which the Government have tabled, including Amendment No. 1 which has been moved, are acceptable and are improvements to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("Schedule").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

FEDERAL GERMAN CHANCELLOR'S VISIT
3.32 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, about the visit of the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 23rd to 24th January.
"This was one of the series of regular six-monthly visits between the British and German Heads of Goverment.
"Chancellor Schmidt was accompanied by Herr Genscher, Vice-Chancellor and Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs; Dr. Apel, Federal Minister of Finance; Dr. Friderichs, Federal Minister of the Economy; and Herr Leber, Federal Minister of Defence. On our side the Chancellors

345
of the Exchequer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Defence took part. We began with a general discussion between all Ministers followed by a series of bilateral talks and then we came together again for a final session. This pattern worked well, and the Federal Chancellor and I agreed to repeat it at our next meeting.
"The talks covered a wide range of international and Anglo/German bilateral matters. I expressed to the Chancellor the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government for the support which the Federal Government has given us in recent weeks in connection with the IMF loan and the Safety Net; both of which have contributed greatly to more stable conditions in the international money markets.
"Much of our talks was concerned with the present world recession and how we should approach the series of international meetings which are in prospect over the next few months. We were agreed that a properly prepared meeting of leading industrialised countries would be helpful in co-ordinating our policies for bringing the world out of recession.
"Britain's prospects for recovery in 1977 are based on growing exports and I emphasised the importance we attach to continuing expansion in the economies of the world, including those of the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan, as a means of generating greater expansion and more employment in the rest of the world.
"We reviewed the present position of the negotiations between the industrialised countries and the developing countries in the C.I.E.C. [Conference on International Economic Co-operation].
"We also discussed our relations with the Soviet Union and the preparations for the talks that will take place in Belgrade this summer to follow up the agreements reached at Helsinki.
"On defence matters, we welcomed the declared intention of President Carter and of the Soviet Union to seek a new agreement on Strategic Arms Limitation and agreed that the Vienna
346
negotiations on reducing conventional arms should be given a new impetus.
"We did not attempt to reach a final agreement on the question of offsetting the cost of stationing our troops in Germany on which our two Governments hold different positions. The Federal Chancellor pointed out that similar arrangements with the United States had already been brought to an end. Our discussions will continue and we are both confident that we shall with time reach a conclusion on this matter.
"Our joint interests with the Federal Republic of Germany cover many areas—in the European Community, in NATO and more recently in the Security Council of the United Nations. I am glad to report that in all these fields our relations are close and in good repair."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.36 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, of course from this side we welcome regular and close exchanges between the British Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic, and we hope that this is a series of meetings which will continue in a constructive manner. But I should tell the noble Lord that there are two things on the economic side which worry us. First, the need to tackle inflation worldwide is very great—and not just in this country. Therefore we believe that we should do ourselves a poor service in the long run if we were to be successful in persuading the Federal Republic and other countries to take action which might set in train a new burst of inflation worldwide. So I cannot help saying to the noble Lord: are we wise to be doing this?
Secondly, it seems to us that we as a country are in no position to tell countries like Western Germany, or Japan, or the United States, how they should manage their economic affairs when we have been so patently unable to manage our own. Again we would say to the Government: are we wise to be trying to lecture other countries much more successful than we are on how they should manage their economic affairs?
With regard to the defence aspect, we note the closing sentence of the Prime

347
Minister's Statement in which he says that he is,
"glad to report that in all these fields our relations are close and in good repair."
But I am bound to say to the noble Lord that it seemed that in the particular reference to the vital subject of offsetting the cost of our troops stationed in Germany, they were very far from close agreement. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say something more to us about that and indicate when we might hope for a conclusion which will be satisfactory to both sides.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches can only welcome the Statement which has been read out by the Leader of the House. We welcome the obviously satisfactory nature of the conversations which have taken place. Whether this is due in any way to the fact that we hear that Chancellor Schmidt gets on better with the present Prime Minister than with his predecessor, we do not know. If that is the case, then it is very welcome to us also.
I have only two questions to ask. First, I note that in the final paragraph of the Statement it says:
"Our joint interests with the Federal Republic of Germany cover many areas "—
notably in the European Community, which I am sure is true. Therefore, can we take it that there was some discussion of the best way to handle Community problems in the Community, now that Britain has the Presidency of the Community? Was that matter at all referred to in conversations with the Chancellor? And if not, would it not have been a good thing if it had been?
With regard to the second question I have to ask, I note also that there was some discussion on defence matters which was, however, confined, if I understand it rightly, to the,
"declared intention of President Carter and of the Soviet Union to seek a new agreement on Strategic Arms Limitation ",
and so on. That is all very well and very good, but was there perhaps any discussion of the possibility of some kind of reorganisation of European defence within the framework of the Atlantic Alliance? That is a question which in any case seems to us on these Benches to be becoming
348
increasingly urgent, and I should have thought that it is something to which it might be supposed that the Chancellor of the German Republic might lend a sympathetic ear.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I was not in the talks and that I have to rely, naturally, on what has been conveyed to me in documents. All I can say first to the noble Lord, Lord Carr, on the question of inflation, is that of course I am not saying we should lecture the German Government; but I think we have made commendable progress here. I referred to this when we had an economic debate, and no doubt we can develop this theme further tomorrow; but we need not apologise on this. There was no question of lecturing the Germans: it was a friendly discussion between two Heads of Government. I think we should regard it as such; and we welcomed it. On the question of defence and offsetting, yes, there were discussions on that. There was no agreement, but I understand this matter will be pursued further.
In reply to the noble Lord speaking for the Liberal Party, as to how best we should handle matters in the Community, undoubtedly there were informal discussions on that. I believe it is quite right that we should, wherever possible, with our Community partners, play our part and be Communautaire. I learned that lesson, even though I used to be a critic. I was once a critic of the Community, but we are in and I believe that we must make it work. Some people forget this. Again, mention was made of defence and as to whether or not some reorganisation of defence in Europe can be speeded up. I think we must work through NATO. I think that that is the right channel.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, on the economic side, Herr Vetter, the Secretary of the German TUC, has declared that unemployment will not be cured by investment and has suggested that there ought to be a work-sharing system introduced into Germany? This, of course, has been resisted by the unions in Germany, who are calling for longer holiday periods and things of that character. But if we have arrived at a point wherein the economy of Germany, which has been so satisfactory in the past, now

349
visualises that investment will not cure unemployment, are we giving any consideration to this aspect of the economic problem facing not only this country but every country in the world, including Germany and Japan?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am afraid I could not comment in detail about the position in Germany. I think my noble friend has raised an interesting point, but I think it is a matter which he could well pursue in our debate tomorrow. It is a very important point.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the offset costs to this country are not less than £1,000 million a year and that the German contribution, under the agreement which expired last March, was only £20 million; and could he tell us whether this enormous gap between the outlay of £1,000 million and the German contribution of £20 million remains as large as ever, or has it been narrowed?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot say specifically, but it was discussed, and I did reply to the noble Lord opposite on this matter. I am sorry that I cannot give details of the discussion; but I am prepared to follow it up.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is not for noble Lords opposite to blame us for the cost of the Rhine Army, because that matter was not included in the Bonn Agreement giving back to Germany its sovereignty?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not want to pursue this matter. I think I made my position clear. There has been a discussion about this, and at this stage I will leave it at that.

RHODESIA
3.44 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement on Rhodesia now being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in another place. The Statement is as follows:
350
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about Rhodesia.
"As I told the House on the 14th December, I authorised Mr. Richard to adjourn the Geneva Conference and to undertake intensive consultations in Southern Africa with a view to laying the foundations for an agreement on an interim Government. In particular, I asked him to develop with the parties some new and positive ideas, including our ideas on the direct role which Britain would be ready to p ay in the transitional period.
"Following Mr. Richard's first round of consultations, we set out what we had in mind in a document, copies of which have been placed in the Library. This document was given to each of the Geneva delegations, the four African Front Line Presidents and Mr. Vorster.
"The suggestions in the paper did not constitute a cut and dried British plan. Nor were they presented on a ' take it or leave it' basis. They were intended to provide a serious and detailed basis for negotiations, and were open to amendment and modification in the light of those negotiations.
"But in our view these proposals represented a reasonable way forward. They were designed to meet the concern of the Nationalists that the transfer to majority rule should be rapid and irreversible, and of the white Rhodesians that it should be peaceful and orderly. They would have led to the ending of the war, and the lifting of economic sanctions. They were supported by the American Government, and would have set the stage for an international trust fund to help develop the Rhodesian economy and give financial reassurance to Rhodesian Europeans. They would have provided a basis for a prosperous, independent and non-racial Rhodesia.
"It was therefore with a deep sense of disappointment that we learnt yesterday that Mr. Smith, alone of the parties, had rejected the ideas which we had put to him, even as a basis for further negotiation. Mr. Smith claims to have left the door open for further negotiations by expressing his readiness to implement the 'Five Points' put to him by Dr. Kissinger in September last year. But it was clear from an early stage of the Geneva Conference that the Nationalist

351
delegations could not agree to accept these proposals as a basis for negotiation. That was why we put forward our own ideas which we believed offered a reasonable way of bridging the gap between the parties.
"Mr. Smith has claimed that our proposals would have led to chaos and Marxist rule. But if there is such a risk, it is much more likely to be created by his rejection of these proposals. He has once more shown his inability to face reality.
"We have to accept that this present round of discussions is at an end. We now need—all of us—to take stock and to make a cool appraisal of the new situation. I have instructed Mr. Richard to remain in Southern Africa for a few more days to discuss these latest developments with some of the parties. He will then return and report to me with a full assessment of the attitudes and expectations of those concerned.
"Mr. Speaker, yesterday's events represent a serious setback to all our hopes for peace in Rhodesia. We must now give intensive study to any options which may still be open to us in this new situation. For our goal remains a peaceful and orderly transfer to majority rule in Rhodesia."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating that Statement, which I think will be received in all quarters of the House with disappointment and a good deal of foreboding. I must say that I think this has been a lost and wasted opportunity. If one considers the enormous stride forward that was made by Mr. Smith's acceptance of the five Kissinger points and compares that agreement with his statement not so very long ago that he would not accept majority rule in a thousand years, it seems to me that there has been a really wasted opportunity. I must also say that I think it a very great pity that the Geneva Conference was not based on what had seemed to be the general acceptance by all parties of the Kissinger proposals. It should be noted that Mr. Smith—and he has been greatly criticised—has never deviated from those five points.
352
I do not understand the phrase in the Statement that it was clear from an early stage of the Geneva Conference that the nationalist delegations could not agree to accept these proposals as a basis for negotiation. I had thought that that was exactly what they had done; and that it was exactly on that basis that the Geneva Conference was called. I must also say that I think it a very great pity that the Africans did not accept what was in essence an enormous step forward, with only a short interim period before majority rule, and refused to negotiate on the basis of the Kissinger proposals. Certainly if a genuine settlement was wanted without bloodshed, a great opportunity was missed.
My Lords, I also think—and I must say this frankly—that it was a very great pity that the Front Line Presidents insisted on Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe as, it seems, the sole representatives of the Rhodesian Africans. That made it very much more difficult for the negotiations to be successful. I think that one must be very careful about criticising negotiations when one is obviously not in possession of all the facts; but I must also say that I do not think that these negotiations were carried out with the sense of urgency that one would have expected; and I am afraid—and this is no reflection on Mr. Ivor Richard—that I do not think he carried the authority that was necessary in a negotiation of this kind.
It is very difficult now to see what is going to happen. I agree with the noble Lord that we must sit down and take a look at it. It may be that the only possible step forward is an initiative by the American Government. But it is a new American Government and we shall have to wait to see what happens. In the meantime, perhaps I might ask the noble Lord whether the Foreign Secretary, who at one stage, I think, said that he was prepared to visit Africa if he thought it useful, intends to do so in the near future.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating the Statement made in another place. We very much regret the breakdown of these negotiations. We think it is much to be deplored that Mr. Smith should have refused to negotiate on the basis of the British proposals. He was not asked

353
to accept them as they stood; they were put forward as a basis for negotiation, as the Statement made clear. Indeed, Mr. Smith has been fortunate as a rebel Prime Minister—which is what he is—to have had the opportunity to negotiate at all.
We should certainly welcome more information about the precise nature of the proposed British proposals. We must admit that the outlook for Rhodesia today seems bleak, but we can only hope that a return to negotiation will be possible before long. In the meantime I should like to express appreciation of Mr. Ivor Richard's very considerable efforts.
3.54 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for the restrained character of their contributions this afternoon and express thanks particularly for the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we should give ourselves a period of time for a cool appraisal of what is bound to be a difficult and dangerous situation? He referred to lost and wasted opportunities. Indeed, there have been five such in the last eleven years. It depends upon what point of view one takes towards the reasons for the breakdowns of the five attempts to reach a reasonable solution. He said that Mr. Smith's statement on 24th September last was a step forward. It was. He accepted majority rule within a short time. But I must take momentary issue with the noble Lord when he says that the so-called five points, Five Principles, which have been fathered on Dr. Kissinger, were greatly different from our own new proposals. I appreciate that it is only now that the full statement of our new proposals is available generally in the Library of the House.
I should like to assure him—and he can test this from his own reading of the proposals—that they are not fundamentally at variance with the content and spirit of the so-called Five Principles. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on this point. Mr. Smith might well have consented at least to negotiate on that basis if he was genuine about negotiating the Five Principles. I think that on examination the House will agree he could easily have negotiated on the basis of the
354
new proposals put to him and to the African leaders by Mr. Richard. Mr. Smith is the only one of the Parry to have refused to negotiate on these new proposals.
Naturally, a question arises whether in fact he genuinely wishes to negotiate. I very much hope that he does. I know that Her Majesty's Government, and certainly the Secretary of State, are most anxious that he should reconsider the position, and I do not think I am going beyond the bounds of propriety when I say that we understand that the South African Prime Minister also takes this view. As I have said, the American Government supported the proposals which we put forward. My Lords, as to the intentions of the Secretary of State, naturally he will want very carefully to consider the situation, but, as he said in his statement of 14th December, if it seems necessary and advisable that he should visit Africa, he holds himself in immediate readiness to do just that.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, the noble Lord might well recollect that when this caper to Geneva was first proposed I warned him that it had no chance of success and would only bring discredit upon Her Majesty's Government. I take no pleasure in having been right. We backed the Kissinger proposals; we committed ourselves to them and we have now reneged on them. Mr. Smith has stood by them. We now propose that Smith should negotiate to hand over immediate power to guerrilla forces who are committing gross atrocities in his country and should ask his defence forces opposing those guerrillas to put themselves under the command of the guerrilla leaders. What seriously does he expect Mr. Smith to say to such proposals? I take little pleasure in finding my Government and my country disgracing them selves in this manner.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, a cool appraisal of the Statement of the Secretary of State which I have repeated in this House together with a study of the document that I have put into the Library this afternoon before he launches himself once more on his own kind of tremendous philippic on Southern Africa.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, despite the Minister's very kind words to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have the greatest respect, may I say that I do think that the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition showed a great ignorance of the situation in Southern Africa, of the United Nations and of everything concerned with the situation in Rhodesia? The statement of the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberals was far nearer the facts of the situation. May I further ask, because there have been criticisms of Mr. Ivor Richard, whether it would not be true to say that he was the best man to take on the chairmanship of the Geneva Conference because of his great experience of the law, of the United Nations and of the Africans in the United Nations with whom he has dealt for quite a long time?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not wish to set up a kind of transitional Government between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I join very much with my noble friend in the tribute she has paid to Mr. Ivor Richard's attempts to seek to obtain a solution to this extremely difficult problem. No one in this House will minimise the difficulties and dangers of this problem, and we have among us some of the best minds of the country who have experience of these difficulties. I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving voice to the general appreciation of the efforts of Mr. Richard.
4 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I am sure everybody will feel that it is extremely disappointing that the Geneva Conference has failed. It is not surprising from the way the events unfolded. I want to ask the noble Lord one question about the Statement. What basis is there for the sentence in the Statement that says that, with the acceptance of the British proposals, the war would have ended? It was my impression that Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe made it clear that the war would go on. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that Mr. Smith refused the present proposals, ft is" however" difficult to get a complete picture in a short time, and the exchange of question and answer is rather unsatisfactory. I wonder whether
356
the noble Lord the Leader of the House and my noble friend would consider, when the Government have carried out their re-assessment, holding a short debate on the Rhodesian question?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no doubt that if the noble Lord and others engage in discussions through the usual channels a suitable opportunity for an exchange of views on these matters can be arranged, and the opportunity to clarify some of the points, such as the question put to me by the noble Lord, will then be more available. I will only say at this point on that question that we have always said that the end of the war and of sanctions would inevitably follow the setting up of a transitional and interim Government.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for one second, we could guarantee the end of the sanctions; but the Africans have not guaranteed, as I understand it, the end of the war.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I agree that it is a matter for argument. I should have thought that the two would go together because of the fact of the setting up of a transitional Government. Such an act would be an historic and impactive new event, a fact of life, in Rhodesia. I would not underestimate its effect upon all parties concerned. No doubt in debate we can discuss and argue about these matters.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he appreciates that noble Lords on this side and in all parts of the House understand that Her Majesty's Government have been engaged in a thoroughly thankless task in Rhodesia? They will get no joy and no credit in the world for trying to bale out a rebellious régime and a most unhappy historic situation. Despite the grave disappointment in the outcome so far, will my noble friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government will not abdicate, will remain ready to intervene again as soon as the situation indicates that such intervention will be helpful and that we will, as a Government and as a country, continue to contribute positively and openly to finding a solution to the Rhodesian problem rather than deserting the scene?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Statement that I have repeated explicitly gives an affirmative to the question put by my noble friend towards the end of his supplementary question. I gladly repeat it now. I should also like to say that I am sure that my right honourable friend will appreciate what my noble friend said at the beginning of his interjection; namely, that he appreciates—as we all do—the peculiarly difficult and dangerous character of the situation and the difficulty of the negotiations.
The EARL of ONSLOW: My Lords, as what we are all striving for in Rhodesia is to make sure that the European contribution to African civilisation is preserved, but with access for all races under a free régime, would the noble Lord comment on the following three points: First, we over-indulged the African susceptibilities and did not give due credit to Mr. Smith's susceptibilities. I am sure that it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the susceptibilities are intrinsically unimportant, but in negotiations this is how human beings work. Also Mr. Smith, with his essentially suburban mind and with his back totally against the wall because he is frightened, is more likely to be over-sensitive of his personal and the Rhodesian Fronts' point of view. Thirdly, on the point which my noble friend Lord Carrington raised, the fact that the so-called Front Line Presidents recognise the Nkomo/Mugabe faction, did this not further push Mr. Smith into a corner?
I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that I have no sympathy with Mr. Smith. I regard him as a rebel against the Crown. Is the noble Lord aware that if one is to keep the one object in one's mind, which is to maintain the best civilisation which Europeans brought to Rhodesia, together with wealth and employment, somehow we have to get round these problems in a free society?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the matter of Mr. Smith's personal feelings, he is not, of course, the only person in Rhodesia in a leading position who has personal feelings about what has been happening there for so many years. So far as I know, he has not been imprisoned; others have. But I take the point that in these negotiations
358
it is always important not to affront people's personal susceptibilities, especially when they are in a leading position. I believe that Mr. Ivor Richard in his broadcast a few days ago in Rhodesia made it clear that he, on the spot, did not believe that there was any real reason for Mr. Smith to feel affronted in a personal sense.
The second point which the noble Earl raised referred to the action of the so-called Front Line Presidents in endorsing the patriotic front; and this indeed they did. We understand however that, having done so, they in no way ruled out the possibility of other delegations attending a resumed conference or a future conference. So while there was a necessary gesture, as they saw it, it did not prejudice the all-embracing nature of a resumed conference or a new conference. I have not a note of the third point the noble Earl mentioned; perhaps he will help me.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the third point was the over-indulgence of African susceptibilities as opposed to the under-indulgence of Mr. Smith's susceptibilities.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, perhaps I answered that in my reply to the first point, and the noble Earl will no doubt do me his usual courtesy of examining what I said in cold print tomorrow morning.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I have one precise question to ask May I first associate myself with those noble Lords who have the impression which I have, that Mr. Richard has handled this almost impossible negotiation with considerable spirit and authority. One should not underestimate the position in the world held by the British Representative at the United Nations. The noble Lord used the word "alone" applying to Mr. Smith. Does that imply something in regard to the all important attitude of South Africa? If I may give the Minister an escape route, if he felt that question was prejudicial at this moment, if there is a debate he will possibly then be able to tell us more about that matter as it is so important.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble

359
friend. As to attitudes, I am not entitled to speak explicitly about the attitude of any other Government, but I think it is clear to all that the South African Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, has made it perfectly clear that he is most anxious, and responsibly anxious, that there should be an early opportunity to resume the quest for a settlement of this matter. We very much welcome his attitude. As to the attitudes of the black Africans, the black Rhodesians, it is perhaps encouraging to note that Mr. Nkomo has referred to the new British proposals (the document I have put in the Library) as being objective and valid.
4.11 p.m.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, with the advantage of hindsight, does it not appear that perhaps Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Richard have not been closely enough informed during these negotiations about the attitudes of the African nationalists in Rhodesia and, for that matter, of Mr. Smith and his Party? May I make a constructive suggestion to the Government? If there is the further chance of any kind of negotiation or settlement, the chances of success would be very much better if, despite everything that has happened, they could bring themselves to send a first-class diplomat—under any title one liked to give, such as, for example, diplomatic agent—to Salisbury, in order to keep in touch with the development of Mr. Smith's thoughts and of white and black opinion in Rhodesia. This would also keep Mr. Richard, if he continues the job, or certainly our own Secretary of State and Government, closely informed about developments—because without it one might reasonably doubt whether we could create opportunities or take advantage of them when they arise.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will certainly take note of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and so will my right honourable friend.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the interim council which is to take control of Rhodesia are not very similar to those
360
put forward by Mr. Mugabe and his faction? If that is so, it would appear that Her Majesty's Government are adopting his proposals and asking Mr. Smith to accept them or negotiate on something very close to them. In view of what Mr. Mugabe has said he will do in Rhodesia, surely it is not unreasonable for Mr. Smith to turn them down?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think I can be very helpful in discussing the details of a paper which perforce I have not been able to put to public use before today, and that includes the role of the council which has been raised by the noble Marquess. As to the motives and policy of Mr. Mugabe, he is one among a number who have a policy for Rhodesia. He is entitled to express his thoughts and to join in general discussion in conference. Beyond that, I would not describe Mr. Mugabe's rights or future actions.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, all of us must deeply deplore the breakdown of these negotiations. I think we must be terribly fearful of what is going to happen in Southern Africa, which includes not merely Rhodesia but Namibia and the Republic itself, with the appalling prospect of violent struggle hanging over the whole area. I want to express my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he said that the statement made by Mr. Ian Smith, accepting majority rule in two years, was quite momentous. The difficulty is this: in previous negotiations Mr. Smith has made statements which have been subsequently disavowed in later negotiations. I should like to make a particular appeal to my African friends. They may react violently in this situation: I hope they will not do so. I hope they will take the view, with Her Majesty's Government, that one has to sit back and consider.
May I also make this constructive proposal: that Her Majesty's Government should immediately ask the Security Council of the United Nations to discuss this situation as being one which carries a danger of war, and to seek to bring together all the elements involved with a view to reaching a solution.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the second point raised by my

361
noble friend, I think it would be premature to consider steps of that kind; but I welcome very much what he has said about the need for his African friends—and they are friends of all of us—to cool it and to look to the future of their country in a rational spirit of co-operation, looking to an early resumption of conference. My noble friend has referred to his African friends. I hope his appeal reaches them and is listened to by them, because my noble friend is one of the very best friends they have had for many years.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to an article in The Times newspaper today by Mr. David Spanier, the diplomatic correspondent at Geneva, in which he states quite categorically that it was not so much Mr. Smith who insisted that the Kissinger proposals were a package, but Dr. Kissinger himself, who made it a condition that they were not negotiable and that the whole package had to be either taken or left? I do not know whether the noble Lord can categorically deny what The Times correspondent said; but in any case would it not be more useful, if we really desire a settlement with the Rhodesian people rather than with the so-called Front Line Presidents, to take up the Kissinger proposals again and start off from there?
Perhaps that would be unacceptable to the Front Line Presidents, but may I ask the noble Lord what exactly is their locus standi in this affair? Why should they have more influence on what goes on in Rhodesia than, say, Her Majesty's Government should have in what goes on in France or Germany? Surely the people we have to negotiate with are the Rhode-sians, black and white, and not with these so-called Front Line Presidents, some of whom we know to be Marxist-directed and Marxist-oriented.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the people we have to consider and principally negotiate with are the people of Rhodesia, and I gladly join in describing them as black and white Rhodesians, and indeed Rhodesians of other colours as well. However, Rhodesia is surrounded by other countries which have a natural interest in its future. My noble friend Lord Brockway pointed to the appalling
362
consequences of failure to achieve a settlement in Rhodesia for the whole of Southern and Central Africa. Therefore, the South African Prime Minister and the so-called Front Line Presidents have a natural interest in what happens, so it is right that we should consult and even negotiate with them. As to his reference to The Times—I always read Mr. Spanier's contributions, with great respect—I have not had time to evaluate his article of today, although I have had time to evaluate the leading article which I found very fair to the role of Her Majesty's Government in all this.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that we have had a good innings on this, but I will allow one noble Lord to ask the last question.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for this opportunity. As an old negotiator, may I ask whether we can escape the conclusion that we have sent Mr. Richard naked into the negotiating chamber? The strength of Dr. Kissinger was his military and commercial power arising from the strength of the USA itself. If this is the case, can we not, with all our experience of the Colonies and the Commonwealth, and with all the trust which they have in us, approach Mr. Carter, who is as yet undeclared on this problem, and get a collaboration with the USA that will put behind Mr. Richard the strength that Dr. Kissinger had? In this way, we would get a common sense solution of this problem, based on the experience of this country in dealing with these other countries, on the trust that they have in us and on the strength of the United States?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have referred to the very helpful and constructive attitude of the Government of the United States—that of the Administration of President Ford, and I have absolutely no doubt of that of President Carter—and I welcome my noble friend's reference to that. In support of everybody's attempt to keep this matter cool, may I say that my noble friend's reference to sending Mr. Richard naked into the conference chamber summons up visions of quite extraordinary vividness, knowing him as well

363
as I do. May I close on this note? Like those who preceded Mr. Richard in the search for a solution of this problem, he has aplied himself, his considerable intellect and his complete integrity, in an admirable way and I am sure it is right that the whole House, whatever one thinks of the course of the negotiations, should express its appreciation of his efforts to achieve a solution.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.22 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("if solemnised—

(a) in Scotland; or

(b) at a time when either party is domiciled in Scotland.").

The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment designed to make it expressly clear that a person who is domiciled in Scotland cannot contract a valid marriage, either in Scotland or elsewhere, with anyone to whom he is related within any of the forbidden degrees and brings it into line with the formula used in Clause 1. It reflects in statutory terms what is the common law rule of private international law. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this section a degree of relationship exists—

(a) in the case of a degree specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act, whether it is of the full blood or the half blood; and

(b) in the case of a degree specified in paragraph 1 or 2 of the said Schedule, even where traced through or to any person of illegitimate birth.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person is related to another person in a degree not specified in Schedule 1 to this Act that degree of relationship shall not bar a valid marriage between them; but this section does not affect any rule of law that a marriage may not be contracted between persons either of whom is married to a third person.").
The noble Lord said: I formally move this Amendment, which we have already discussed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Notice of intention to marry]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 11 en bloc:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("or").
Page 2,line 12, at end insert—
(";
(c) in any case where a certificate is required under subsection (5) below, that certificate.").
Page 2,line 20, leave out ("or subsection (5) below").
Page 2,line 30, leave out ("foregoing") and insert ("other").
Page 2,line 31, leave out ("Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section,").
Page 2,line 33, leave out ("shall, if practicable, submit to the district registrar") and insert ("is required, if practicable, to submit under subsection (1)(c) above").
Page 2,line 37, leave out from ("marry") to end of line 45 and insert—
(":
Provided that such a party—

(i) may, where under the law of the state in which he is domiciled his personal law is that of another foreign state, submit in lieu of the said certificate a like certificate issued by a competent authority in that other state;

(ii) need not submit a certificate under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above if he has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a period of two or more years immediately before the date on which he submits a marriage notice under that sub section in respect of the said marriage.").

The noble Lord said: I think it will be for your Lordships' convenience if we discuss Amendments Nos. 5 to 11 en bloc. Ideally, these Amendments should be taken together. They include a number of drafting Amendments, to make it clear that the certificate of freedom to marry is to be produced at the same time as notice of marriage is given to the registrar. They also cater for the situation where a party intending marriage, though domiciled in one country outside the United Kingdom, may be a national of another such country; in such a case the Amendment allows production of a certificate issued by the second country. That is Amendment No. 5.
On the first point, it is intended that when notice of marriage is submitted by a foreign person—that is, someone domiciled outside the United Kingdom—it should, unless he has lived in Scotland for two years or more, be accompanied by the certificate of freedom to marry

365
provided for in Clause 3(5), just as notices of marriage are to be accompanied by birth certificates or other documents under Clause 3(1); production of the certificate is thus an integral part of the legal requirements of giving notice of marriage. The present wording of Clause 3(5) does not make this clear; hence the new paragraph (c) of subsection (1). The reason for seeking to link the certificate with the notice of marrige is to give the registrar the maximum amount of time to consider the certificate, or any reason advanced for its non-production.
On the second point, the Amendments take account of complications which arise from the different legal criteria applied in different countries to determine to what personal law a person is subject. In the United Kingdom, the rule is that a person's domicile determines what is his personal law. Other countries, however, apply nationality as the determining factor. The present subsection requires a person domiciled in a foreign country to produce a certificate from that country; but that country—for example, France—applying the test of nationality, would hold that it was not competent to provide such a certificate for an Italian national on the basis of his domicile in France. In such a case, the first paragraph of the priviso to Clause 3(5) would enable the submission of a certificate issued by the other State—in this case Italy—being the State of his personal law. I think that that explains the position in regard to these Amendments, and I do not think I can usefully add to what I have said. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): Is the noble Lord asking that these Amendments should be moved en bloc?
Lord KIRKHILL: It appeared to me to be a very convenient way of dealing with them. But if there are those who feel otherwise, I will move them singly.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Objections to marriage]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.28 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to raise some points on Clause 5 stand part. I gave some notice to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that I would raise them, but I do not necessarily expect him to be able to give a full reply today, because I shall be raising some far-reaching matters. This Bill will abolish the reading of banns in church, which give an opportunity for objections to be raised to a marriage, and it introduces a new system whereby registrars will have to consider whether or not there is an impediment to a marriage. Obviously, there are the clear objections to a marriage—that is, the discovery that one of the parties is already married, even though he may not think he is, because of some divorce proceedings not being valid; or the fact that one of the parties is under age—and these are dealt with in the Bill. But then there is one paragraph which deals with other grounds for objection to a marriage. That is short and vague and is paragraph (e) of subsection (3), near the top of page 4, which states:
"a ground other than one mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) above, where the district registrar is of the opinion that the objection if substantiated might constitute a fundamental objection to the marriage."
So that provision gives the registrar discretion, in his opinion. Then it says that it "might constitute", lot that it necessarily would constitute. So it is vague. We have no indication in the Bill of the kind of objections which the Government have in mind.
Then there is an unexplained gap, because the immediately following subsection (4) begins:
"If the Registrar General is satisfied…that there is a legal impediment to the marriage…".
So we have jumped straight from what might be an objection to a legal impediment to the marriage. Subsection (3)(e) is the district registrar and subsection (4), from which I have just quoted, is the Registrar General. But there appears, anyway to this layman, to be an unexplained gap because there is a great difference between a ground which, in the opinion of the district registrar, might be a fundamental objection and a legal impediment. If there is no legal impediment, then the Registrar General informs the district registrar. As I say, there is

367
nothing in the Bill to guide the Registrar General or the district registrar in a situation where there is no legal impediment but where there is an objection which could be fundamental. I am seeking, therefore, some description of what happens if a district registrar finds a ground for objection under paragraph (e) of subsection (3).
May I give an example which I think is the one that is most likely to arise; that is, in the medical field. The only reference in the Bill to medical matters and possible impediments or objections to marriage is to be found in subsection (4)(d); that is, in the paragraph at the top of page 4. There it is said that it is an objection to marriage if there is a doctor's certificate, but the doctor's certificate is to establish only that a person is of sound enough mind to understand the nature of the ceremony and what marriage is about. Consequently, that paragraph will cater for those unfortunate people who are so mentally retarded that they should not marry at all; it deals simply with gross idiocy. This is the only part of the Bill that refers to any medical objections. It deals with gross idiocy but not with mental illness. It is not clear whether there are any medical circumstances contemplated as falling within paragraph (e) of subsection (3)—that is to say, grounds other than those which have been enumerated in the earlier paragraphs.
If we turn to the report of the Kilbrandon Committee upon which this Bill is based, we see that the Committee recognised that medical conditions, probably unknown to the person concerned at the time, could cause unsatisfactory and unhappy marriages. The Scottish Marriage Guidance Council suggested in its evidence, which is at Appendix 4 of the report, that there should be a National Health Service medical examination on a voluntary basis before marriage to find out whether there was mental illness and what the Council described as "other barriers to marriage". In their evidence the Marriage Guidance Council appears to accept that some mental illness can be a barrier to marriage. The Kilbrandon Committee supported in paragraph 44 of their report the principle of a medical
368
examination as a sensible step, but it did not propose that it should be compulsory. I agree straight away. I do not think that there is any question of a medical examination being made compulsory but, as the Kilbrandon Committee recommended, it is advisable.
Physical conditions which may wreck a marriage are easier to deal with than mental conditions. Usually they are known to the person concerned. But what does the district registrar do if he receives an objection, probably from a parent of one of the parties proposing marriage, that is based upon serious mental illness which is then fully substantiated by the appropriate specialist doctors? This is a subject which needs investigation now in a way which was not necessary when change and reform of the marriage laws was considered in the past. The reason is that in the last 20 years there have been great advances by the medical profession in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. With much more authority doctors can now certify that there is hereditary mental illness, although it may not necessarily afflict each and every descendent in every case. The danger can, however, clearly be seen nowadays and a warning can be given.
Further, we come to treatment. Many sufferers who, in the past, would have had to be in institutions are now able to lead a fairly normal life in the community in protected environments. This is possible with tablets, treatment and medical supervision. The young people whom I have come across in this situation deserve encouragement as well as sympathy, but who is to say whether they should marry? Can they marry if they agree not to have children? These are extremely difficult sociological problems which affect the community and individual freedom; and they are comparatively new, as I have said, because of the very welcome advances which have been made in the medical field. The Bill gives us no guidance. It is a complete blank on any medical grounds other than gross idiocy.
May I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have any views upon this problem: whether it is their proposal that it should be left to the discretion of registrars to cope with the situations which arise in their areas in the light of

369
the individual circumstances of each case, or whether the Government have simply overlooked these problems in reforming the legislation because they were less evident, less frequent, and less pressing in the past when reform was being carried out and, therefore, were not previously catered for in the marriage laws of Scotland.
To sum up, I have drawn the attention of the Committee to what I believe is a gap between paragraph (e) of subsection (3) and the following subsection (4) and I have given an example of difficult problems which will arise that will need Parliamentary discussion. If the noble Lord cannot say very much at this stage I will understand completely and I shall hope that he will be able to give us some answers at the Report stage.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I ask the noble Lord one question. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that this clause would abolish, if I am not using too strong a word, banns being read in church when people wish to get married. I realise that this does not happen if people wish to get married in a registry office. May I ask the noble Lord what this clause intends with regard to people who wish their banns to be read in church, as they have been read for centuries'? Would the clause alter the situation? If it would, that would be regrettable.
4.40 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, very kindly gave me advance notice that he would touch and, indeed, more than touch, that is, discuss in some detail matters of considerable and wide-ranging import. I think it would be for the interests of the Committee if I were to outline in general terms the thinking of the Government in regard to Clause 5. It should be understood that, apart altogether from what is said in Clause 5, the registrar has the duty in every case of satisfying himself that there is no legal impediment to a marriage before he grants facilities to marry by completing the Marriage Schedule. Clause 5 deals only with cases where a member of the public lodges an objection on any of the grounds specified in that clause. Registrars will be instructed that they are not permitted
370
to refuse facilities to marry to any person except with the authority of the Registrar General and this will apply particularly where an objection is submitted by a member of the public under Clause 5. Subsection (2)(a) makes it clear that where the registrar receives an objection on any of the grounds specified in subsection (3) he shall immediately notify the Registrar General. In accordance with subsection (4), it is the latter who will decide whether the objection does or does not constitute a legal impediment to the marriage. So far, therefore, there is no real area of discretion open to the registrar.
Two questions then arise about subsection (3)(e)—a subsection to which particular attention has been paid by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his recent remarks. First, why is the wording so generalised, and, secondly, why should it be the registrar's opinion as to the possibly fundamental nature of an objection that determines whether or not he refers the objection under subsection (3)(e) to the Registrar General? This is another question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
On the first point, subsection (3)(e) is included primarily to cover the situation where, although a proposed marriage conforms with the formal and substantive requirements of Scots law, it would be void under the laws of another country to which at least one of the parties was subject. There is no point in allowing foreigners to proceed with a marriage ceremony if the marriage would be void ab initio under the laws of their own country. District registrars, however, can hardly be expected to have sufficient knowledge of the laws of other countries to be able to determine such matters with confidence; the subsection enables them, if an objection on such grounds is lodged and if they think it may be justified, to notify the Registrar General for advice and to suspend proceedings. The general wording of the subsection also acts as a "catch-all" provision. For example, it would cover the (unlikely but not impossible) situation of an objection lodged on the ground that both parties to an intended marriage were males (or females).
On the second point, the district registrar will not in practice have any real area of discretion. If an. Objection

371
is lodged with him on a ground other than those at subsection (3) paragraphs (a) to (d), and if he is not of the opinion that it might, if substantiated, constitute a fundamental objection to the marriage (as at subsection (3)(e)), it will fall to be dealt with by him in accordance with paragraph (5). In other words, he will have to notify the parties, make appropriate inquiries and, if the result means that any change or correction to any marriage document is necessary, for example, because of wrong names or ages given, he will notify the Registrar General to obtain his approval. If, of course, the outcome of the registrar's inquiries gave him any cause to believe that there was, or might be, a fundamental objection, he would then deal with it under subsection (3)(e) and would refer it to the Registrar General.
It is not the case, therefore, that the district registrar will be invested with wide discretion to accept or reject objections or otherwise to grant or refuse facilities to marry. I am advised that objections are very rare and so is refusal of facilities to marry. I think it would be fair to say that registrars do not act arbitrarily: they work under the direction and instruction of the Registrar General, and noble Lords may be assured that no registrar would refuse facilities to marry as a result of an objection without first consulting the Registrar General and being guided by him.
The various legal impediments to marriage in Scotland are set out clearly in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (3). Perhaps at this point I might mention the question posed to me in the latter stages of the remarks made to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. It is certainly not the intention of the Government, within the confines of this Bill, to extend the present known and clearly enunciated legal impediments to marriage. I must emphasise that point. The last of the legal impediments, under subsection (3)(b) is that one or both of the parties is or are incapable of understanding the nature of a marriage ceremony or of consenting to marriage. It is important to note the very limited nature of this impediment—and hence the limited nature of the objection that may be taken into account. Such matters as mental illness, mental
372
disturbance, mental backwardness or other genetic defects are not in themselves under Scots law legal impediments, and the clause does not provide for objections on those grounds. The text is the comparatively narrow one of whether the person or persons concerned can understand what is meant by marriage and can knowingly consent to enter into marriage.
It is indeed true, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, that striking advances in psychiatric knowledge and in the treatment of mental illness have taken place in recent years; and these advances may well enable mentally afflicted persons to enter into marriage. The Bill will not prevent this: in this respect it will apply only the limited test which I have already mentioned. It would be a new and, in the view of the Government, a very serious departure if we were to seek to forbid marriages on genetic grounds, however ill advised an individual marriage might appear to be in this respect. This is not a feature of the Bill which, therefore, does more than adopt the recommendation of the Kilbrandon Committee.
I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his submission when he spoke about subsection (3)(e) and I acknowledge that the subsection is widely drawn. Therefore I give the noble Lord an undertaking to give this matter some further thought. Whether it will be possible for me to come back to your Lordships' House with subsection (3)(e) redrafted in a rather different manner, or whether the point will have to stand over for consideration in another place, is something to which I shall have to give further thought. At least the noble Lord has my assurance that we will take into account very seriously the comments that he has made this afternoon.
With regard to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, this particular clause does not in any way prevent the proclamation of banns being read.
4.49 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having told us how the Government see the operation of this clause. First I should like to comment on what he has just said to my noble friend Lady Elliot

373
of Harwood, because the point I was making was that the effect of this Bill is that the system of reading out banns disappears if they can be read out but it is not necessary for them to be read out.
Lord KIRKHILL: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, asked me whether banns could no longer be read out. The fact is that they can be read out if it is so wished.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Simply in order to avoid misunderstandings, I wanted to be clear. The problem arises because a new system is being substituted for the old system of reading banns in church. But that does not mean that if people want notices to be read in church they should not be read. The actual system is now being changed so far as the official recognition of objections to marriages is concerned.
What the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has told us is that the operation of the clause will be to give the district registrar no discretion. I was glad to be told that. It is the way the Government see it working. He is simply a repository for objections and he denies facilities until the matter has been cleared up, but he is in fact only a post office for the Registrar General. So far as dealing with the objections is concerned, they go to the Registrar General; he is the person who has to decide whether there is a legal impediment to marriage.
There is still one point to which I must revert. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that paragraphs (a) to (d)—and in this he was confirming what I had earlier interpreted—include all the present legal impediments to marriage in Scotland. He then went on to say that it is not the Government's intention that any legal impediment should be added in this Bill. But we then have paragraph (e), which is the sweeping up paragraph, which then says that any other objections are none the less acceptable, even though all the main impediments are dealt with in paragraphs (a) to (d). Therefore, paragraph (e) I recognise as a sweeping up paragraph, but at present it looks as though there really is no matter which could be raised under paragraph (e) if it is not permissible to raise it under paragraphs (a) to (d).
374
It is, if I may describe it in cricketing terms, a long-stop paragraph. But it is a very long long-stop; the fielder is almost on the boundary. So that we still have this query—at least, I do in my mind—as to what other grounds there could be under paragraph (e) which could be translated by the Registrar General under subsection (4) as legal impediments if all legal impediments have been dealt with under paragraphs (a) to (d). I do not expect an immediate reply from the noble Lord, because he did kindly say that he would have another look at paragraph (e), and we shall at Report stage know more about it. I think the noble Lord was indicating that he wished to say something.
Lord KIRKHILL: I had conceded that paragraph (e) was rather widely drawn. I was going to make the observation that a fundamental objection is not necessarily a legal impediment, but, of course, it would be for the Registrar General's consideration.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think the answer is that probably paragraph (e) has been put in for safety reasons, to cover the unknown that might arise, and I am not against that in drafting if it is going to make the Bill 100 per cent. But naturally we have a curiosity, when we see such a provision in a Bill, to know what kind of thing it is intended to catch.
As I say, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord for having given us a statement at this stage. It is quite clear that medical grounds, other than those which might happen to be caught in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), are not in themselves regarded as a legal impediment, or in fact an objection or a barrier to a marriage where legislation is concerned. In my earlier remarks I pointed out that certainly in its evidence the Marriage Guidance Council in Scotland suggested that certain illnesses, including certain mental illnesses, were a barrier to marriage. So that remains, but it is clear that the Government are not intending to cater for that in this Bill.
Lord FERRIER: If the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is that paragraph (e) should be very vague, I am reminded of an Indian lawyer's remark to me on one occasion that "if you want to be vague you must be very vague".
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [The Marriage Schedule]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: There is one point which has been raised by the Law Society of Scotland on the procedure which is proposed in the Bill. I think this is the moment when I ought to inform your Lordships' Committee about it. It may be that the noble Lord will wish to look into this and give your Lordships' House the answer at Report stage. Subsection (5) of Clause 6 states that a Marriage Schedule issued under the clause shall be valid only in respect of a marriage to be solemnised on the date and at the place specified in the Schedule. But the clause is silent on the question of the validity or otherwise of a marriage solemnised on another date at another place. That is the first point.
In other clauses; namely, Clause 4(1), Clause 7(2), Clause 19(1) and subsection (4) of this clause, Clause 6, the Bill deals with the question of the dates of receipt by the district registrar of a marriage notice or approved certificate and the issue by him of a Marriage Schedule. In the case of an approved certificate, the date of receipt to be entered in the marriage notice book by the registrar, "shall be the date fourteen days before the actual date of such receipt". This could produce the curious result under subsection (4) of this clause of the registrar issuing in certain circumstances a Marriage Schedule (in the case of an approved certificate) before he had actually received the certificate. Similarly, under Clause 19(1) it would appear that a registrar could in certain circumstances solemnise a marriage before actual receipt of an approved certificate.
I received these points only in the last few hours from The Law Society, who have been working under some pressure, like the noble Lord, with the many comments that have been made on this Bill. I thought this was the moment when I should point out this difficulty about procedure which they see, and enable the Government to look into it.
Lord KIRKHILL: These are points of detail to which I shall certainly give my
376
consideration. I am unable, of course, to respond at this stage.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Marriage outside Scotland where a party resides in Scotland.]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 10, after ("3(1)") insert ("(a) and (b)").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments made to Clause 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Persons who may solemnise marriage.]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): The noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, is not moving the Amendment on the Marshalled List, but is moving a Manuscript Amendment in lieu.
4.57 p.m.
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY moved the following Manuscript Amendment in substitution for Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) a minister of the established Church of Scotland; or").
The noble Lord said: I regret that I have had to suggest this addition. I was under the impression that it appeared in the original, but that may have been my fault; I appreciate the action of Her Majesty's Government in putting out a cyclostyle so that people may understand the Amendment, which is of some importance. It in fact reads:
"a minister of the established Church of Scotland or a minister, clergyman, pastor…"
and so on to the end of the paragraph. However, right at the end of this very short speech I shall be repeating it in the light of what I am explaining. I thought the Amendment was in the original document I produced, and I apologise that it does not seem to be so.
I have two declaratory words: first of all, I want to make a personal statement, that I am a minister of the Established Church of Scotland, which is to declare an

377
interest; and, secondly, that I have in my hands a communication from the Administration Committee of the Church of Scotland, who have examined the Bill in its present form. They asked me to say that with one exception they not only accept its contents but are preparing a "Declaratory Act" for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May to bring the Church's regulations into line with certain of the contents of this Bill. They have already communicated, both to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Registrar General, what they intend to do.
The one exception is what brings me to my feet. It is the total absence of any reference to the Established Church of Scotland in the present Bill. This is not simply a technicality. In what might be called the last relevant Act of parallel content to this Bill for England—namely, the Bill enacted in 1949—there are no fewer than ten pages devoted entirely to the implications of the marriage law for the Established Church of England. Only then does the 1949 Act proceed to other and non-conformist denominations comparable to the clauses that are before us. However, in this Bill the Established Church of Scotland is not mentioned at all. The Established Church of Scotland is merged with other Christian non-conformist denominations, and thus becomes subject to regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State, as is stated in Clause 8.
Everyone present knows that the Established Church of England is Episcopalian and that the Established Church of Scotland is Presbyterian. Everyone knows that the constitutional relationship of the Sovereign to the Church of England is well declared and that there is a constitutional relationship between the Sovereign and the Established Church of Scotland. Indeed, its General Assembly cannot convene without the authority of the Crown. In this Jubilee year Her Majesty has graciously consented to be present in person on the throne at the opening of our General Assembly in May. Everyone here knows that when the Sovereign cannot be present the Lord High Commissioner represents her and lives at Holyrood while the Assembly is in session. Again, the Sovereign is constitutionally identified with the Church of England while in England and she is constitutionally identified with
378
the Presbyterian Church in Scotland because, for instance, she attends the Presbyterian parish church at Balmoral at Craithie.
The only royal chaplains in Scotland are drawn from the ministry of the Church of Scotland. The numerical memberships of Churches are notoriously difficult to compare because of different interpretations of what constitutes membership. However, if Whitaker's Almanac is correct the population of England is around 44 million, while the Church of England seems to claim as members around 4 million or one in every 11 persons. In parallel, if Whitaker's Almanac is still correct, there are about 5 million people in Scotland and the recorded membership of the Church of Scotland is around 1 million. That indicates that one in every five persons is a member of the Church of Scotland. I quote these figures not for their own sake but lest anyone imagines that the Established Church of Scotland is a dwindling historic remnant when it has by far the largest membership in Scotland.
As the Bill stands the Church of Scotland is equated with non-conformist counterparts. Its unique establishment is as it had never been. Is it really the Government's intention, for this is how the Bill seems to read, that the Sovereign should convene the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as the national Church, but that the Secretary of State for Scotland will then decide to make regulations as to its status as a suitable body to conduct marriages? The Established Church of Scotland is not asking that 10 pages of the Bill should be devoted to the exact relationship between Church and State in Scotland in this matter. It is simply by my Amendment asking that it be recognised as a suitable body—right now—to conduct marriages by reason of its already established status. I therefore move that Clause 8 should read—and this includes the last Amendment:
"A marriage may be solemnised by and only —
(a) a person who is—
(i) a minister of the established Church of Scotland or a minister, clergyman, pastor or priest of such religious body as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
I beg to move.
5.6 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary. I found it hard to understand quite how this clause came to be drafted at all. Apart from questions of forbidden degrees, we are dealing primarily with facilities for minor religious bodies, particularly non-indigenous bodies—Sikhs, Moslems and others—for which arrangements can be made. However, here we are delegating from the major Christian religions which exist in Scotland.
There was a time in this country when only one religion was permitted. It existed before the Reformation and after the Reformation, when the only Church was the kirk. At the end of the 17th century ideas of tolerance began to filter through. In 1711 the Episcopalians received statutory rights to conduct marriages, as subsequently did the Roman Catholics, in 1834. Churches are wholly dependent on the goodwill of the Secretary of State as to whether or not they are allowed to conduct religious marriages at all.
I do not understand the purpose of this. I do not like to suggest this, but is it really simply bureaucratic convenience, because we are taking from the well known Churches a right that many of them have had, particularly the Church of Scotland, for a very long time? It is really a little more serious. In the first place, whatever is prescribed—and I refer to Clauses 25 and 26—does not even come before Parliament. Parliament had no say in what was or what was not prescribed.
We have learned today from a Cabinet Minister that in the Labout Party there are, and have been for a long time, Marxists. A number of people think that religion is a sort of opiate to the people. I dare say that that view is sincerely held. They may and probably do genuinely believe that religion is an evil influence on the life of people. They might very well refuse to prescribe any religion to conduct a religious marriage. They might even go further than that—they might bargain with one of the religious bodies on whether or not they should be allowed to conduct religious marriages.
380
This is not a Bill to last simply for five or six years; it may be on the Statute Book for hundreds of years hence. This is a subject which indubitably will be devolved in the event of the Bill in the other place being passed. If that is the case we do not have the faintest notion who would be responsible for prescribing who is competent to conduct religious marriages. Religious marriages are very important. We complain a great deal about divorce and I believe that a sounder foundation for a lasting marriage is found in a church rather than outside it. I do not have statistics to prove that, but I believe that they would. It is of the utmost importance that recognition should be given in the Bill to the Established Church on grounds which the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod, has admirably explained. I do not understand why this clause has been drafted in the way it has. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will explain that. I very much hope he will agree that there is a case which requires answering. We expect the Government to answer it.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. It seems quite extraordinary that any one should have drafted a marriage Bill for Scotland without specially mentioning the established Church of Scotland. There are two things which I remember very clearly. At the time of the Coronation (this applies at any Coronation, but it happened at the last Coronation) I remember that my husband, who was present, said that the first oath that the King and Queen took was loyalty to the Established Church of Scotland. Curiously enough that comes before anything else.
Of course there are other denominations, but the Established Church of Scotland is something which takes precedence over everything else in legal and other matters in connection with marriage. If we just leave "a minister" like that it might mean any minister at all. The word "minister" means many other things besides a parson or a minister of the Church of Scotland. I think it would greatly improve the Bill and respond to what I am quite sure everyone in Scotland would look for that there should be as a first authority the

381
words which the noble Lord has put into his Amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept this proposal because there does not seem to be any reason on earth why he should not. If you want to put in all the others—and I have no objection to their being put in—they can come in second, but the Church of Scotland is the most important religious organisation in Scotland today.
I had the experience of being at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland when my husband was the Lord High Commissioner, and there is no question at all that if the Lord High Commissioner did not open the Assembly, the Assembly would not open at all. He had the authority from the Queen to open the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It was a direct order from the Monarch. I do not think that that happens in other Churches—although it may—but in Scotland it is absolutely essential, it is vital, it is part of the law of the land. To leave it out in a Bill like this seems to me either to show an extraordinary historical ignorance on the part of the people drafting the Bill, or to be a very unfortunate slip-up which would cause a great deal of distress in Scotland. I am quite sure that the Minister who, like me, is no doubt a member of the Church of Scotland and also lives in Scotland, would not want that. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, which seems to me to be in every way correct.
Lord BALERNO: Like my noble friend Lady Elliot, I too was astounded when I discovered that the Church of Scotland had been omitted in the drafting of this Bill. It would have been understandable if the Bill had been drafted here in London, but assuming that the Bill was drafted in Scotland it is quite astonishing that those who are responsible for drafting it were unaware of the specific position of the Church of Scotland as the Established Church in Scotland. I think that the second oath that the Monarch takes on accession is to preserve the rights of the Church of Scotland, and this oath is more or less repeated at the Coronation ceremony. We are the Established Church, and we have been responsible primarily for the marriage ceremony and for the whole business of marriage, one might say, in Scotland over the
382
centuries, except for that peculiar type of marriage which partially flourished at Gretna Green, which was marriage by mutual consent.
It would be wrong to fail to emphasise the ancient position of the Church of Scotland in this matter and fail to encourage the solemnisation of matrimony and, thereby, one hopes to reduce, as my noble friend Lady Elliot said, the amount of consequent divorces; and I hope that the Government will take another look at this point. If they do not accept the Amendment they are in for a mighty lot of trouble. The correspondence columns of the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald will almost switch from devolution to this insult to the General Assembly—which may be a good thing for them to do.
I have one footnote to add. Two of my noble friends have stated that the Monarch, either directly or indirectly through the Lord High Commissioner, opens the General Assembly. The Monarch is not allowed to close the General Assembly. That was a battle that was fought long ago, so that if necessary the General Assembly could go on despite the Monarch's desire to close its mouth.
Lord FERRIER: I would go all the way with what has been said in support of Lord MacLeod's Amendment, and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about it. Though a member of the Church of Scotland, my first impression when I saw the Bill was one of surprise that the two Churches which my noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned were not included as well. There may be technical difficulties about that.
From the point of view of a communicant, I should like the Church of Rome and the Episcopal Church also to feature, but I am not in any way detracting from the importance of what has been said about the Church of Scotland. I would refer to the words of the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod, when he mentioned the wording of the clause, and I look forward to what my noble friend Lord Selkirk will say when he moves the next Amendment, to alter the word "may" to "shall".
5.18 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: As I think your Lordships will know, where possible from the Government's point of view, I attempt to take on board for reconsideration matters debated in your Lordships' House, but I should say in response to the noble Lord. Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, that in this case the Government have to resist his Amendment. The Bill as it stands puts religious denominations into two groups: those in the regulations who are exempted from the requirement to nominate their celebrants for registration—and the Church of Scotland falls into this category of course—and those who would make these nominations.
But this division does not imply any judgment on the credit or the merit of particular religious bodies. It is not made because any are thought to be better or more eminent than others, and it should not be so construed. It is a strictly practical division for practical purposes involving the celebrants themselves and the registrars who complete and issue the Marriage Schedules. No difficulty arises for the registrars in being sure that individual ministers or priests are qualified and entitled to solemnise marriages where these clergymen belong to the main, long-established denominations and hold permanent charges in the locality. Registration of these clergymen, who are usually trained and ordained, is theoretically possible, but in the Government's view would serve no useful purpose.
Experience has shown, however, that problems can arise with other denominations, many of which are smaller and some of which are less firmly established, sometimes even transitory, often with lay celebrants and sometimes with itinerant preachers. It is largely to deal with this situation that there has grown up the existing practice under which, to the satisfaction I understand of all concerned, a considerable number of denominations keep the Registrar General informed of the names of their celebrants so that he in turn can keep local registrars notified of those whom they can accept in completing the marriage schedules as entitled to solemnised marriages.
The Bill gives statutory backing to this system which has grown up and which the smaller sects themselves find convenient.
384
In the Government view it would be unfortunate if it were thought that the division of religious bodies into two categories meant any more than that. The Amendment, however, goes further. Its effect would be to create three categories; the single Church mentioned in the Bill, those to be listed in regulations and those which will nominate celebrants. It is surely questionable whether such detailed categorisation as is implied by the Amendment would, in these ecumenical times, be desirable or well-advised. I might say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that the Government feel that balance should be maintained in the Bill; that one Church should not be derogated as against another. For this reason, the Government seek to resist the inclusion specifically and mention solely of the Church of Scotland in the Bill.
Certainly the Church of Scotland has made representations to the Government exactly in line with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, in his earlier remarks. Unquestionably the Church of Scotland, as the national Church, feels that specific mention should be made of it. But the fact that this claim has been advanced is, in the view of the Government, one more difficulty in a territory which is most involved. Accordingly, we do not view the Amendment with any enthusiasm, nor the three-tier arrangement which, if the Amendment were carried, would be introduced and which it seems to the Government would be unnecessary and inconsistent with what is essentially the limited and practical purpose which lies behind the clause. The Government therefore resist the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Perhaps I might add a comment from this Bench. The noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, has raised an important matter on which there will be a great deal of scrutiny in Scotland. It will not just be the heir-archies of the Church; many members of the Church of Scotland will be following this debate and perhaps any later debate on the subject. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk pointed out, the law at present clearly permits three Churches to conduct marriages in Scotland—the Church of Scotland, the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic

385
Church—and, as we have just completed a week designated Christian Unity Week, it would have been appropriate if all three could have been mentioned in the Bill. It was a surprise to find that not even the Church of Scotland, the established Church, was mentioned in it, and that is strange for the reasons that have been advanced by noble Lords on both sides of the Committee.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, that this matter needs further thought. In principle, I support his objective, but he has produced a manuscript Amendment at short notice and, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said, I think that further consideration by everybody is needed. I hope that between now and Report we will be able to find a form of words which will meet the Amendment and be satisfactory to the Government, and I will try to do this in the days ahead. I hope that the matter will not be pressed and closed today because we did not have notice of the matter and time in which to look at the actual words of the Amendment. This subject deserves further thought following this initial debate.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I hope the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, will accept the invitation of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, gave what I thought was an extraordinary and astonishing answer. He started by saying that it would not create difficulty for the Registrar General, and that is the point; that is the first rule to emerge from the argument. He went on to say that he was not degrading any church, but three churches which have the right to marry by Statute and which are named by Statute are taken out. What the noble Lord said will in no way enhance the standard of religion and I urge him to look at this matter again and to do so rather better. He pinned his argument on how this proposal would look in comparison with the next provision in the Bill which deals with other religious bodies; that it would be rather easier to deal with that subject if this Amendment were not made. I hope the noble Lord will look at the matter again.
Lord KIRKHILL: The spirit of ecumenism seems to be more apparent in
386
Government Departments than perhaps among the Churches themselves.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: It is not so much the ecumenical spirit which we appreciate but the history of the matter with which we are dealing. This has been going on for centuries and for somebody in 1977 to produce a Bill which ignores all the historical association of the Monarch, the people and the Church of Scotland seems incredible. I hope very much that while the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, may not press this matter today, it will be raised again on Report, when noble Lords will vote on it, and I hope they will vote strongly.
Lord BALERNO: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I cannot understand his ecumenical argument, which I thought very superficial. I have served for many years on the Interchurch Relations Committee of the Church of Scotland, where we have had much communication and fellowship with the other churches. I have served for many years on the British Council of Churches and I have been vice-president of that Council. Never throughout those years in any discussions have I heard any of the other Churches with which we are in conversation and discussion object to the Established Church of Scotland and, in Scotland, to the Church of Scotland taking a lead, just as when we meet in England it has almost always been under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The other Churches recognise that those are the two Churches in the United Kingdom which are by law established and to derogate from that in this Bill is, I assure Lord Kirkhill, just putting his neck in a noose.
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY: In the light of what has been said, with most of which I entirely agree, I will confine my remarks to the minimum. I, too, regret the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, gave. He referred to the difficulty there might be for the Government by reason of having three categories, one the Established Church in Scotland, the second the recognised denominations and the other, the third category. I invite him to look at the 1949 Act and the last time in England the marriage law was reviewed, when precisely those three categories were accepted, presumably without difficulty, by the Government, the Government now or

387
then; that is to say, as I said earlier, with ten pages of references entirely to the relationship between the Established Church of England and the Government in this matter. Then there come, as there come in this Bill, the other denominations that are recognised as denominations but not established, and thirdly the groups which must make special reference and inquiry. If the Government have any difficulty about that, they need only see what was done then, when there was no difficulty about the Established Church taking its place, and nobody referred to ecumenical disasters arising from it. It is simply a matter of sequence and of recognising a National Church.
However, in the light of what has been said and as we have already been informed that this Amendment cannot be accepted, provided it is understood that I shall bring it up at Report stage and shall raise not just the possibility of an ecumenical expression which might cause the largest possible difficulties, but simply on the grounds of the established nature of the Church of Scotland, possibly followed by something regarding the ecumenical situation, I shall withdraw the Amendment. I shall do so if it is understood by the Government that we shall bring the matter up at Report stage unless the Government do not wish it brought up at Report stage, in which case I shall have regretfully to press my Amendment as it stands. However, unless there is a categorical denial, I shall take it that it can be brought up at Report stage and I shall repeat, possibly in other words, the essential point that I have made.
Lord KIRKHILL: The Government cannot prevent any Member of your Lordships' House from bringing forward an Amendment at Report stage. The Government are of course making no statement as to their attitude to that prospective Amendment. I have stated the Government's attitude this afternoon.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Would the Government be prepared to consider or discuss this problem?
Lord KIRKHILL: The Government's position is as I have stated it this afternoon.
The LORD BISHOP of NORWICH: I wonder whether the noble Lord feels
388
that this is a matter that is even wider than the very great and important relationship between the established church in Scotland and the nation in Scotland. I know that it is a dangerous thing for a Bishop of the Church of England ever to enter into an argument over anything happening in Scotland. There is a long history of our heads being cut off at times. None the less, on a more serious note, it seems to me that at a time when the nation needs all the help, encouragement and strength that it can get from the witness to the Christian Church in every stratum and every area of the nation, it would be a disservice to the national interest and the national cause if anything were done to weaken organised religion, because organised religion is but the expression of the mood of the spirit and the breath of God breathing through the nation. Clearly, those who can speak with very much greater knowledge than I can from across the Border see the importance of this and I hope that it may not be inappropriate for a Bishop of the Church of England to support those who have spoken so strongly yet so clearly.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the Amendment?
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY: I beg leave to do so while giving notice that it will be brought up at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I should like to say that I shall not press it at this stage. In the event of the Church of Scotland not being mentioned, however, I regard it as essential that, whatever office is specified—whether it be the Secretary of State or the Chief Executive in Scotland—the holder shall be compelled by law to draw up such a list. It is in those terms that I move the Amendment but, unless anyone wishes to say anything about it, I shall withdraw it immediately. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: I had been going to say a great deal on this Amendment, running into several pages. It is really a question of whether the noble Earl would be satisfied if I gave an undertaking that I might be able to consider his point. We might perhaps find a more acceptable way and he could perhaps put down the Amendment again at Report stage. As the Government see the matter, these are difficult and troubled waters. The Government do not consider this to be straightforward or simplistic and they would certainly have to give very serious consideration to the form of words. However, the noble Earl has said that he will withdraw the Amendment and I certainly accept that withdrawal.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, but I do not think that he has quite grasped the point that I am making. It is this: it lies within the power of the Secretary of State to prevent religious marriages taking place at all. This is really the point that I am getting at. I have quoted the example of a Marxist Secretary of State who does not believe in marriage. If no Church is mentioned, an absolutely clear obligation must be put on the Secretary of State to draw up a list. That is what I am trying to achieve. Different words could be used; it could read, "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State". I have put in the simplest Amendment. But the point is that the Bill is taking away the statutory right of certain religious denominations to conduct marriages. One can see it in the Schedule. That is what worries me.
Lord KIRKHILL: In the light of the very forceful intervention of the noble Earl, I feel that I must make the Government's position clear. I am sorry to take up yet more of your Lordships' time but I think it necessary because the noble Earl has returned to this point to me informally on several occasions and before your Lordships' House.
In my view, the noble Earl is investing the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State with much greater significance than they are intended to carry. He has explained his belief that there is at present a specific statutory right to certain churches to solemnise religious marriages and that the Bill is
390
reducing, if not removing, this right by making it dependent on agreement by the Secretary of State to make these regulations. This is not so. First, the solemnisation of religious marriages does not depend on specific statutory authority of the kind he envisages, naming individual Churches; and, secondly, the regulations do not have the effect he imagines.
Very briefly, regular marriage was originally confined by law to marriages solemnised by ministers of the Established Church of Scotland. This was achieved rather by imposing penalties on ministers of other Churches than by authorising the Established Church itself (this being taken for granted); and, in any event, all the old Acts of the Scottish Parliament so providing have been repealed. Later, by an Act of 1711, the prohibition was relaxed for ministers of the Episcopal Church and in 1834 it was further relaxed for priests or ministers not of the Established Church. The current position is that religious marriages may be solemnised by a minister, clergyman, pastor or priest of any Christian denomination or according to the usages of the Society of Friends or of persons professing the Jewish faith. This general position is continued by the Bill but the right to solemnise religious marriages will be widened still further by the extension to non-Christian denominations. So the noble Earl is mistaken in believing that there exists at present a prescriptive statutory authorisation for individual denominations to solemnise marriages or that the Bill removes or weakens such an authorisation.
Nor it is correct to believe that any such authority is dependent on the whim of a Secretary of State who may decide not to make regulations prescribing religious bodies. The regulations do not themselves provide this authority. They are no more than a means of exempting some denominations from nominating their celebrants for registration by the Registrar General. As I have emphasised earlier this afternoon, this is a strictly practical question, introduced for practical purposes, involving the celebrants themselves and the registrars who complete and issue the Marriage Schedules. No difficulty arises for the registrars in being sure that individual ministers or priests are qualified and entitled to solemnise marriages where these clergymen

391
belong to the main, long-established denominations and hold permanent charges in the locality. I mentioned that earlier. Registration of these clergymen, who are usually trained and ordained, is theoretically possible but would serve no useful purpose. Experience has shown, however, that problems can arise with other denominations, many of which are smaller and some of which are less firmly established, and, as I was saying earlier, when we were discussing the previous Amendment, sometimes in fact transitory. It is largely to deal with this situation that the existing practice has grown up under which, to the satisfaction, so far as I know, of all concerned, a considerable number of denominations keep the Registrar General informed of the names of their celebrants so that he in turn can keep local registrars notified of those whom they can accept, in completing the Marriage Schedules, as entitled to solemnise marriages. This then is the practical reason for dividing religious bodies into two categories.
I now wish to turn briefly to the noble Earl's Amendment, although I appreciate that he has said that he will withdraw it. The significance of "shall" as compared with "may" has been argued on many occasions, and it is generally accepted that, where a continuing regulation-making duty is being placed on a Minister, it is "may" that should be used. I put it to the noble Earl, that to employ the Amendment "shall", while it is attractive at first sight, would raise such questions as: when must the power be exercised and within what time-limit? What happens if the power is not exercised, at all, or after a given time? What is to prevent the argument being advanced that, if the regulations are once made they can later be revoked with impunity, the terms of the Act having been complied with? This last doubt, in particular, suggests that the Amendment falls seriously short of achieving the noble Earl's intention. That is why I said earlier that the Government would be prepared, because of the noble Earl's intimation to withdraw the Amendment, to look at the form of words to see whether together we could reach an acceptable compromise.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation, but if I
392
tell him that it is not entirely clear I hope that he will not be offended. Of course he is repealing the 1711 Act and he is repealing the Act of 1834, and I do not know on what statutory ground. There is, for instance, the question of what would be the position if there was no such list. The noble Lord almost said that the whole of this could really come out and it would make no difference. I do not know whether or not the noble Lord means that, but it is very nearly what he is implying. He said that the right of carrying out marriages would still subsist. I will not continue this argument, but I am bound to say that I still think that two things are left in doubt. One is that the position of the Established Church is not mentioned and it should be, and secondly there is left in doubt what on earth the Secretary of State is going to do. On that subject nobody, except the Secretary of State, has any say. This matter does not come before Parliament; it comes before nobody. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord FERRIER: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to say that although I am not a lawyer—the noble Earl is—it occurs to me that the whole thing is so vague, as the noble Earl suggested; so are we overlooking the question of legal marriage being marriage in law if we have the word "may" instead of "shall"? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will address himself to the whole matter as I suggested in my speech on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary. The two references to this clause need to be taken together and a new approach made to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.44 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 41, at end insert (", or who is recognised by a religious body so prescribed as entitled to solemnise marriages on their behalf;").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to take account of the fact that there are persons entitled to solemnise marriages who cannot properly be described as ministers, clergymen, pastors or priests. These include, for example, deacons of the Roman Catholic Church who are not priests but whose duties may include the solemnisation of marriages;

393
and the religious beliefs of the Society of Friends are such that they do not have ministers, clergymen, pastors or priests who are set apart from the generality of their members as in other denominations. Existing legislation, however, enables marriages to be solemnised in Scotland according to the usages of the Society of Friends, the practice at the moment being for the Society to appoint "registering officers" who sign the Marriage Schedule in place of the celebrant. It is not proposed to disturb this rather unusual system, and the Amendment, therefore, broadens the description of those persons who may solemnise marriages in order to admit the Roman Catholic deacons and to admit the arrangements made by the Society.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Registration of nominated persons as celebrants]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Court of Session").
The noble Lord said: It might be convenient if with this Amendment we also discuss Amendment No. 18, which is a consequential one of mine and Amendment No. 20, which is another consequential one of mine and Amendment No. 19, which is a Government Amendment and which appears to come some way to meet the point that I am making. If that is convenient to the noble Lord, we can have the debate now and take the decision on Amendment No. 19 when we reach it.
Lord KIRKHILL: I was not proposing to take Amendment No. 19, but if the noble Lord feels that this is suitable then I am not objecting.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: It might shorten our debates. Amendment No. 16, which I now move, proposes to make a change in Clause 9 where at present it is suggested that where a nominee for registration is entitled to solemnise marriages is rejected by the Registrar General, the body may within 28 days afterwards appeal to the Secretary of State. In my opinion it would be more appropriate for that appeal to be made to the Court of
394
Session, so that it is a decision by a court rather than by the Executive and a Minister. I see in the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has tabled, Amendment No. 19, that the Government have come a good way to meet this point. In that Amendment, to which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will speak shortly, the Government have said that in certain circumstances the decision should be referred to the Court of Session, as I have suggested, but it retains the decision in other circumstances for the Secretary of State. As I say, that comes a good way to meeting the point, and if the Government produce valid objections to my Amendment I should be happy to accept the Government's Amendment because it recognises the point that I am making.
I note that my noble friend Lord Selkirk has put down an Amendment, No. 17, to which no doubt he will speak in due course, in which there would be a reference to the sheriff for the sheriff court district of the area, and that is another possible course. But for my own part, if the Government cannot accept my Amendment then I am perfectly ready to consider the Government's alternative, No. 19.
Lord KIRKHILL: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that his Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 are linked to Amendment No. 16 and so I shall speak to all three at this stage. I have to resist these Amendments because in the Government's view the effect of them would be to allow a right of appeal direct to the Court of Session as the noble Lord has been explaining, against a decision by the Registrar General. In the Government's view, an appeal to the Court of Session would be costly and it would be neither appropriate nor desirable to provide for an appeal against rejection on the grounds specified in heads (b), (c) and (d) of the subsection as these are matters which it should be fairly easy to decide on readily ascertainable facts. It is accepted however, that a right of appeal to the Court of Session might be appropriate where the ground of the rejection is that the nominating body is not considered to be a religious body within the meaning of the Act. This raises wider issues and the Government agree that this is appropriate for judicial determination; hence my Amendment No. 19. I do not want to add more at this stage.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble Lord has pointed to the expense which would be involved in my Amendment No. 16. I am prepared not to press that Amendment and to accept Amendment No. 19 which the Government have tabled.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 18, 19 or 20.
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 8, line 41, leave out from ("the") to end of line 44 and insert ("sheriff for the sheriff court district within which the registration district is situated.").
The noble Earl said: If the noble Lord can assure me that he is in fact going to move Amendment No. 19, I will not move this Amendment. As I understand it, what he is doing is leaving the choice of the individual to the Secretary of State, but the general principle as to whether he belongs to a religious organisation can be referred to the courts. This, if I may say so, seems a satisfactory arrangement, and I shall therefore not move this Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 42, leave out from ("may") to end of line 44 and insert—
("direct the Registrar General to accept or reject the nomination and shall inform the nominating body of his direction and the reason for it; and such direction shall be final:
Provided that if a reason given for a direction to reject a nomination is that the nominating body is not a religious body, that body may seek the determination of the Court of Session as to whether that reason is well-founded; and if—

(a) the court determine that the reason is not well-founded; and

(b) that reason was the only reason for the direction,

that determination shall be given effect to by the Registrar General as if it were a direction under this subsection to accept the nomination.").
The noble Lord said: I have already indicated the Government thinking which lies behind Amendment No. 19, and I now formally move it; but I would direct
396
your Lordships' attention to paragraph (b), which should read:
"that reason was the only reason given for the direction…",
and not as it appears before your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: It is with the ecumenical spirit of your Lordships' Committee and also of Christian Unity Week in mind that I am very glad to tell your Lordships the following. The Scottish Churches Council wrote to me as long ago as June of last year pointing out that the Kilbrandon recommendations to recognise religious marriages other than Christian and Jewish had not yet been carried out, and I then offered to help promote a Private Member's Bill and to pilot it through your Lordships' House. I am glad to inform your Lordships' Committee that I consulted the Scottish Churches Council after this Bill was published and that they have now confirmed to me that it entirely meets the points which they originally raised with me—and, of course, this clause, Clause 9, is the main clause concerned. I thought your Lordships would like to know that a matter which had been bothering the Scottish Churches Council and on which they wanted to make progress they regard as being dealt with completely in this Bill.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Second marriage ceremony]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of SELKIRK: I wonder whether the noble Lord would read the first line of Clause 20. It says:
"Where two persons have undergone a marriage ceremony…"
Is that really the word one wants to use? Do we not "take part" in a marriage ceremony?
Lord KIRKHILL: Certainly this is a drafting point. It has been drawn to my attention, and I will examine it further.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Registration of irregular marriages]:
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.56 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: There is a point here to which I should like to draw the attention of the Government. Clause 21 makes provision for the registration of irregular marriages, and the court has to determine the date on which the marriage was constituted. It has been brought to my attention that no guidance is given as to how the court is to determine the date on which a marriage was constituted by "cohabitation with habit and repute", which the noble Lord will recognise as a Scottish term. This requires clarification, and if it cannot be done at this short notice it is because I have received only short notice of this point, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to clear it up before Report stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: These are interesting but somewhat esoteric matters. I will pursue the point which the noble Lord has raised, and I will inform him.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Regulations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: On Second Reading the point was raised from this Bench by my noble friend Lord Mansfield that by Clause 25 the Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations subject to Negative Resolution by one House of Parliament, and he asked the Government to consider whether this should not be an Affirmative Resolution by one House, rather than adopting the negative procedure. This would ensure that there was proper consideration of the proposed regulations, rather than the possibility of regulations going through without the opportunity for Parliamentary discussion. This is an occasion on which the noble Lord can inform the Committee whether
398
the Government have given further consideration to that point, and what their views are on it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: May I ask one question on this? There is only one type of Statutory Instrument which comes here for Negative Resolution, and that concerns fees. The Statutory Instruments which follow other regulations do not come to the House at all—at least, I do not think so. Do they? They certainly do not come for discussion.
Lord KIRKHILL: I confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just said, that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised this point at an earlier stage, and I agree that it might be helpful to your Lordships' Committee if I were to explain that the Government consider that the regulations to be made under the powers in the Bill may be divided broadly into three categories. The first are regulations to be made by the Registrar General with the approval of the Secretary of State. In the main, these will be concerned with prescribing the de ailed terms of forms, notices, certificates and other documents which will be required for the purposes of the Bill. These are matters of detailed machinery, and it would be obviously inappropriate that the regulations embodying them should require Affirmative Resolution in Parliament. The procedure proposed, under which the regulations are made by the Registrar General, is not new. Since 1854 the Registrar General has had authority to make regulations, and this was confirmed, I understand, in Section 54 of the Registration Act 1965, which authorises exactly the same procedure.
The second category comprises regulations, also made by the Registrar General and approved by the Secretary of State, which prescribe fees. The fees involved will be the fee for the preliminaries to marriage, to be paid to the local registrar with the marriage notice under Clauses 3(1) or 7(1), and the fee for the solemnisation of a civil marriage under Clause 19(2). Under Clause 25(2) regulation; prescribing these fees will be subject to Negative Resolution. Again, this is exactly the same procedure as is applied in the Registration Act 1965 to fees for registration services. The third category comprises the regulations to be made directly by the Secretary

399
of State for the purpose of listing certain religious bodies under Clause 8(1)(a)(i).These regulations, like those in the first category, are not subject to Affirmative or Negative Resolutions. That is the Government position.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 18, line 16, at end insert ("the Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906,").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving this Amendment, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. They should be considered together. They are essentially drafting Amendments and their effect is to disapply the Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906 to British subjects residing in Scotland instead of completely repealing the Act so far as Scotland is concerned. By so doing, it will be made clear that the 1906 Act is still intended to apply to any British subject, including Scots, who are residing outside Scotland. A complete repeal might be interpreted as having a wider effect than the mere territorial extent intended. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Degrees of relationship]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 26:
Leave out Schedule 1 and insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE 1 DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP
Column 1

Column 2

1.—Relationships by consanguinity

Mother;

Father;

Daughter;

Son;

Father's mother;

Father's mother;

Mother's mother;

Mother's father;

Son's daughter;

Son's son;

Daughter's daughter;

Daughter's son;

Sister;

Brother;

Father's sister;

Father's brother;

Mother's sister;

Mother's brother;

Brother's daughter;

Brother's son;

Sister's daughter;

Sister's son.

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment formally. It has been previously discussed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments of other enactments]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 19, line 50, at end insert—
("The Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906 (c. 40)
1A. In section 1(1) (British subject giving notice of intended foreign marriage), for the words "the United Kingdom" there shall be substituted the words "any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland."
1B. In section 2(1) (provision for regulations in relation to foreigners intending to marry in Britain), for the words "the United Kingdom", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment formally. It has already been discussed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Lord KIRKHTLL Lord KIRKHTLL moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 21, line 40, in column 3, leave out ("The whole Act") and insert—
("Section 5.
In the Schedule, the heading "Part I Provisions Applicable Except in Scotland"; and Part II").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed this Amendment. I beg to move it formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
6.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Violence for securing entry]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert ("otherwise than in execution of legal processes").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18. In Part II of the Bill we are sailing into rather more political waters than perhaps we encompassed when Part I of the Bill was discussed. It may be helpful therefore if, when moving this Amendment, which is a technical and drafting Amendment to boot, that I should by way of preface make a few remarks about this Part of the Bill. I am comforted to some extent in what I might call this application to your Lordships by the fact that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Harris of
402
Greenwich, welcomed what he described in col. 868 of the Official Report as a, "particularly vigorous examination of the Government's purpose". In view of the hour, the examination may be perhaps a little less vigorous than it would have been before those Peers interested were discussing whether it is legally possible to marry in Scotland one's adoptive grandmother. Be that as it may, we now turn to matters of perhaps more English interest.
Unfortunately, the term "squatter" in this connection embraces a number of people having considerably different interests in what they do. I suppose basically speaking that they come under two heads: first, what I might call residential; and, secondly, for want of a better word, political. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is not yet in his place and I say at once—and perhaps it will be the last time I say it in this debate—that where there are genuinely homeless squatters who are in that position by virtue of the failure of society to find a roof over their heads there is nothing but sympathy on the part of everybody on every side of the Committee. Nobody wants to exacerbate their position or to inflict any further pain on what must be a disagreeable position, almost imaginable by anybody lucky enough never to have been homeless.
Where squatting becomes (shall I say?) less agreeable or less excusable is in the case of homeless squatters who squat not so much because they cannot obtain a roof over their heads but because for one reason or another they do not want to go through what I might call the usual channels of obtaining a house and perhaps do not want to spend the money on rent and rates that the rest of us have to spend. Then there are political squatters who for one reason or another infest either a factory or university buildings or (dare I suggest it?) even a Ministry or some other place such as an Embassy because they wish to illustrate their political viewpoint and wish to ram home their political ideas.
Those types of squatters are entirely different from what I might call the residential variety. In their case where they break the law—and by trespass they do, to some extent in any event, break the law—it is in my suggestion

403
undesirable that they should do so without some kind of check eventually being applied. If the role of the law in this general field is to define rights applicable to this kind of situation and to provide the appropriate remedies, it is perhaps possibly helpful to consider the present position and how the Government propose to change it, and then to discuss whether those changes proposed are going to ameliorate the position and if so, how much.
So first, in certain circumstances, squatters may be guilty as at present of a conspiracy to trespass; and that of course was discussed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone in the case of Kamara, and I will not presume to comment on that. Secondly, under the Statutes of forcible entry and forcible detainer, squatters run what I term a theoretical chance of being convicted, although such cases are rare. Thirdly, there is at present what is called the right of self-help. That was commented upon by the Master of the Rolls in McPhail's case, and it is in this instance available to the owner of any right to the possession or occupation of premises to take such steps to remedy the position as he sees it. It may be described as the right of the dispossessed owner of property to take it back into his possession and eject the trespassers, if necessary, by force.
So far as the changes proposed in the Bill are concerned, the common law offence of conspiracy to trespass is abolished by Clause 5. The statutory and common law offences of forcible entry and forcible detainer are abolished by Clause 13. Taking these two proposals in isolation, the provisions, if they were adopted, would strengthen self-help. However, Clause 6 of the Bill to a very large extent removes the right of self-help except in the case of what are described as displaced residential occupiers. No doubt we shall come back to them. As I understand the situation, the squatter, as a squatter, will be at no criminal risk in the future, unless he brings himself into a position where he may commit an offence under Clauses 7, 8 or 9. So far as the owners or occupiers of property are concerned, they will not be able to take physical steps to repossess their properties without running the risk of
404
proceedings under Clause 6; although if they are displaced residential occupiers as defined in Clause 12 they then have a defence.
In such instances, therefore, any proceedings brought by the owner of a house will inevitably have to be in the civil courts, and there the owner renders himself liable to all the delay which is inherent in such proceedings. I was taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, when on Second Reading I talked about delay. I should like to quote from the Law Commission. At page 58 a footnote to paragraph 2.45 says:
"We understand from our consultations that in the county courts the time between discovery of the occupation and obtaining repossession is commonly about two months, although in a very urgent case this could be reduced to about four weeks. In the High Court the period is usually a little longer".
If there is to be any attempt to minimise damage to property or any case—and no doubt we shall come back to this, too—where speed is of the essence, it would seem that civil proceedings, even under Order 113, are unlikely to be very effective.
I have put down, with the help of some of my noble friends, a series of Amendments to this Part of the Bill. The object of them, broadly speaking, is first to give an opportunity for the Committee to discuss the feasibility or desirability of enlarging the protection given under Clause 6 to persons seeking to reoccupy premises—in other words, persons other than those who are displaced residential occupiers—and, at the same time, to make the criminal law relating to squatters applicable in all cases where a person requiring the trespasser to leave has any interest in or right to possession or occupation of any premises.
At the same time, the Amendments would remove the protection a squatter has against the owners or occupiers of the property in the sense that, in the vast majority of cases, the criminal law under these provisions will allow a squatter to remain on the property without committing an offence while the owner—and I use the word loosely—will commit an offence unless he falls into one of the narrowly prescribed categories of exemption.
I find it disagreeable that in the last quarter of the 20th century we are proposing to sanction a measure which in effect allows one citizen to offer violence

405
to another, because that is what Clause 6 implies. It means that where a displaced residential occupier wishes to regain possession of his premises, he is at liberty either himself, or by his employees, agents, friends, any body he can muster, to offer such violence as may be necessary for the purposes of securing entry into those premises again. It is not a very happy commentary on our state as a community that this is what is being considered.
The difficulties which this will cause to the courts have only to be visualised to be realised. One wonders what the degree of violence which can be exercised by the displaced residential occupier may be before he commits some offence. One wonders how—and we will come to this—the words "displaced residential occupier" are going to be interpreted. What is the definition?
This brings me to my main complaint against these criminal offences so far as a squatter is concerned. The behaviour of a defendent—in this case the squatter—is going to be adjudged not by what he has sought to do, what he has done, or what his intentions were, but by the physical state of the victim. I can illustrate it in this way: if one picks up a watch in the street it is, in the old language, a larceny by finding; it matters not to whom the watch belongs. If, as a squatter, I move into the owner's house and he asks me to leave, if he is a displaced residential occupier and I do not leave, I commit an offence; but if he is some wretch who has merely bought the house and not yet moved into it physically, then I commit no offence by remaining on the property. I do not believe this to be fair, and I certainly do not believe it to be good law. It is in this spirit that these Amendments were tabled and it is in this spirit perhaps that they will be discussed.
Coming back after what I hope has not been too long a preface to Amendment No. 18, as the Bill stands it is difficult to see how anybody can use or threaten violence without lawful authority otherwise than in the execution of legal processes, because the lawful authority can only exist in a case where, for instance, a bailiff or police officer has occasion to go to a house in these circumstances. As I have said, the displaced residential occupier, whatever he does, has no lawful
406
authority, but he may be judged not guilty of an offence if he comes into the exception clause in subsection (3). As I have said, this is really a paying Amendment. I beg to move.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like briefly to support my noble friend and to congratulate him on his clarity in moving the Amendment on this difficult and complicated law. I regret that I do so with no special knowledge: indeed, I feel worse off than the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who said on Second Reading that she had not read Part II of the Bill and would not understand it even if she did. I have read it and regret that I still find it difficult and I get a little confused. This is no fault of the Law Commission's Report, where the difficulties, particularly n drafting, were put with admirable clarity.
If one were allowed to show one whiff of criticism of the Law Commission's Report on this part of the Bill, it is that I believe they devoted very little space to analysing the types of property primarily affected by squatters and how many cases reached the criminal courts. In the latter case, I believe that criminal charges against squatters have been rarely brought in practice, which supports the theory that for the private individual the protection of the criminal change against squatters is, in the main, treated as a reserve power. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, can tell us later whether he has any facts or figures as regards the types of property affected and of the numbers of criminal charges that have been brought in recent years.
As to the type of property, I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, with his great practical experience in this field claimed—and indeed it is what I have tried to discover—that 99 cases out of 100 dealing with squatting in residential property are concerned with empty houses in the local authority housing sector and do not really deal with the private sector. Yet in Part II of the Bill, we see, as my noble friend has described, particularly under Clause 6, that the private individual will lose what I believe was the quite valuable old common law protection of self-help. The suggestion under the Bill is to replace the remedies previously at the disposal of

407
the private individual with, frankly, a bare skeleton form under Clauses 6 and 7. I do not believe that Clause 6 is really an adequate successor to the old laws.
I would share the concern of my noble friend about the word "violence". Although the Law Commission's report logically argued the reason why they wished to use the word "violence" rather than "force", to the laymen like myself it seems to be something which can be wholly misunderstood. If one takes the case of how Clause 6 can affect the private individual, the owner or occupier, one must ask: is it fair that an intruder, occupying a property without having used violence, can remain there until the owner or occupier (other than a displaced residential occupier) has applied to the civil courts? As we know, that can take up to one month and can cost the individual a great deal of money, all because of largely, if not completely, having lost the protection that has been granted in the past. Is it really that a legitimate owner-occupier, finding perhaps, his small office premises occupied illegally and who then shouts angry threats, perhaps tinder standably, is liable to arrest? Is it sensible for a displaced residential occupier, under Clause 6, as my noble friend has said, to use violence, apparently legally? I do not myself believe that Clause 6 reaches the right balance in what is undoubtedly a very delicate and difficult area of the law.
Lord WIGODER: Might I indicate that I view with some concern the Amendments which have been moved to Clause 6 and those which are to be moved to Clause 7. I believe that your Lordships will want to recognise that squatting is an expression of an extremely serious social problem. There are a large number of people who squat, not because they have any desire to show their contempt for society or their contempt for the rights of property or because they desire to damage the possessions of others, or because they are seeking to make any point of political protest—they squat simply and solely because they are in desperate need of a roof over their heads. I would venture to hope that your Lordships will agree that it is not right that the criminal law should be extended to deal with people of that sort.
408
The limitation in Clause 6, and again in Clause 7, which in effect means that the only rights that can be affected are those of a displaced residential occupier, in order that the criminal law should be brought into force, would seem entirely appropriate. There is the civil law to deal with a variety of other classes of squatter. It is capable of being used with expedition and efficiency, and I hope the noble Lord will indicate that the Government do not propose to extend the operation of the criminal law in the way which is proposed in these Amendments.
Viscount DILHORNE: I find this clause somewhat puzzling, and I think that part of the difficulty lies in knowing what is the content of the words "without lawful authority" which appear in line 11. As I read it—and no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the clause does not make it an offence for a displaced residential occupier to use or to threaten violence, whether directed against a person or against property, for the purpose of securing entry into premises which he is lawfully entitled to be in; but if he does not come within the heading of a displaced residential occupier he will commit an offence if he breaks a window to enter the premises, which he is lawfully entitled to be in, if he knows that there is someone in those premises at the time. He will not commit an offence if he breaks a window to get in, if he does not know that there is anyone inside. If, by chance, he knows there is someone inside and there is an open window, he can force his way in through that window without committing any offence at all.
It seems to me that that is a very narrow distinction to draw, and I am not happy about the drafting of this clause. I should like to ask the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, to tell me the answer to this problem. Let me suppose—it has happened—that a person has been kidnapped and is being held in premises: does not this clause make it an offence for any police officer to break into those premises by using violence—either by breaking down a door or by breaking open a window—to secure the release of that person and to secure entry to the premises? The police officers will not be displaced residential occupiers, but, as

409
I read it, this clause is so wide in its terms that it would operate to make a police officer, who broke in when he knew that there was someone inside who was opposed to his entry—the words in line 15—guilty of an offence. That does not seem to me to be right, and I ask the noble Lord to give further consideration to the wording of this clause.
May I put this further point to him? Entry is effected, say, into premises without violence by someone who is not a displaced residential occupier. The premises are large, and violence is then used to break down an internal door in those premises, or to break into a flat if the premises are a block of flats. There is no definition of "premises" in this Bill, so far as I can see, and I ask the noble Lord this question. If someone enters premises without committing an offence in the language of this clause, but finds that there is someone inside a room—a squatter, if you like—and the door is locked, will he commit an offence if he breaks open that internal door? The clause does not seem so to provide. It should not be left up in the air, and I believe that the clause should make clear what the position is in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has rightly referred to certain types of squatters who are in desperate need. There are, of course, a great variety of squatters, and in some cases of which one knows the amount of damage done can be very considerable indeed, running into hundreds of pounds, to premises not always occupied by wealthy people, or people who can afford it. So I must say that I feel very considerable concern at the limitation—it may be necessary; maybe it cannot be extended a little wider—of subsection (3) to displaced residential occupiers. Let me put this kind of instance to the noble Lord, which I feel ought to be covered. Let us suppose that a man is occupying a flat in which he has all his possessions. He is taken ill and is sent off to hospital. Squatters then come in, because they know that he is away. There are all his possessions, some of which he may treasure greatly, although they may not be of great intrinsic value—perhaps he has left some money on the premises—and then that man dies in hospital. So far as I can see, it would take at least two months, and probably a great deal longer, before his
410
executors would be able to resume occupation of that property and able to protect the possessions inside it. I may be wrong about that, and if I am, perhaps the noble Lord will tell me. But it seems to me that one wants wider scope to subsection (3) than just saying "displaced residential occupier".
6.35 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, began this discussion on Part II of the Bill, as is his custom, with a moderate and most reasonable speech and, as he pointed out, I said during the Second Reading debate that the Government were particularly interested to hear the view of both Houses of Parliament on this Part of the Bill. Of course, it is a highly complex series of interrelated problems, of the kind upon which the noble and learned Viscount has just touched. Certainly, I indicated then that we had no rigid posture on this Part of the Bill, and we are particularly anxious to hear the views of both Houses on this question.
Not unreasonably, given the fact that the noble Earl touched on a number of problems relating to Part II, the discussion on this Amendment has ranged a little more widely than the rather narrow terms of the Amendment, and I will if I may, without any discourtesy to the Committee, deal with certain points when we come to later Amendments which cover some of the questions raised, particularly that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, with which I found myself in some agreement. That obviously comes up to some extent on this Amendment, but it arises to a much more significant degree on an Amendment which I hope we shall be discussing in a few minutes' time.
If I may for a moment deal with the narrow terms of the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved, the Law Commission recognised in its report that the new offence ought not to apply to such people as bailiffs and those acting under their authority to execute a court order, and police officers acting within the scope of their authority under laws relating to search and arrest and to the prevention of crime. The words "without lawful authority" in line 11, which we are now discussing, are intended to safeguard

411
bailiffs, police officers and others who have lawful authority to enter premises. The phrase "without lawful authority" appears fairly commonly on the Statute Book, and we have no reason to believe that it is inadequate or in any way unclear.
I would cite some precedents—the Theft Act 1968, the Road Traffic Act 1972 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The additional words suggested in the noble Earl's Amendment could not be substituted for "without lawful authority", because they would not cover, for example, a Gas Board official who was given a specific right of entry to deal with an emergency which could result in an explosion. The addition of these words might cast doubt on the meaning of "without lawful authority", not only here but throughout the Statute Book. In the circumstances, it is our view that this Amendment is unnecessary and would confuse the situation, so I very much hope that the noble Earl will not press it. The noble and learned Viscount asked a number of questions which I will certainly go into before the next stage of the Bill. But, if I may repeat the point, I understand that a police officer who enters premises for the purpose of making an arrest has lawful authority, and nothing in this Bill changes that position.
Viscount DILHORNE: I should just like to question that for a moment. I should like to ask the noble Lord to look into that, because I doubt very much whether a police officer has authority to break into premises, which is what we are considering, because he thinks that someone he wants to arrest is inside them. I feel that if this clause is left in its present form there will be a lot of argument, and perhaps unnecessary litigation, as to the scope of the words "lawful authority". It may be that they are used in different contexts in other Statutes—I am not challenging that—but in this context it would be a great improvement to make it perfectly clear that this clause does not apply to police officers acting in the execution of their duty.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Certainly, as I indicated a moment or two ago, I will look into that point and, indeed, the others which the noble and learned Viscount has raised. Obviously, we want the
412
position of the police to be clear beyond any possible misunderstanding, and I will ensure that this point is looked at before the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Even thus far the debate has shown the wisdom of the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on Second Reading. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was here when I began my remarks, but he was, perhaps, less than fair. As I have stated already, nobody has anything but a very great degree of sympathy for the genuine homeless squatter. Unfortunately, so far as these clauses are concerned the law makes no distinction between the genuine homeless squatter and the thoroughly disagreeable political squatter. This is one of the points which the Committee, the House and, indeed, Parliament will have to pay attention to in the coming debates. So far as this rather narrow Amendment is concerned, as I said before, it was drafted to set the scene and that it has done. Now I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 14, after ("someone") insert ("lawfully").
The noble Earl said: It may be convenient if at the same time I speak to Amendment No. 21.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not want to press the noble Earl, but it could conceivably be for the convenience of the Committee if, together with Amendments Nos. 19 and 21, we took at the same time Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 24.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Amendment No. 20 is an attempt to improve the English. No Parliamentary counsel will admit that it should ever be improved and I did not have very much hope that the noble Lord would accept the Amendment. I will do what the noble Lord suggests, although I shall take Amendment No. 20 in a little detail on its own. When I read this part of the Bill it seemed to me that the word "which" made it slightly more agreeable, but no doubt the noble Lord has his briefing on that point.

413
Amendment No. 19 inserts the word "lawfully" in line 14. Like Amendment No. 21, which inserts the words on line 16,
"but who has not committed an offence under sections 7, 8 or 9 below"
it seeks to make this legislation coherent and what I might call logical, looking at the matter from one point of view. In other words, the Amendment is saying that if you are going to allow violence by the citizen in these particular circumstances there should be no benefit, so far as violence is concerned, to somebody who in any event is not lawfully on the premises.
Putting the matter rather more simply, the Amendment says that this offence under Clause 6 should not be available for the protection, if that is the right word, of either somebody who is not lawfully on the premises at all—in other words, a squatter—or, alternatively, somebody who has committed an offence under Clauses 7, 8 or 9; and I need not go into those clauses. In effect, it would create a different offence which could be used only against somebody who was trying to secure violent entry as against a rightful occupier. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, suggested that Amendment No. 22 should be debated at this point?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I did indeed.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Amendment No. 22 seeks to leave out subsection (2). I suggest that Amendment No. 24 goes with it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, it does.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: That is to say, the Amendment seeks to delete subsection (3) of the clause. I am not sure about this; it is making the debate on these Amendments into a general debate and perhaps it is all the better for that. But this, as it were, puts the boot on the other foot. Whereas the first two Amendments say that no offence is committed when the person on the premises is there as a trespasser, these two Amendments create a very much wider class of people who can resort to this type of
414
violence than is envisaged by the Government. I know very well that in my preface I said that I was not very keen on this clause, but if we are to have it I suggest that it must be fair and logical.
I touched, first, on the fact that only certain people could commit the offence and that only certain people would, if they resorted to violence, have a defence. However, one of the effects of the clause as it is presently drafted is that it can apply only to a dwelling-house; it cannot apply to any building other than a dwelling-house. More especially, it cannot apply to offices, universities, or any building like that. Therefore I suggest that we have a potential series of absurdities which depend upon the type of premises and the person who seeks to regain possession of them.
If, for instance, a bank is occupied by squatters during the time when the bank is open and they infiltrate lots of people into the bank, they commit no offence by so doing if they have no intention to steal or commit theft but literally block up the entrance to the bank with their bodies. The staff of this branch of the bank, who perhaps number two, three or four, are, I suggest, entitled to resort to reasonable violence to resist the trespass on their employer's premises. They are entitled to use reasonable force to eject the squatters. What they are not entitled to do is to summon reinforcements, and if these reinforcements try to get into the bank they then commit an offence. Is that desirable?
The noble and learned Viscount gave one or two examples which also show the hazards in sight. One comes to the definition of a displaced residential occupier who is defined in Clause 12(1) as any person who is occupying any premises as a residence immediately before being excluded from occupation. First one asks: when does occupation become occupation? If somebody contracts to buy a house, exchanges documents and starts to get all his furniture and possessions into it but has not actually slept there before trespassers take possession of the house, I suppose he had not, within Clause 12, taken possession and is therefore not entitled physically to regain possession of his house. If that person has slept for a night in his new house and then goes out and the squatters get the timing wrong, he is a displaced residential

415
occupier and can take such steps under Clause 6 as he likes. That is a capricious effect which I suggest is thoroughly undesirable.
If I buy myself a cottage on the side of some lake—what in Scotland we might call a "butt and ben"—and I go there for holidays with my family, and I go along one day and find that it has been taken into possession by squatters, am I a displaced residential occupier or not? If I use the cottage only once a year, do I fall into that category? If I use it once a month, do I fall into it? If I go there every weekend? In other words, does the regularity of the occupation make any difference? What is the effect of the user of the house if one merely resorts there for the purposes of pleasure or relaxation or recreation? Is it residence within the contemplation of the Government at all?
I hope that what I have said shows—I will not say "the folly" because perhaps that is offensive—the uncertainty that will be created by this legislation. Therefore, what we have sought to do is to give anybody who has a lawful interest in property the same rights as a displaced residential occupier envisaged by the Government. In other words, one's rights so far as Clause 6 are concerned are not determined by this somewhat "chancy" method of ascertaining one's tenure. They are determined, so to speak, by one's actual legal interest. I beg to move.
Viscount DILHORNE: I have listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said and I cannot think it would be right if this clause is intended to make it an offence when there is someone present on the premises who is opposed to the entry, to limit that "someone" to someone lawfully on the premises, because as I understand it that would mean that subsection (1) would apply only where the person was not a squatter, because a squatter cannot claim to be lawfully present on the premises. By its very nature it would mean that. But when it comes to the point of the residential occupier to which the noble Earl referred, T should like to urge, in addition to the point I put before, the position of someone who has bought a house, whose completion takes place on a particular day, work has to be done by
416
builders immediately and arrangements are made, and the purchaser is not protected at all. If squatters get in while workmen are on the premises that purchaser, who is entitled to possession, will not be able to avail himself of this provision. That seems to me to be unduly narrow and, provided that paragraph (a) is left as it is, and the word "lawfully" is not inserted, I should have thought one could have dispensed with the qualification about the residential occupier. Does that need to be looked at again?
6.54 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I will begin by saying that points similar to that just raised by the noble Viscount are one reason why we were so anxious to encourage full discussion of this particular area, because an exceptionally complicated series of inter-related problems are dealt with in this Part of the Bill, and certainly I will ensure that the point is looked at very carefully before the next stage of the Bill.
With regard to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I can start with some good news for him. He will be glad to know that the Government share his view on the grammatical point which he raised and are prepared to capitulate to him on that point. Therefore he will be overjoyed to hear that we are prepared to accept his Amendment No. 20. However, he will not be altogether astonished to hear that our enthusiasm for the other Amendments is not wholly unqualifield. Perhaps I may state why that is so, and I can really begin with the point raised a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Our view was simply that this would take the matter a great deal further than we are convinced would be desirable at the moment. It would go far wider than our present intentions. It would cover landlords, landlords' agents, building societies and so on, and, given the fact that we are talking about a difficult concept—one in which in fact some degree of force should properly be used—I think it is important for us to bear in mind that it is necessary for us to regulate this matter with some degree of precision, to some extent, I may say, for the reason raised by the noble and learned Viscount on the last Amendment. So I regret to say that I start off with that cautionary note.

417
The noble Earl's Amendment seeks to limit the scope of the offence in Clause 6, largely for the benefit of those with a legal interest in the property. The structure of the offence reflects its primary purpose, which is to prevent breaches of the peace. A breach of the peace may be occasioned even though the person on the premises and opposed to the violent entry is not there lawfully or has committed one of the other offences in this Part of the Bill, and even though the person who seeks entry has a legal interest in the property.
In their Working Paper on offences of entering and remaining on property the Law Commission proposed that violent entry should always be an offence, even in the case of a displaced residential occupier; but in response to comments which were made on the Working Paper, the Commission changed their mind and recommended in their final report that violent entry by or on behalf of a displaced residential occupier should not be a criminal offence, but they considered that to except from the offence the use or threat of violence to recover possession of other premises might too readily lead to breaches of the peace. The civil law provides a remedy for a person excluded from property which he has a right to occupy.
The noble Earl raised the question of what would be the situation if a person were temporarily absent from the house. So far as this matter is concerned, the important thing is to remember that one does not need to be physically present on the premises all the time in order to occupy them. Thus a person continues to occupy his home even when he is on holiday. Similarly, a person remains the occupier of premises which he may use only from time to time; for example, if he has a weekend cottage. But the terms of the Amendment—and I can well understand the noble Earl's anxiety on this point—I think would take the matter a great deal further, and he recognised when he spoke and when, if I may say so, he made his form of Second Reading speech on the second part of the Bill when speaking on the last Amendment, that this is a dangerous matter to carry too widely; and that is why at the moment we are not persuaded to extend it to the degree which is contemplated in these Amendments. Our position on this matter is not closed. We
418
are perfectly prepared to listen to the views of your Lordships at this stage and the next stage and, of course, of those in another place, to decide whether this matter should be defined rather differently than appears on the face of he Bill at the moment.
I will now return to the sort of problem that would be involved if in fact we accepted the Amendments as drafted at the moment by the noble Earl. I think the question of administration of this law has to be taken very seriously into account. The police have to know exactly where they stand in enforcing it. I say at once that the offences in this Part of the Bill, as drafted at the moment, will not be straight-forward for the police to enforce. In our judgment, the Amendments would in fact make the offence in Clause 6 a great deal more difficult to enforce. Under the clause as introduced, a police constable confronted with a violent entry would have to establish, first, that there is a person present on the premises opposed to that entry; and, secondly, that the premises are not the home of the person by or on whose behalf entry is sought. If the clause were amended the constable would have to establish that the person on the premises was there lawfully, and that the person by or on whose behalf entry was sought did not have an interest in or right to possess or occupy the premises.
These matters are sometimes found to be complicated in the civil courts, but we are talking here about a situation of a policeman standing on a rainswept corner, perhaps with a crowd of people milling around, having to make a judgment as complex as this. For that reason, we are concerned that to accept an Amendment of the kind which the noble Earl has put down would in fact take the matter far wider than we consider prudent at the moment. But, as I repeat, we are perfectly prepared to consider the points which have been made, the points made by the noble Earl, the point raised by the noble Viscount, and indeed any others which may be made during the passage of the Bill. We are anxious to adopt a reasonable formula here, but I must repeat that this law has got to be enforced by the police, and it is, in my view, imprudent to define it in such ambiguous terms that all one will get is a great deal of confusion and also a large number of complaints against police officers.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Could the noble Lord tell us which of the Amendments we are discussing? I was not quite sure whether Amendment No. 24 was included in this general discussion or whether it was being taken separately.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: We were taking Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24.
The Earl of KINNOULL: For the purposes of clarity, I wonder whether the noble Lord could consider the reverse case to the case put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, earlier. I think the noble Viscount was taking the case of someone moving their home; they buy a new home and before they can actually occupy it is occupied by squatters. Supposing one has the other side of the coin; the person moves into a new home but fails to sell his old home in time before he moves. What happens to the old home, and is an argument likely to arise as to what constitutes "residential occupation"? For instance, would a table and chair in the old home be sufficient to constitute that the person had not actually moved?
Viscount DILHORNE: I imagine that the answer to that case would probably be that he remained in occupation of both premises; although he had bought the new home he would still be in occupation of his old home. I support the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his desire to make this clause concise and clear. It is not only for the police. We are here dealing with the creation of an entirely new criminal offence, and it is quite impossible for us to draft in the course of the Committee stage. I, for one, would thank the noble Lord for his assurance that he is going to look at all these points that are raised. I stress—even if he does not go to the full length suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—that "displaced residential occupier" is too narrow a definition.
Lord WIGODER: Might I ask the noble Earl if when he replies he would be good enough to indicate whether I have correctly understood the effect of these Amendments and the subsequent Amendments to Clause 7 as meaning that not only the civil law but the criminal law might, in certain circumstances, be invoked against
420
those who take part in what is sometimes called an industrial "sit-in"?
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to direct myself to the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, No. 24, which we are taking within this discussion. I am not terribly happy about the Bill being confined to residential premises. It is easy to say that up to this time there have been very few cases of squatters going into other than residential property, but it seems to my lay and perhaps rather practical mind that if we produce a Bill which imposes heavy penalties on people entering into residential premises, then it will not take long for some of these rather astute and politically motivated groups—who are not, we feel, genuine squatters—to jump to the conclusion that if they go into premises which are professionally occupied or commercially occupied they will not fall foul of the rigour of this Bill.
I should like to remind the noble Lord of the many areas in our big cities—one thinks of the centres of Edinburgh, Manchester and London—where large mansions, great Victorian blocks, are substantially occupied by professional bodies. Even in the streets around my own neighbourhood, if you go into Nos. 2, 8 or 16 they are residential property; the identical structures next door are occupied, one by a professional trade union, one by a charity; and as I understand it they are premises that would not be covered, as the Bill stands. I think some protection should be given to them, and that it should not be solely residential property, because it gives squatters an opportunity to drive a coach and horses through the intention of the Bill.
Viscount BARRINGTON: While, as I understand it, we are discussing a rather fine grammatical point on Amendment No. 20, may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, why it is better grammar to insert a "which" in line 15—"the entry which the violence is intended to secure", but not to insert it in line 32 where the same expression occurs—"the entry the violence is intended to secure". I am not quite clear whether the grammar would be better or worse in either case, but I think it would be logical to put it in both or in neither.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I really cannot be responsible for tidying up all the Bill. There are two further stages at which the noble Viscount can correct it if he wishes to. I am just grateful that my one suggestion, at any rate, has been accepted. I wish in a way that we were discussing Clause 7 before Clause 6, because I made very plain my distaste for Clause 6. I see the force of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, especially over the question of squatters, or anybody else for that matter, being lawfully on premises. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord will have to do a little better over the question of "displaced residential occupier".
As several noble Lords have said, this is a very narrow definition. I sought to widen it by giving everybody with a legal interest in property the right to take action under Clause 6. Obviously the Government do not like that. They think it is too wide. However, for the life of me I cannot see how one is to enlarge the class, if one is going to, by removing the residential qualification without having protection for all persons who may be legally interested in this piece of property. Certainly this argument has nothing to do with enforcement by the police. They are not concerned and I should hate to think that a young police constable had to concern himself with whether the man battering on the door of a house did or did not qualify as a displaced residential occupier. As I foresee the situation, the unfortunate will be arrested and it will be for him—I shall not say "to persuade a court"—to put before the court the fact that he is a displaced residential occupier. He will then be entitled to an acquittal under the section as it will be.
I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, if this section and indeed Clause 7 apply as regards our Amendments to premises other than housing. The answer is, Yes. I produced what I thought was not too bad an example about a bank. Clause 7 in particular is designed to apply to any premises, not only residential premises. I hope that we can all go away now and think a little more deeply about these difficult and intricate matters. For the time being at any rate I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 15, after ("entry") insert ("which").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 31, leave out from ("property") to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 25 in effect deletes subsection (4)(b) from this part of the clause. The noble and learned Viscount has already touched on this subject, in other words the motivation behind enforced entry. He produced two excellent examples of where someone might wish to break into a house which was in the possession of squatters, or of anyone else for that matter, not so much for the purpose of regaining possession of the house but either to secure property which might well be in it or, in the case of the police investigating some crime, to clear the matter up.
I intended to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, whether it is the Government's intention to draw the protection quite so closely round the citadel inhabited by the squatter. I must at the moment beg the question of residence. Let us take premises of any kind which are not residential but where, for instance, there is, as in a bank, a very large sum of money. Are the Government suggesting that the owner of the money or the property must go through Order No. 113 procedure in order to gain some sort of entry to these premises, using the civil process in order to ensure that his own property is still there? It is almost bizarre. If premises contain a large sum of money and the owner of the money has to wait anything up to two months before he can enter the premises, I fear that if that money is not under lock and key there just, "ain't going to be very much money left" after two months. Is that the Government's contemplation?
7.16 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I should like to put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is not altogether frivolous. However, I shall put it in a slightly

423
frivolous way because I think that we should have some fun in this rather dreary little debate and it is not the less important for being frivolous. Let us suppose that the Foreign Secretary is occupying this room in the Foreign Office and that 25 people who do not like the Statement he made this afternoon—either because they are fanatically in support of Mr. Smith or because they are fanatically in support of Mr. Nkomo—decide to occupy that room as a protest against what he is doing. As we all know, the Foreign Secretary is a man of spirit. Let us suppose that he decides to re-enter his room by force, passing the pickets at the door of the Foreign Office who are demonstrating and who seek to prevent his entry. The Foreign Secretary, summoning to his aid the rather decrepit officials who occupy the Foreign Office and who assist Foreign Office Ministers, forces his way to the 25 occupants of his room and tries to throw them out. Where do we stand in that situation? Are they to be in possession? Would the Foreign Secretary be committing an offence? Where do the Government stand as regards public buildings? I know where they stand as regards foreign embassies and consular missions because that is dealt with in a separate section, but where do they stand as regards Government offices?
Let us take something that could have happened in a building in which I am quite interested, namely, the polytechnic of central London. The other day I read that the administrative offices of that educational institution, which is supported almost entirely by the Inner London Education Authority, were occupied by students. It so happens that we have a very responsible band of students and a very responsible administrative band. We know very well that these things happen in circumstances where relations are less good.
Let us suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, the Vice-Chancellor of one of our Northern universities, being a man of spirit, bashes his way back into the offices normally occupied by the Vice-Chancellor. Where do we stand in that situation? Are we to prosecute these spirited persons who wish to reoccupy their own property, and for what? Is it not the case, perhaps, that the deliberate
424
occupation of public buildings for political purposes represents a danger which ought to be dealt with by the public law of this country? If we are to leave it simply to the owners of residential premises to resort to self-help and if we abolish the law against conspiracy to trespass, which I gather is the purpose of the Bill, are we not possibly leading to a situation where there may be more breaches of the peace and not fewer?
7.19 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Although the noble and learned Lord hinted at the beginning of his remarks that he was about to be frivolous or ask a frivolous question, he should realise, if I may be mildly pompous for a moment, that I had better be careful about indulging in jests on a matter quite as grave as the occupancy of the Foreign Secretary's room, just in case by any mischance in the future such a situation were to arise. Therefore, I will gladly look into the point.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I hope so.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I will study the point. As the noble and learned Lord rightly says, we have dealt with the question of diplomatic premises, for the reasons which I indicated on the last occasion. In the light of what has happened in recent years it is obviously desirable that we take steps along these lines, all the more so because we have some international commitments so far as this is concerned.
So far as this Amendment is concerned, which seeks to delete a paragraph in subsection (4) which declares that the new offence, in common with the offence of forcible entry which it replaces, is committed whatever the purpose of the entry, the Law Commission, as the Committee will recall, recommended and the Government accepted that the offence should not depend on the purpose behind the entry. If violence is used that factor alone justifies criminal sanctions.
This provision would indeed be needed even if subsection (3) provided an exemption for anyone with an interest in property. Other provisions in the clause are concerned with the rights in the

425
property of a person seeking entry. The noble Earl's Amendments on the scope of the offence and the right of self-help have already been discussed, but even if the Committee were to accept them on a future occasion we would not advise your Lordships to accept this particular Amendment. Whatever its intention it is aimed at a provision in the clause which is concerned with another point.
It may help to explain the point at which Clause 6(4)(b) is directed if I mention one matter of legal history. Although it was long thought in respect of the offence of forcible entry that the entry had to be made with the intention of asserting a right in the land, it is now clear that the word bears its ordinary meaning. Thus, in R. v. Brittain, reported in 1972, it was held that gatecrashers at a bottle party had been rightly convicted of forcible entry. The Law Commission recommended that entry for whatever reason should be caught by the new offence; paragraph (b) of subsection (4) gives effect to this recommendation, and it is this paragraph which the Amendment seeks to remove.
Subsection (4)(b) deals with the purpose of entry and, of course, it covers a person who intends to secure possession although he has no interest in the property, as well as a person who has an interest. The Amendment would not in general, in our view, further the interests of those with an interest in property. In the light of the explanation I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment today, though I shall certainly deal with one or two of the other matters with which he dealt in moving it.
7.24 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: May I ask one question of the noble Lord. Would the subsection as it stands cover almost every case of housebreaking where there are people in the house, or any case of factory breaking where there is somebody looking after the premises, or a bank? Suppose in a bank there is somebody whose purpose there is to look after the premises. The words in Clause 6(1)(a) read:
"there is someone present on those premises at the time who is opposed to the entry…"
Does "opposed to the entry "mean "who is offering opposition to the entry",
426
or does "opposed to the entry" mean," Well, if he knew that entry was taking place he would be very much opposed to it because he is there to try and stop it if he knows of it"? Supposing the house holders are asleep in bed and somebody breaks into the premises—they are using violence—are they opposed to the entry? Then if the man is merely a burglar, or somebody who wants to take from the bank anything he can find, he is not merely there to acquire possession, he is there "for any other purpose".
I do not say that this is at all a defect of the subsection; but, just by way of inquiry, does it in fact cover almost every case of housebreaking where there is somebody in the house; almost every case of factory breaking, or bank breaking, provided there is somebody in the premises even though that person is oblivious of the fact that somebody breaks in?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should like to take a view on this particular matter. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I thought we were on the later Amendment and I realised suddenly that he was on the earlier one. I should like to look into it if I may, and I shall communicate with him when I have done so.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Again I think that this debate has shown that the proposed legislation, if it is not defective comes somewhere close to it. I shall pray in aid my noble and learned friend's instance when we come to the next Amendment on Clause 7. Going back to his analogy, it is slightly ridiculous that at the moment if the Foreign Secretary merely uses the Foreign Office as an office, proceedings must be by way of civil process. If, on the other hand, he has a bed there for the night quite different considerations apply.
Being serious, it is quite wrong that these accidents, or haphazard chances, should decide our criminal law. If a bank has a flat somewhere in it, then I suppose Clause 6 immediately comes into play. If it has not, it does not. I suggest to the Committee that that is far from satisfactory. At present, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
7.28 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: May I raise one not very substantial matter in relation to Clause 6(6) at the top of page 7, which also applies to Clause 7, perhaps to Clause 8, and again in Clauses 9 and 10. Where a squat is forcibly ended by the action of the police there is frequently a situation of considerable emotional disturbance. Frequently large numbers of people are involved if there is a multiple squat. There is a scene of substantial confusion and a very real risk of breaches of the peace. In those circumstances, is it not important that those who are squatting should be able to appreciate at once that those who are carrying out the law are in fact police officers? I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to consider between now and the next stage whether it might not be in the interests of public order generally that the powers of arrest under these various clauses should be given to officers who are in uniform, which would thus put the matter beyond doubt.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I would not, as the noble Lord would appreciate, want to commit myself on a point of that sort. I understand exactly the motivation behind the point which he has just put to the Committee. I should like to reflect upon it. It is arguable that it would in fact be undesirable to do this in certain circumstances, if by chance a plain clothes officer came into contact with a situation of this sort and had to wait for uniformed officers to arrive. But I should prefer not to commit myself at the moment. I should like to think about this.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Adverse occupation of residential premises.]:
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("a displaced residential occupier") and insert ("any person having an interest in or right to possession or occupation").
The noble Earl said: We come to the clause which I regard as being potentially
428
—not at the moment, but at least potentially—far more satisfactory both to the citizens who will have to abide by it and to the authorities. As I said earlier, I do not favour a clause in a Bill which in effect allows the citizen to take the law into his own hands, for whatever purpose, and show violence to other citizens; that is a sort of modern form of trial by battle which I find distasteful. However, the circumstances in which society must take action is when people engage in unlawful acts, and society then does not have the courage to provide the mechanism by which those unlawful acts can be acted upon, but merely throws its hands into the air and says, "You, the injured party"—because that is what there are in many of these cases—"must go through the civil courts taking your chance as you find it". That I regard as unfortunate, and it will be equally unfortunate if, having this Bill and this part of it, we do not improve it to try to make better sense of the present situation.
We have talked much about residential premises. It is a fact that most of the squatting—the vast preponderance of it as I understand it—takes place on local authority property. It is housing which they are perhaps seeking to improve or redevelop and, for one reason or another, squatters take possession of the property—either before it can be redeveloped or perhaps after it has been almost completed—and then a number of things happen. First, the local authority is unable to carry out its programme; secondly, people who may well be on some sort of waiting list on which they had hoped to be reaching the top are unable to move into the property which they had been allocated; and, thirdly, the squatters in such instances are to some extent defrauding their fellow ratepayers or citizens of the rates and so on which would accrue to that local authority if it were able to put proper tenants into those housing units. For all those reasons, it is, I suggest, a proper cause for Parliament to try to devise some means by which, in proper instance, the owner or occupier of this type of premises can take action quickly, using the resources of the State, to remedy the defect so far as that position is concerned.
Then there are what I would call political squats. Again, I would be the last to try in any way to prevent citizens from making peaceful protests or in

429
other ways enjoying their civic rights of civil demonstration, but where, for example—and it has happened—premises are taken over (as, for example, at universities and offices) simply as a political demonstration or, to put it another way, as a political manifestation, at the moment there is no possibility of the owners of those premises being able to take quick and effective action. It is time the community looked at the law to see what can be done to make it better; to make it better, I hasten to emphasise, without being in any way onerous on anyone and their particular civil rights.
So far as Clause 7 is concerned—and for the purposes of this Amendment I can speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 because all three go to the same matter—what do we have? First, a person may be guilty of an offence as a trespasser if he is on residential premises. If he is not on residential premises, he cannot be guilty of an offence under Clause 7, and that comes about because he can be required to vacate the premises only by a displaced residential occupier. We have had a debate already on a displaced residential occupier and I have sought to show that I regard such a definition as unfair and capricious, and I hope the Government will take this definition away and try to improve and enlarge on it. The definition in this clause is, of course, much more important because it also limits the type of premises which can be the subject of a prosecution under Clause 7.
It is really a matter of chance in the future, I suggest, as to whether squatters in this particular instance are or are not guilty of an offence. For example, if they invade an Embassy because they dislike the politics of the Government concerned, then immediately, however quiet or orderly they may be and however transient their desire to occupy the Embassy, they will be guilty of an offence. On the other hand, if they occupy the premises of a bank which happens to have large investments in a country which does not enjoy favour, there is no offence. If, as we have heard, a Government office is occupied in these circumstances, there is no offence and no possibility of taking any action. If it is a residential house owned by somebody who is a displaced residential occupier, there is an offence. But if it is owned by a local
430
authority, there is no offence. On the other hand, if it is owned by a landlord, unless his tenant will take action, there is no offence. If it is a house which may be between owners, there is no offence; but if it is a house which may be used by a man for the purposes of enjoyment with his mistress, there is an offence. It is all delightfully British and haphazard, but it is not logical and it is not fair.
What can be done to make it better? I have suggested—and all the Amendments I have so far moved are in this spirit—first, that "the premises" should be enlarged in this instance to "any premises "on the basis that only by so doing can there be a quick form of relief where it may be important that it should be quick; and, secondly, as your Lordships will see from the Amendment, relief would be extended to anybody who has a legal interest in the premises.
Viscount DILHORNE: The offence of trespass by a squatter is an offence only if it is trespass with a weapon of offence, and then it is an offence under Clause 8. But here we are dealing with, adverse possession. A squatter being a trespasser is not per se guilty of an offence under Clause 7. He is guilty of an offence only if he fails to leave the premises on being required to do so by a displaced residential occupier or somebody on his behalf. I approach this from a slightly different angle from that of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. There is much to be said for discouraging the use of violence; Clause 6 deals with that and we are not concerned here with violence, and Clause 6, as I understand it, applies not only to residential property but to all classes of property.
I urge the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to consider this: if the sanction against trespassers who refuse to leave when asked is not adequate, the chances of persons resorting to violence in fury and desperation to secure possession of property to which they are entitled is increased. It seems to me that there is a case here for drawing a distinction between Clauses 6 and 7 and not limiting Clause 7 to requests to leave by displaced residential occupiers or by a slightly widened definition of that term. I cannot help but feel that it might be for the reduction of the prospects of breaches of the peace if it were made an offence for a trespasser who is asked to leave by someone entitled to

431
occupation of the premises in question or by someone acting on the latter's behalf—someone who could show that he was entitled or acting on behalf of the person entitled—to remain on the premises. This might well be made an offence not limited simply to residential property. If Clause 7 were made to have that kind of application, it would assist in the case that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, referred to.
If the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich or Lord Donaldson, went back to their room and found it occupied by trespassers, they would perhaps not be so inclined to resort to violence, being persons of high spirit, if they could say to the individuals in the room, "Please leave, this is my room." Refusal to leave the room then would constitute a criminal offence. It seems to me that, if Clause 7 were of general application, it would probably be righ.t and beneficial and that it is really wrong to limit Clause 7 to the request by a displaced residential occupier. It ought to be a request by anyone who can show that he is entitled to possession of the premises. Then, if he is in fact entitled and the person does not leave, there will be an offence.
One could test it in this way: someone goes along and asks the trespasser to leave and he refuses. The person who asks says, "I am entitled to possession of these premises" or "I am authorised by the owner, the resident or the occupier of these premises to require you to leave." The person addressed refuses to leave and can then be charged with an offence, but he may establish as part of his defence that he was not asked to leave by a person acting for or on behalf of the occupant. If so, he will not commit an offence. That seems to me to be logically justifiable and it would improve the Bill to widen the scope of Clause 7 to make it apply to persons who refuse to leave when asked by persons who are entitled to ask them to leave.
Lord WIGODER: I hope that the Government will not seek to extend the law to the extent where it might become wholly unenforceable and to the extent where serious breaches of the peace might take place as a result of the attempt to enforce it. I have in mind the danger of extending the law on the lines indicated
432
by this Amendment, as a result of which, for example, the owner of a factory might inform his workforce of 1,000 people this morning that the factory has to close down this evening. This is, unhappily, a situation that sometimes arises and is one in which those 1,000 people might decide to stay on at the factory to indulge in an industrial sit-in by way of protest or by way of seeking to start up their own form of enterprise. As I understand the Amendment, in that situation, if the owner of the factory were to say to his 1,000 workers, "You must leave" and they do not, it would be the duty of the police to try to arrest them. I can think of no clearer recipe for civil disorder than a provision of that nature.
Lord GIFFORD: I want to apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the Committee's proceedings. I was called away on an engagement which started at precisely the moment when the Committee began to consider the Bill, but I was able to hear the greater part of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on his Amendment.
I am expecting and hoping that my noble friend Lord Donaldson will be announcing the Government's rejection of this Amendment or anything like it. What the noble Earl is seeking to do is to take us back to the original, or something very close to the original, proposal of the Law Commission's Working Party which, when it reported in June 1974, tentatively recommended the creation of a general offence of failing to leave property when requested to do so by a person entitled to occupation. This Amendment comes very close to that proposal.
After the proposal in question was promulgated, there was a great amount of public debate, much of it on the lines of the argument which has just been used by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to the effect that this would be bringing the police and the criminal law into areas of social conflict where they should not come, for it comes close to making trespass a crime. Trespass would become a crime under the clause as the Conservative Front Bench seeks to amend it, if that trespass is continued after a request, however couched, to leave by the person entitled to possession. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, gave the example of the

433
factory owner who orders a large work-force to leave when it is occupying a factory in an industrial dispute. It can also happen that large numbers of persons squatting in local authority buildings which have been left empty for an unconscionably long time may also receive requests to leave by letters or loud hailers. Once those persons do not leave, under the clause as the noble Earl seeks to amend it, the police would, as I understand it, have a duty to intervene. This would not even be a discretion; it would be a duty because, if it were against the criminal law that some dozens or perhaps hundreds of people were staying in a place after they had been ordered to leave, the police would be required to go in and seek to turn them out. What a recipe for social conflict and what a deplorable way to resolve the kinds of conflict that result in the occupation of either work places or dwellings!
I hope that my noble friend will not only reject this Amendment but will indicate that there are not to be put forward by the Government any similar Amendments to this clause. This is the clause on which, on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Harris indicated that the Government had an open mind. He said:
"The Government are not committed to the view that the criminal offence in Clause 7 ought inevitably to remain as narrow as this."
There was an invitation to all and sundry to put forward Amendments. The only Amendments that have been put forward have been those of the noble Earl, and they are clearly unacceptable. The Government have put forward no Amendment and what I should wish to ask is when we are to have the opportunity to consider any Government Amendments, if such Amendments are to be put forward. I hope that my noble friend can say that the absence of any Government Amendment from the Order Paper indicates that there is not to be any extension of Clause 7 as it now stands.
Before I sit down, I should like to make very clear one last matter as far as displaced residential occupiers are concerned. In my view, it should be an offence to displace a residential occupier. I would have no support for anyone who did so. It is, in fact, already an offence for a landlord or indeed anyone, I think, to evict, or to harass, or to seek to remove a
434
tenant or someone staying on after his tenancy has expired. The proper approach would be to make it an offence for any residential occupier to be protected by a similar provision. Just as I would not wish to see anyone coming in and squatting or trespassing upon someone's home when he is absent, so I should not like to see landlords or owners of property coming in and evicting or ejecting people who are using a place as their residence, either lawfully or in disputed circumstances, or even unlawfully. The courts and the protection of a court order is the right way to remove persons who are resident and whom someone else wants to displace. I would have no sympathy for displacing residential occupiers.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: If I may just fill in the last point, the case of the tenant who is overstaying his lease without paying his rent is specifically excluded right through the Bill, so we need not waste time any longer on that. My noble friend Lord Gifford asked me whether the Government would give an undertaking that there would be no further Amendment to this clause. As my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich asked for a debate on Second Reading and as we have had a debate on this subject, it would be very uncivil of the Government to do any such thing; they certainly have no intention of doing so.
The width of the problem has been well shown up by the speeches we have had from the two angles. First, I should say that the objective of the clause was to put into law the recommendation of the Law Commission Report, which was dealing only with the residential occupation that we have been talking about. So the noble Earl and the noble and learned Viscount are asking us to go further than the Law Commission went, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said that the Government's mind was not closed to this. He referred on Second Reading to various particular problems where squatting interferes with the rights of a new owner or tenant, and we have had two or three instances today which do not seem to be properly covered by this clause. Saying that does not amount to saying that it should be a criminal offence in any circumstances for a trespasser to refuse to leave premises at the request of a person with an interest in the property,

435
which I think is what the noble and learned Viscount was suggesting, more or less specifically——
Viscount DILHORNE: I did not say "interest in the property" because that would be too wide, but rather the person entitled to occupation of the property.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for making that point. In this clause we are already extending the criminal law. It is one thing to do so on behalf of a person excluded from his own home; I think that even my noble friend Lord Gifford has no objection to that. But it is quite another matter when the property is empty and there are no plans for it to be occupied, or rehabilitated or demolished for some time to come. Of course, occupation in such a case is unlawful. But there would not be much widespread support for a provision making it a criminal offence for a homeless family of squatters to refuse at the request of a property company to leave an empty and previously derelict property which the squatters had perhaps made habitable when the property company intended only to board up the premises and leave them empty.
That is the extreme case which I think the Amendment of the noble Earl would enforce. I think that it is fairly clear that the Government will not go so far as that. I can give my noble friend that assurance. But something between there and the law which applies only to the displaced residential occupier is a matter to which I think my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich and his colleagues will give very serious attention. The Government's mind is not closed on this.
One of the really evil things about squatting in local authority empty properties is that it holds up housing. On the other hand, I do not think that anybody could doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is right in that if something is made a criminal offence the policeman then has to deal with it, and if there are a hundred men in a factory there is a very serious situation. This is the problem that we are up against. My noble friend has said already that he will look at this matter again with his
436
colleagues. My noble friend Lord Gifford asked when would there be any further comment and the answer is: at the next stage of the Bill.
Viscount DILHORNE: I should like to suggest that the noble Lord, if he is to deal with the matter in that way, should look at it not by making it a test as to who is asking for possession of the property, but by defining the class of property which falls within the scope of Clause 7. For instance, factory premises might be excluded from that. Perhaps it can be dealt with on that approach. This is only a suggestion for the drafting and I do not want a reply now.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: That is a perfectly helpful suggestion; I entirely agree. My noble friend whispered to my ear that we may not be able to deal with all these matters before the next stage, but I think that we can make a good step towards doing so.
Lord GIFFORD: Can the Committee be assured that such Amendments as the Government see fit to make to Clause 7 will be open to debate in this House and will therefore be before the House at the Report stage?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Either on Report or through Amendment in another place these matters are bound to come back to this House; so the answer to my noble friend's question is, Yes.
Lord GIFFORD: I suggest that it would be unsatisfactory for the matter to be left first of all to be debated in another place when we are here giving much time to debating a Bill which the Government wish to put forward in this House. For the matter to be left to debate on whether we accept Commons Amendments is putting it far too late, and I suggest that this House should have the right to hear the Government's proposals on Committee, or, if not on Committee, at Report stage so that our views can be heard.
Viscount DILHORNE: I cannot believe that the Government can possibly commit themselves not to make an Amendment to this clause during consideration in another

437
place. It seems to me somewhat unreasonable to ask the Government to preclude the possibility that they will make, or accept, an Amendment to this clause in another place.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The question really does not arise.
Lord GIFFORD: That is not what I am asking the Government to do. There has been a specific reference to Clause 7. The Government say that their minds are not closed; therefore, they may—we know not—seek to extend it. If they seek to extend it and change it, can that be done on Report? That is my plea.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should like to intervene, since I dealt with this matter in the course of the Second Reading debate. What I made clear then—and I repeat now—is that the Government wish to take the view of both Houses of Parliament on this important question. The point which the noble and learned Viscount has just made is perfectly correct. It may well be that there will be a Commons Amendment on this matter at some stage in the future, and we could not possibly undertake today not to consider Commons Amendments which may be made on the matter. We want to be as reasonable as possible, but both Houses of Parliament have to be consulted. That is a perfectly normal way to proceed. I can assure my noble friend that there is no anxiety on our part to prevent this House participating in that discussion; indeed, the value of this debate today is that we have been in the happy position of being able to initiate that discussion.
Lord GIFFORD: I perhaps naively thought that the normal course of events was that the Government made proposals by way of a Bill and Parliament then debated those proposals, and may be they were amended. In this case we have Parliamentary debate first and the Government proposals will be second, which is a curious way of proceeding. But since the question of future amendment is up for grabs, I should like to take the opportunity to ask the Government not to consider the possibility of further amendment of this clause on the basis that squatting in local authority accommodation holds up housing. In far more cases
438
the presence of squatters in local authority accommodation has created housing. By going into local authority property squatters have drawn attention to the fact that that property is lying fallow and empty, and is likely to do so for a number of years. In many cases, what started off as an unauthorised occupation, an unauthorised squat, has become and has been turned into, by the agreement of all parties, a licensed use of short-life accommodation. To give local authorities carte blanche to evict, with the help of the police, those whom they deem at a particular time to be holding up their housing programme, short-cutting what is in any case a very short civil process, would be a retrograde step, and I hope that will be borne in mind.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Of course it will be borne in mind. If any Amendment along these lines is suggested, this is one of the things which will have to be discussed. Most fair-minded people, I think, would admit that violent protests, or even very energetic protests, produce results. I do not want to say anything particularly hostile against people who try to protect the homeless, which is a thoroughly worthy thing to do. They have trespassed in a literal sense on local authorities' rights and have woken up local authorities, and good luck to them. But we are not at that stage today. We are discussing extending a perfectly narrow conception, and I do not think we need go into the further complications at this stage.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I think that this debate has shown that in various parts of the Committee there is certainly a realisation that this clause will have to be amended in one way or another. When that moment will come, we do not know; and I felt some sympathy for noble Lords opposite when there were those who wanted to pin them down—and fairly rapidly, at that. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has this point, that it would be a pity if the Government were determined to keep their powder so dry that they merely used this House as a sieve for ideas and then waited, perhaps until the Committee stage in another place, before producing the plum out of the pudding. That, I think, would be slightly unfortunate; but I have no

439
indication, and I do not think the Committee has any indication, that that is in the Government's mind.
In the case of this particular clause, we have seen both ends of the spectrum so far as possible Amendments are concerned. I reject the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that it is in any way unseemly for a property company to try to get squatters out of its property, any more than it is unseemly for a local authority to do so; and that, I suggest, should not be the criterion which is used if and when an Amendment comes to be tabled and accepted or voted upon.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I did not use the words "unseemly" or "intended". I thought it would be in danger of producing a serious confrontation, which is quite a different thing.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The point really is: In the terms of Clause 7, who is to require the occupier, the squatter, to depart? My point is that we should not be concerned with the identify of the person who has the particular interest which entitles him to require the squatter to go. I was a little sorry about the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, because what he was really seeking to establish was that there should be "no-go" areas for the criminal law. That I regard as an unfortunate argument.
Lord WIGODER: I was raising that only because the noble Earl was suggesting an extension of the criminal law.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I think that many of the troubles we have in this country are brought about because we enact laws and then are not prepared to carry them through and face the consequences. If people break the law or defy it, that is something which has to be considered by the authorities when they try to enforce it. I see the difficulties, but I regard it as unfortunate that at this early stage we should be saying that we cannot do anything merely because a lot of men happen to wish to make a protest.
The other end of the spectrum is, I suppose, to make it a criminal offence
440
for a trespasser not to leave after having been required to do so by anybody with an interest in property. I, for one, seriously seek to put that view forward; but, equally, I suggest that the ambit of Clause 7 as it presently is in this Bill is much too narrow, as we have seen from the various examples which have been held up to us tonight. I think this is something which, again, we shall return to at a later stage of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I hope that others will respond to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to table Amendments, and that it will not merely be for me to think of different ways of saying approximately the same thing. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Trespassing with a weapon of offence.]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("weapon of offence") and insert ("offensive weapon").
The noble Earl said: I can speak to Amendment No. 30 at the same time. This is really on a point of information. I wondered why the draftsman of this clause left aside the good old "offensive weapon" and the definition thereof in the Prevention of Crime Act and adopted what I regard as the slightly more prissy phrase "weapon of offence" and the definition in the Theft Act. It is no more than that. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I hope I can persuade the noble Earl not to press this too hard. It is not a matter of very fundamental difference, but the definition in Clause 8(2) is the definition from the Theft Act, which was 15 years later than the definition of "offensive weapon", which was used by the Law Commission. The Government thought the former was the better. It is a tiny bit wider. It includes incapacitating, which means handcuffs and things of that sort, and it was thought the simplest way to proceed.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: That is really what I wanted to know: what was

441
contemplated by the definition of a weapon which incapacitates. I must say that handcuffs had not occurred to me. I did not know that squatters went around with handcuffs. I had thought of some aerosol bomb, or something. But I am perfectly happy, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Obstruction of court officers executing process for possession against unauthorised occupiers]:
8.10 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 9, line 13, leave out ("solely").
The noble and learned Viscount said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to consider this Amendment and No. 30B at the same time. We are now moving into a rather different field. I must confess that I have not looked at Section 8(2) of the Sheriffs Act 1887, which is not affected by Clause 10, but subsection (1) of this subsection makes it an offence to resist or intentionally to obstruct:
"any person who is…an officer of a court engaged in executing any process issued by the High Court or by any county court for the purpose of enforcing any judgment or order for the recovery of any premises or for the delivery of possession of any premises."
I should have thought that that was a very desirable improvement in our law, if that is a gap which requires to be filled.
These Amendments relate to subsection (2). Subsection (2), if I read it correctly, is a very curious one; because obstruction of an officer of the High Court or of a county court will not be an offence unless the proceedings that have lead to that particular order of the High Court or the county court are of a particular character. I must say that that seems to me to be wrong and to be an undue refinement of the law to say that you can, in certain circumstances, lawfully obstruct an officer of the High Court who, himself, is lawfully acting for the purpose of enforcing any judgment or order for the
442
recovery or possession of any premises, unless the proceedings which have led to the order of the High Court or of the county court are of a particular character. That, I would suggest, must be wrong.
If your Lordships look at subsection (2), you will see that it will only be an offence to obstruct an officer of the court carrying out the process of the court if the claim for possession of the premises alleges that the premises in question are occupied solely by a person or persons who entered into or remained in occupation of the premises without the licence or the consent of the person claiming possession. Subsection (1) will not apply if the premises are occupied by a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to the tenant or tenants holding over. This is quite a different provision. This is dealing with obstruction. If the High Court or the county court—after the interval of two months to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred as being the likely interval of time—make an order for possession of the premises, surely it must be wrong to obstruct the officer seeking to carry out that order. The wrongness of it does not depend on whether the order is made against a person who was a tenant and is holding over and has no right to be there or against anyone else. It should be an offence to obstruct an officer of the court lawfully carrying out the duty that he is charged by the court to carry out. It should not depend upon the nature of the proceedings or the persons against whom proceedings are brought.
I hope that I am not misreading this subsection, but if it has the meaning that it appears to me to have, then it seems to me to be both wrong and unnecessary. I hope that I may be successful on this occasion, although it is not merely a linguistic difficulty, in persuading the noble Lord to say that he thinks there is force in what I have said.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think this is rather more substantial than a linguistic difficulty. I will, if I may, begin by setting out the intentions of Clause 10 in dealing with what the noble and learned Viscount has raised. I think that that is the most sensible course.

443
Subsection (1) provides that it shall be a criminal offence for a person to resist or obstruct a court officer in the execution of any High Court or county court judgment or order for the recovery of any premises or for the delivery of or possession of any premises. Subsection (2), to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, limits the scope of the offence to cases where the judgment or order in question follows proceedings under rules of court applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming possession of the premises alleges that those premises are occupied solely by a person, not being a tenant holding over after the termination of the tenancy, who entered into or remained in occupation of those premises without licence or consent. In effect, this limits the offence to cases where court officers are seeking to enforce orders for possession under the summary procedure introduced in 1970 specifically to provide a speedy remedy in the case of squatters. The procedure is provided in Order 1133 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Order 26 of the County Court Rules. It would be natural to think that subsection (2) would be easier to follow if it simply referred directly to Order 113 and Order 26 but, of course, that would make nonsense of the offence if the procedure has to be amended and is then contained in Orders with different numbers.
I understand clearly the point which the noble and learned Viscount has made. I will certainly undertake to reflect on what he has said; but the Amendment, as I understand it, is designed to widen the offence to cover all cases where a court officer is executing process for possession, whether or not it is issued under the summary procedure. These Amendments will not achieve that purpose, which could best be achieved by leaving out subsection (2) from the Bill; but I cannot advise the House to accept any Amendment designed to widen the scope of this offence.
The Law Commission recommended this offence on the grounds that there is an increasing tendency for those occupying property without licence seriously to obstruct court officials seeking to enforce court orders. The Commission pointed out that it is mainly in relation to the enforcement of orders for possession under the summary procedure that the
444
problem of enforcement has arisen on a widespread scale. If we were now to extend the offence to cover all orders for possession, it could add to the already heavy burden on the police, especially in London, where the pressures are inevitably greatest. The Government recognise that there has been a serious problem in relation to squatters and this clause is intended to help to alleviate that problem. In other cases, the police do their best to co-operate with court officers where, for example, it is anticipated that a breach of the peace is likely to occur.
I must say—and I am quite sure I anticipate a point that the noble and learned Viscount might make in his reply—that I recognise that the views of the police in a matter of this sort should not necessarily be decisive; but I think it is important to recognise that the police would not welcome an extension of this offence into areas where in the past the problems have not been so serious. In deciding what the police should be asked to do, it is frankly necessary, as in so many areas of public policy, to assess the priorities. There is still a substantial shortage of policemen in the Metropolitan Police district and we are bound to take the views of the police in matters of this sort very seriously.
I recognise the force of the argument which the noble and learned Viscount has put and, as I have said, I will certainly reflect on what he has said. All that I must say clearly is that at the moment we are not persuaded that it would be right to widen this offence. However, I shall reflect on what he has said, without, I regret to say, being able to give any form of commitment to change our position in this matter.
Lord WIGODER: While the noble Lord is indulging in his reflections, might I ask him to reflect upon two associated matters? The first is whether it would be desirable to provide that the exemption for the class contained in the brackets in lines 14 and 15 should depend not on the judgment or order of the court but on the allegation made by the person claiming possession of the premises. It would appear, on my reading of the subsection, that it would be open to a plaintiff to make an allegation of the sort in that subsection and thereby avoid the provisions

445
of the parentheses; even though judgment was given on the ground that the tenants were holding over after the termination of the tenancy.
The other matter is this. If it is desired to persevere and exclude from the operation of Clause 10 a particular class of people—namely, tenants who are holding over after the termination of the tenancy—ought that not to be extended to cover those persons who innocently take a sublease which has been granted in breach of a covenant not to assign, as a result of which they wholly inadvertently find themselves technically in a position of squatting? If it is thought that there should be protection given to tenants holding over, do not people in that position deserve similar assistance?
Viscount DILHORNE: As I read this clause, it is not concerned with protection to persons holding over or to protection of tenants. It is concerned with protection for officials who are carrying out court orders—nothing else. I do not question the desirability of making it a criminal offence for obstructing court officers seeking to enforce orders for the recovery of premises or for the delivery of possession of premises. I, too, take the point that it probably would have been better to put down an Amendment to leave out subsection (2), because at present that subsection is unnecessary surplusage and unnecessarily complicated. I do not think that the protection given by the clause should be limited only to the court officials who are seeking to enforce orders for possession if those orders for possession are based on certain claims and not on others. I hope that I have made that clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, talked about the position of the police. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that we are not solely concerned with the police on this. There is a power given to a constable to arrest without warrant. There is no need in every case for an arrest to take place. What I am concerned with is the protection of the court officials. A court official who is obstructed may think fit to bring proceedings for an offence under this clause. One does not know. I should have been happy if the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, could have assured me (perhaps I should know, but
446
I have not looked it up) that, quite apart from the provisions of this clause, there is adequate protection for court officials who are seeking to enforce orders for recovery of possession mace against persons to whom the clause does not at the moment apply. It may be that there are those powers. I am afraid that I am not aware of them, and I would be content if they came in other ways.
If there are not those powers, I cannot think that the exclusion of subsection (2) would add appreciably to the number of instances upon which the police might be called upon to act. If this criminal offence of obstruction of court officers acting in the course of their duty is made a general offence, I cannot believe that there would be many more people who would be convicted of that offence if it extended to all persons obstructing court officers who are seeking to enforce orders of the courts. The noble Lord will look at it again, I am sure.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I will gladly look at it again. As the noble and learned Viscount has had rather more substantial experience in speaking both from this Box and, no doubt, in another place than I have, I would not wish in any way to give the impression that I can give this point away. We have had discussions with the police on this matter. There is substantial anxiety on their part that by widening this and covering all sorts of situations, there would be demands for the police to be involved in all sorts of problems.
Viscount DILHORNE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I was not suggesting that he should make any concession now. Perhaps he will write to me before the next stage and deal with it. I ought to know what protection there is now, apart from this.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I will gladly do that, of course.
Viscount DILHORNE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.25 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: When the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is considering the position as to whether police officers should be in uniform when carrying out arrests, would he also ponder for one moment whether it is wise, as in line 26 at the moment, to give the power of arrest without warrant to an officer of the court? He is not only a person who does not wear a uniform, but he is a person who has no training of any sort in carrying out those duties.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This is one of the many problems about any possible extension of this provision, as the noble Lord will recognise. I take the point completely. We have thought it right to give these powers in this clause. Clearly, there might well be problems if we were to extend it, as has been suggested by the noble and learned Viscount.
Lord GIFFORD: Is the power, even in this limited case, right? There have been cases—there was one in Ilford some years ago—when court officers or persons acting in execution of court processes misbehaved themselves. I should be sorry to see wide powers of arrest given to persons without adequate training.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I cannot obviously comment on a particular case in Ilford. Unhappily, the situation is that on various occasions allegations can be made against court officers; they can be made against police officers and other members of the public on some occasions. Of course power will be misused. But there is a procedure for complaints against a public servant. So far as this provision is concerned, we think that it is reasonable given the limitation that at present exists in this particular clause.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Supplementary provisions]:
8.28 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In this Part of this Act "premises" means the whole of the building (together with land and erections within its curtilage) in one
448
occupation or entitlement to occupation provided that if the building is in two or more parts which are occupied or entitled to be occupied as separate units then "premises" means all those parts of the building having a common entrance.").
The noble Earl said: This is a simple matter; it is really a probing Amendment to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that the definition of "premises" so far as this part of the Bill is concerned is adequate. One can visualise various contingencies. I will not worry the Committee with examples at this time of night. This Amendment is designed to secure within this part of the Bill buildings which are larger than a simple dwelling-house. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I considered this matter when I first looked at the noble Earl's Amendment. Our view was that the definition of "premises" would not necessarily be precisely the same in the case of Clause 6 as it was in the case of Clause 7. We were not sure that it was right to put a definition in the Bill. I have listened to what the noble Earl has said and I should like to consider the matter further without making any commitment at this stage. Perhaps we may come back to this point.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I suppose it depends whether the Bill is amended at a later stage. If it were substantially amended, then obviously the definition would have to be reconsidered. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
House resumed.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS, RE-RATING) ORDER 1976
8.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Social Security (Contributions Re-rating) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved. Under the Social Security Act 1975, the Secretary of State for Social Services is required to review each year the general level of

449
earnings in Great Britain and to consider what changes in National Insurance contributions need to be made in the light of movements in earnings and other relevant factors. This year's review has been completed and the draft order now before your Lordships provides for increases from next April in certain of the rates and levels of contributions. I will deal first with the details of the proposed changes and then explain the background to them.
Under the order, the lower earnings limit for Class 1 contributions—that is, the contribution paid by employed earners and their employers—is to be raised from £13 to £15 a week and the upper earnings limit is to be raised from £95 to £105 a week. The percentage rate of employed earners' and of employers' contributions will remain unchanged at 5·75 and 8·75 per cent, respectively. The effect will be that under the order increased contributions will be paid where earnings are £95 or more a week. These increases will be at a maximum where earnings are at or above the new upper earnings limit of £105 a week, and will amount to 58p a week for employed earners and 88p a week for employers. Perhaps I ought to make the admission at this stage, before I am reminded of it, that I acknowledge that employers will also be liable to pay a surcharge under the National Insurance Surcharge Act. Your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Sandys, will realise that this is outside the scope of my own Department. It is a tax measure, and perhaps they will not mind if I say no more about it.
The order also provides for increases in the contributions of the self-employed. On this occasion, the increase is shared between the flat-rate Class 2 contribution and the earnings-related Class 4 contribution. After being held steady at £2·41 a week since summer 1974—and I should like to emphasise that date—since which time the rate of retirement pension has increased by 53 per cent., the Class 2 contribution is being increased by 25p a week to £2·66 a week.
No increase in the rate of Class 4 contributions is proposed. This will continue to be 8 per cent. However, the range of profits or gains on which the contribution is levied is being raised.
450
Under the order, the liability for Class 4 contributions will not begin until the profits or gains reach the new lower limit of £1,750 a year, in place of the present limit of £1,600 a year. The upper limit of profits or gains will be increased from £4,900 a year to £5,500 a year, which corresponds with the new upper earnings limit for Class 1 contributions, to which I have already referred.
The effect of the revision of these two limits will be to remove the liability for Class 4 contributions on those whose profits or gains are less than £1,750 a year, to reduce the liability on any particular level of profits between £1,750 and £5,050 a year and to increase the liability where that level is more than £5,050 a year. The maximum increase in the Class 4 contributions will be £36 a year and will be payable where profits or gains are £5,500 or more a year. I hope that your Lordships will feel that these changes in Class 2 and Class 4 contributions match the intentions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who said, when announcing the changes, that,
"we continue to seek—within the confines of a mixed flat-rate and earnings-related contributions structure—to be fair both to the self-employed as a whole and as between those with different levels of profits".
The draft order also raises the level of earnings below which a self-employed person can be exempted from liability for Class 2 contributions from the present limit of £775 a year to £875 a year. The remaining change made by the order is an increase from £2·10 to £2·45 per week in the rate of the Class 3 contribution which is paid weekly by some contributors on a voluntary basis and paid also by other contributors who wish to make good deficiencies in their contribution records. At this point I think I should mention that under a separate order, which was also laid on 7th December, the rate of Class 2 contributions for women is increased from £2·20 to £2·55 a week. I think your Lordships will know the reason for that, and therefore there is no reason for me to go into it at any great length. The rate is being brought in stages up to that for men and there will be a common rate from April 1978 when the new pensions scheme commences.

451
My Lords, I will now explain why my right honourable friend seeks to increase contributions in the way I have described. I am, of course, aware—as your Lordships will be—that questions were asked in another place about the need for any increase in contributions, given that the National Insurance Fund is expected to have a substantial surplus of income over outgoings both this year and next.
We are not unmindful of the feeling—it has been made perfectly clear to us—but in spite of that we consider it is the right thing to do. It was to provide reassurances on this, that my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Minister for Social Security produced an explanatory note, which I made available in your Lordships' Library. I personally sent one to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and another to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in, I hope, good time to give the Government's thinking behind this matter, even if they perhaps find that they are unable to accept the Government's thinking on it. The points covered in that note are very important, and I think it is necessary that I should give some kind of explanation of them to your Lordships.
The Government Actuary's Report on the draft order shows that, on certain illustrative assumptions as to the levels of earnings and unemployment, the income of the National Insurance Fund will exceed the outgoings by about £932 million in the current year, and by about £875 million in 1977–78. As to the first of these amounts, I have to say that this estimated amount is very much greater than had previously been forecast by the Actuary. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the yield of contributions had been under-estimated. The new earnings-related system of contributions began as recently as April 1975, with the result that earlier reports had to be based on more speculative information about the yield of these contributions than is now available. The second reason is that the cost of unemployment benefit is proving to be less than had been allowed for. This is because the proportion of the unemployed entitled to unemployment benefit has turned out to be lower than had been expected. Here, again, the Actuary's original estimates had to be based on information which, in the event, proved
452
to be a less reliable guide than he would have hoped—in this case, because at the time those estimates were made there were no statistics of the relevant characteristics of such a high level of unemployment as we now have.
Two factors enhance the effect of these developments on the surplus. First, the receipt of more money by way of contributions than had been expected leads automatically to a higher Treasury supplement. Secondly, the increased balance in the Fund means a bigger income by way of interest. The result of all these factors is, as I have said, that the Government Actuary now expects that the current year's surplus will be about £932 million.
I am sure that your Lordships will ask the significance of such a surplus. The answer is that it would increase the balance in the Fund at April next to about £3,000 million. This is, of course, a very large sum of money, as we are aware. However, what one must also take into account is the rate of expenditure on all the benefits that we meet as a Government. The fact is that the balance now in the Fund represents no more than about three months' expenditure on benefits. If my memory serves me correctly—because I do not have the figures before me—we pay out something like £10,000 million a year in benefits. By way of comparison, I should mention that for many years after 1948 the balance represented about two years' expenditure. So we are away from a balance representing two years' expenditure, down to something like a balance representing three months. Not to produce a re-rating order—as some critics have suggested—at a time when the general level of earnings was rising, would, in the Government's view, be an unreasonable step to take, as I shall explain, given the nature of an earnings-related system of contributions.
In relation to the majority of the contributors to the National Insurance scheme—that is, to employed earners and their employers—the contributions arrangements are fully earnings-related. Their contributions are equal to particular percentages of earnings, subject to an upper limit; and, where earnings are below that limit, contributions increase automatically as earnings rise. Subject, therefore, to adjustments to the earnings limits—to match changes in the general

453
level of earnings—the arrangement is buoyant and automatically provides additional income to set against the increased expenditure on benefits resulting from their link with increased prices and earnings. Even without any change in the earnings limits for 1977–78, most of the Fund's income would be assured, because, as I have indicated, people who earn less than the present upper earnings limit of £95 a week would pay additional contributions as soon as they received a pay rise next year. Indeed, out of an estimated increase of about £650 million in Class 1 contributions between the current year and 1977–78, only about £100 million will result from the increase in the upper earnings limit.
I have been a long time explaining this matter, but I realise that there is a certain hostility to it and I think it is only fair to explain it in some detail, even though the number of Members of your Lordships' House who are present is few at the moment. But I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate the reasons why my right honourable friend proposes to increase the earnings limits for Class 1 contributions for 1977–78. The limits must be adjusted periodically as the general level of earnings increases; otherwise the dimensions of the scheme would contract in real terms; and if the limits were not increased, the result would be unfair, because the effect would be that a minority—those with the highest earnings—would be shielded against any increase in contributions next year.
At this point, I ought to mention that when the new pensions scheme starts in April 1978, the upper earnings limit for Class I contributions will be linked to the basic rate of retirement pension. It will, in fact, be about seven times that rate. This relationship was established by the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. The maintenance of the upper earnings limit at that level provides a stable basis for the new pension scheme. It has been used as a firm structure for pensions planning, both in regard to those who will be in the scheme, and, by the pensions industry, in regard to those who will be contracted out as members of occupational pensions schemes. My right honourable friend took account of this new relationship for 1978 in determining the new limit of £105 a week for 1977–78, which is less than
454
might have been justified on the basis of the increase in the general level of earnings.
What my right honourable friend has done, therefore, is to propose increases which fit the structure of the scheme and are fair to individuals, but which are restricted to those necessary to secure a smooth transition to the contribution arrangements of the new pension scheme. The effect in money terms is, as I have said, to create the expectation of a surplus of about £875 million in 1977–78. This is not an excessive amount, given that it is an estimate based on certain illustrative assumptions which, in the present economic situation, may not be borne out by events. Nor is it excessive when viewed against the scale of operations to the Fund, with income and outgoings of something like £10,000 million a year.
Perhaps I may now add the further thought that the National Insurance scheme does not operate in a vacuum, but has an impact on the public sector borrowing requirement. The balance held in the National Insurance Fund is invested, in accordance with Section 133 of the Social Security Act, in public sector stock. Besides providing substantial interest for the Fund, to the benefit of all contributors, this reduces the Government's need to borrow from other sources to finance its overall borrowing requirement. It would, therefore, be unreal to think that having, by a normal use of the machinery by which contributions are adjusted each year, acquired the expectation of a healthy surplus of income for 1977–78 my right honourable friend should deliberately reduce that surplus by taking on additional benefit commitments. In the present period of severe restraint on spending there could be no justification for such a course. What is more, any additional benefit expenditure which involved a continuing commitment would mean higher contributions than would otherwise be necessary in the years to come. Further, a reduction in the estimated surplus would require further Government borrowing or a reduction in forecast public expenditure.
Perhaps I could finally say this. Our prime reason for introducing this order is to maintain the structure of contributions. It is true that this assists with the management of the public sector borrowing

455
requirement. My right honourable friends and I have not attempted to conceal the fact, and I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have been perfectly honest about it. This is a situation in which the proper management of the National Insurance scheme and the needs of the national economy both point in the same direction. Yet the way, if I may say so—although I do not want to make any political points out of this—that some Opposition spokesmen in another place have talked would lead one to think that something particularly sinister and underhand was going on. I think that anybody who has looked at the situation will realise that this is not so. Surely the fact that our management of National Insurance will have beneficial and important side effects cannot be regarded as some form of discreditable and covert manipulation.
I apologise again for having spoken at some length about the draft order which is now before your Lordships. Although the increases for which it provides are comparatively small, I have been aware of some very real misunderstandings about it. I like to think that they are misunderstandings, although I realise that there is another point of view. I hope that I have said sufficient to remove them. Therefore I conclude by asking your Lordships to accept the order. I commend it to the House for approval.
Moved, That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1976, laid before the House on 7th December be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
8.55 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, at this late hour I shall be brief. However, in opening my remarks may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for sending to me a copy of the note which was given in explanation by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The base from which we start is Section 120 of the Social Security Act 1975. Justification for the whole of the order is given by that section. However, may I remind the noble Lord that at the end of an annual review the Secretary of State is not bound to make a re-rating, because under subsection (7) he may report to another place that his determination is otherwise. It is our submission
456
that on this occasion there was a strong case for doing that. The noble Lord said that there was no justification for new benefits in the present circumstances, and in view of the extreme pressure on public finance I think that we would probably agree with him. At the same time, however, we would most strongly emphasise that there is no justification for increasing the contributions.
I should like to go into the question of the substantial surplus, because I believe that its history requires to be examined in a little detail. As it stood at March 1974, there was a total surplus of £1,461 million; in 1974–75 a total of £638 million was added; in 1975–76 a total of £319 million was added; and in the current year, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has rightly reminded your Lordships, a total of £932 million is added. We estimate, therefore, that at 5th April 1977 a total of £3,350 million will have been invested, as the noble Lord again reminded us, in public sector stock under Section 133 of the Social Security Act 1975.
This is an enormous sum of money which, of course, is substantially assisting the Government in a quite different direction from social security benefits. It is assisting them in their public sector borrowing requirement. We are more than ready to acknowledge that this is perhaps a mere three months' amount which is being set aside to act as a cushion; but this emergency is wholly unlikely to arise, because it is impossible for the Government to switch off the contributions at some particular instance. Therefore this enormous sum of money has been credited to a totally different purpose from that for which it was actually designated.
I read with interest the remarks of the Secretary of State when he introduced the order in another place on 7th December. At column 157 of the Official Report in another place he said this about the surplus of £932 million:
"…this favourable balance will be of advantage in view of the economic uncertainties and in moving towards the higher contributions needed from April 1978 under the new pension scheme."
I do not think that that statement can be justified in the circumstances. To be told that in order to await the increased contributions in 1978 we have to suffer at some mid-point in 1977, and that therefore the contributions must be raised

457
now in anticipation, is an argument which it would be very difficult to advance.
Further, in the notes supplied by the noble Lord's Department, it is interesting to see the situation in regard to the numbers of unemployed. It is of further special relevance today that the Prime Minister in another place referred to the numbers, when he said:
"I do not think it is possible that this figure"—
and he referred to the figure of 1,448,193, the worst January figures for 29 years—
"will be reduced for some time. As long as we are trying to squeeze inflation out of the economy this is one of the consequences we have to bear."
The situation as we understand it is extraordinarily complex, because although there are nearly 1½ million registered unemployed persons, figures supplied for us by the Government of those who are seeking unemployment benefit at the present moment are approximately 750,000. Therefore, it would seem that very nearly the same number again of unemployed persons are for some reason not claiming that benefit. They may be ineligible for any one of a number of complicated reasons. But to advance the case that has been advanced, that this surplus was unexpected because of factors which were unforeseen, is difficult, especially when we must appreciate the Actuary's report in which the position is set out very clearly.
Finally, we must recognise that the Government's reason for advancing a re-rating order is wholly unacceptable to this side of your Lordships' House. We do not believe that they have advanced a case of sufficient strength to enable them to put forward this order as it stands. We are not going to add further to the argument this evening in a very sparse House, but I should like to say to the Government that I believe in the statement made by the Secretary of State on the 7th December, he advanced a very slight case for these enormous increases in relation to the position as it stands today. I will not go into the figures, but I believe that should the Secretary of State consider introducing a further uprating in the course of the next twelve months he will have to make a much better case.
9.4 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should
458
like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining the provisions of this order with his customary thoroughness and clarity. It is clear that the reason why the upper limit and the lower limit are being raised is to take account of inflation and also to maintain the seven-to-one ratio which is to be applied to benefits and contributions under the new pension scheme to come into force in April 1978. If there are upper and lower limits, it is understandable that these should be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. However, having an upper limit at all gives rise to an anomaly to which I have previously drawn attention. Every time the upper limit is raised, it is those between the old and the new upper limit who are most heavily penalised. This year inevitably they will again bear the heaviest percentages increase. Those below the old upper limit have no increase, and those above the new upper limit have a progressively lower percentage increase the higher their income is, and those on £105 a week—the new upper limit—in two years have had their National Insurance contributions raised by 60 per cent., having been caught by the two extensions of the upper limit 2nd the last one having been quite a considerable one.
The answer which was given in another place by the Minister for Social Security was that benefits had gone up and pensions had risen by 50 per cent. in the same period, but pensions rose because of increases in prices matched by almost exactly the same increase in average earnings, and increases in earnings should produce—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, explained how they were producing—a buoyant revenue, and that is what is happening.
But when we say that people on £105 per week—and I hope the noble Lord has the point which I have just been setting out—have had their National Insurance contributions raised by 60 per cent. we are assuming no increase in their earnings at all, so Mr. Orme's figure of a 50 per cent. increase in pensions to justify that 60 per cent. increase in their contributions is not relevant to his argument.
Would it not be better and fairer to have no upper limit of contributions so that a lower percentage contribution would be levied on all earnings? Since tie scheme is "pay as you go", and since an individual's

459
contributions do not fund an individual's own benefits, it surely would not matter if there was an upper limit on benefits but no upper limit on contributions. But if we have upper limits, then those upper limits have to be raised. What then about the surplus? The balance is a considerable balance. As the noble Lord said, it is a balance on three months: it is a quarter of the annual requirement which in a "pay as you go" scheme is a very substantial precaution and more than most people would regard as being necessary from the point of view of ordinary prudence.
The comparison with the earlier years is not exactly reasonable, because in 1948 there was a build-up of benefit; the scheme was new, there were not many people with entitlement and, in any case, the whole basis of paying for National Insurance has been altered over the years from what it was at that time. If we are to have these substantial surpluses, and if we say that the limits should be raised, as I believe they should, then, surely, either the benefits should be increased or new benefits should be introduced, or the percentage rate should be reduced. Since increases in benefits or new benefits are outside the scope of this order, and in any case are rejected by the Government, the rate per cent. should be reduced, at least, I would suggest, by the one quarter of 1 per cent. each side which was most recently imposed.
It is clear that the reasons for the refusal to make this reduction have nothing to do with National Insurance. I think this was made clear in the latter part of the noble Lord's speech and is implicit in the final paragraph of the note which he was good enough to let us have in advance. It is clear that the refusal is not made for reasons which have anything to do with National Insurance. It is made as part of the exercise of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, and it is very similar in effect to the effect of the 2 per cent. surcharge, except that the surplus raised, unlike the proceeds of the surcharge, must be held in reserve and cannot be spent other than on National Insurance. In conclusion, I am bound to say that I am not happy at the unduly heavy burden thrown onto national insurance contributions for reasons which are quite separate from national insurance itself.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, whose contributions, if I may say so quite sincerely, are always worth having and worth listening to, even if the Government are unable to accept some of the things said. I think perhaps I ought to re-emphasise that the Class I contribution rates have not been increased. All that has happened is that the earnings limit, as both noble Lords know, has been adjusted in line with the movement in average earnings. I would, with very great respect, say that this is absolutely essential to maintain the structure of the scheme. The surplus for the year which has arisen—let me be quite frank and say so—in a sense was quite inadvertent. Having arisen one would expect it to be invested, and this is precisely what has happened. This will happen, and the economy as a whole—I think we have got to face the fact—will benefit. Next year's surplus is only an estimate, and the estimate, as I said a moment or two ago, is subject to a good many variables.
I think the one point I should like to make in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said is that those with earnings between the upper and lower limits have contribution increases automatically as their earnings increase. The scheme is an earnings-related scheme, and that being so, I feel that what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has done is really in keeping with what is required of him. I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I hope what they have said, and perhaps the inadequacy of my replies, will nevertheless enable them to approve this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
HERITABLE SECURITIES AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION, LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
IMMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [H.L.]
INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION BILL [H.L.]
KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
NEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

  LONDON TAXI: PUBLIC HOLIDAY SURCHARGE
  LONDON TAXI: PUBLIC HOLIDAY SURCHARGE
  CYPRUS: MOVEMENT OF NATIONALS
  CYPRUS: MOVEMENT OF NATIONALS