Sitting of 23 November 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ATHOLL INVESTMENTS (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Partnership Agreements
    Mr. Eyreasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the partnership agreements in relation to the inner city areas of Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Substantial progress has been made in establishing partnership machinery and in starting work on an inner area programme. Work is already in hand on an £11 million package of construction works for completion by April 1979, and I have recently announced an allocation of £30 million under the urban programme to Birmingham for the period 1979–80 to 1981–82. At least £1 million of urban programme support will be available next year. I shall chair the first meeting of the Birmingham Partnership on 13th December.
    Mr. Eyre: I am sure that the Minister welcomes the energetic co-operation of the Birmingham Council in these matters. Is he aware that the Government's statements about partnership agreements are
    1496
    misleading when they refer to the sums of money that have been made available? I say that because the money is provided mainly by means of loan sanctions which authorise local authorities to borrow extra sums at a time when the Government are operating cash limits themselves throughout all Government expenditure. Does the Minister realise that consequently extra costs fall upon taxpayers who live in the middle and outer areas of Birmingham and other cities?
    Mr. Freeson: There is nothing misleading at all. The situation is the same as it has always been. When a Government announce or authorise capital works programmes, that implies loan raising. There is nothing secret about that. In this context we are arranging considerable grant aid so that a good deal of the burden will be obviated by central Government assistance.
    Miss Boothroyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems of the older industrial towns in the Black Country, whose needs are not dissimilar to those of our major cities but whose claims he has not been able to meet under the increased urban aid programme? Will he give priority and practical help to the metropolitan borough of Sandwell by providing assistance from the £400 million that has been allocated to the construction programme?
    Mr. Freeson: The £400 million construction industry package is already the subject of distribution or allocation. There is then the question whether there is any scope to assist local authorities outside the partnership agreements to embark upon inner city or inner city-type programmes. We see the partnership agreements and the programme authority initiatives as the first important steps towards developing policy in this area. We shall bear in mind other areas with similar problems.
    Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend use the partnership agreement with Birmingham to try to persuade the city council to levy rates on empty office blocks instead of giving £1 million a year from the rates to property developers? Will he also liberalise the bureaucratic rules that govern council tenants to enable some of them to paint their front doors a different colour?
    Mr. Freeson: The powers for local authorities to rate empty properties already exist. They may use the powers according to local judgment. We are sympathetic towards the problems caused by tenancy agreements. We have been doing a great deal of work in the Department with the management advisory group and we have issued guidance to local authorities on tenant participation and on the relaxation of the bureaucratic rules that exist in a number of areas.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of enabling tenants to participate is to give them the right to buy their own homes?
    Mr. Rooker: They already have that right.
    Mr. Freeson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is indicating from a seated position, the authority is already there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will direct his attention to the needs of tenants in tenanted estates. I hope that he will not push too far the policy that he is rather indiscriminately pursuing, which would reduce the supply of rented property.
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the partnership agreement in relation to the inner area of London; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): Considerable progress has been made. The partnerships in Docklands and Lambeth, which I announced in April, have been allocated £17 million and £5 million respectively for this year and next. The first formal partnership meetings will be held within the next three weeks. Further provisional allocations have been made of £45 million for Docklands and £15 million for Lambeth under the urban programme for the period 1979–82.
    The partnership for Islington and Hackney was announced on 8th November and £5 million has been allocated for immediate expenditure. Preliminary discussions between officials have already taken place and I hope that the first partnership meeting will be held early in the New Year.
    Mr. Grant: Will the Secretary of State come clean with the House and admit that all this inner city electoral activity means either that areas meriting special attention, such as Hammersmith, must increase their borrowing, which must be paid for at some time, or that there is an added burden upon the ratepayers and taxpayers of other areas, such as Harrow or Brent?
    Mr. Shore: I find the hon. Gentleman's comments extraordinary, because I believe that there is considerable agreement in the House on the recognition of the needs of many of our inner urban areas. I think that the general feeling in the House is that it is time something was done about it. It is no good the hon. Gentleman's dismissing the programme as being electorally attractive. I have no idea whether it is. If it is, it is electorally attractive in areas in which the hon. Gentleman's party has just as much interest as ours does. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the programme increases the borrowing, but, as has already been explained, it is grant-aided roughly to the extent of 75 per cent. if it comes under the urban aid programme or, if it is extra housing, to the extent of 66 per cent. That is widely welcomed by the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Lipton: It is all very well to talk about what the Secretary of State has done for Lambeth—I agree that it is not inconsiderable—but will he explain why he has prevented the London borough of Lambeth from using land in Tolworth, near Kingston, on which 1,000 people could be rehoused? The Secretary of State turned down an application that Lambeth made to use its own land in that area.
    Mr. Shore: I am afraid that I cannot be led astray in replying to that question, because a formal decision has been made and the reasons were set out in the decision letter.
    Mr. Baker: Is the Secretary of State aware that private organisations in London, such as the Clerkenwell Workshops and the Rotherhithe Workshops, are producing more jobs more quickly than are local authorities in London? As these planning agreements have been going ahead for six months now, can he tell us when we shall see the first factory or

    1499
    workship open, operating and producing jobs?
    Mr. Shore: That depends on how quickly the local authorities get on with the job. I have noticed in all my dealings with the partnership authorities that there is a real desire and sense of urgency to get on with the job as quickly as possible.

    Housing (Mentally Handicapped Persons)
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities concerning the creation of a satisfactory housing policy for mentally handicapped people; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: The Consultative Document on Housing Policy which we issued in June indicates a number of ways in which local housing authorities, housing associations and new towns working with social services departments can help many mentally handicapped people to live reasonably independent lives in the community. I take suitable opportunities to encourage them to help in this way, and will keep under review the need to issue more detailed advice.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a substantial number of mentally handicapped youngsters are in hospitals when they ought not to be there? Does he accept that they are technically homeless, and will he look at the Swedish group house experiment for these people?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly examine the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will send me preliminary information I shall examine it. Generally, I accept the principle that he has put forward, namely, that we need to provide more housing of this kind and pay particular attention—I do not think sufficient attention has been paid in the past—to the needs of the chronically sick, within whom I include this particular group of persons. That would enable youngsters and, indeed, other people who would otherwise have to stay in hospital for long stretches at a time to come into their own homes while still under the guidance and care of the hospital services.
    Mr. Charles Irving: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider giving firm instructions to housing associations, which are playing an increasingly important part in the development of housing, that they should include units for the disabled and the mentally handicapped in most of their schemes? Perhaps the Minister would be willing to issue firm instructions to the Housing Corporation.
    Mr. Freeson: I do not think that it is a question of having to issue firm instructions. Many housing associations have taken initiatives over recent years and, indeed, earlier in this area. They have been notable initiatives, and I have seen some of them for myself.
    If, however, there is a need to expand on this, I shall be glad to consult the Housing Corporation and housing association representatives through the National Federation on such matters.
    Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the needs of the chronically sick. Do those needs receive specific consideration in the needs formula or the needs element of the rate support grant?
    Mr. Freeson: That is an entirely different question, which does not arise under housing expenditure. It is treated only in a very residual respect quite separately for subsidy and grant-aided purposes.

    Local Government Expenditure
    Mr. Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is considering cash limits on local government capital expenditure.
    Mr. Shore: The bulk of local authority capital expenditure is already embraced by the cash limit system in one form or another and there is very little scope for extending its coverage.
    Mr. Rathbone: While I welcome that reassurance about the lack of scope for extending it, may I point out that there is a worry among some local authorities that the involvement of national Government in capital expenditure projects may become the case more and more, just as it has become the case in housing, where the most detailed plans have to be approved by the Department? Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that such detailed involvement in the approval

    1501
    of capital expenditure projects will not now become the norm?
    Mr. Shore: A distinction has to be drawn between cash limits and the way in which we issue loan sanctions for capital projects. The hon. Gentleman may recall that in the Green Paper produced after Layfield we proposed certain changes in the system of controlling local authority capital expenditure which would in one sense at any rate have the effect of liberalising the present practices.

    Housing
    Mr. Joseph Deanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria will be used in apportioning the extra financial resources that will be made available for next year, to local authority house building and improvement programmes, in accordance with the Chancellor's statement of Wednesday 26th October.
    Mr. Shore: The extra resources, amounting to £150 million, will be added to the public expenditure provision for housing investment in 1978–79. We are currently considering the criteria on which allocations will be made and are consulting the Housing Consultative Council. I expect allocations to have regard both to an assessment of need as well as to authorities' own proposals for expenditure.
    Mr. Dean: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that if the criteria used this year and last year are continued, those authorities that have done well under that system will continue to do so while authorities like Leeds, which is the one that I represent, which did rather badly under the criteria, will still be victimised?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend certainly has a point. When we introduced controls over new house building last year, we produced in a rather rough and ready way stress areas and non-stress areas. My hon. Friend, of course, represents a constituency in a city which we deemed to be a stress area. But inevitably in allocating these sums we had to take account of what those authorities had been spending in the last two years. Under the new consultations that we are having, we hope to take account not only of past
    1502
    expenditure but of a more factual basis of actual need.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that in large parts of the Midlands the greatest need is not new house building but a combination of improvement grants and local authority mortgages for terraced properties? Can he give an assurance that local authorities will have greater discretion to move budgets around if they so desire? Will he also say that he will not prevent the allocation of local authority mortgages for this purpose?
    Mr. Shore: Obviously the hon. Gentleman is entirely happy with the development of the Government's housing policy, because we have established precisely three blocks of local authority housing expenditure and we are allowing, as it were, total freedom of manoeuvre within each of those large blocks and some movement from one block to another.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Do not the extra resources amount to only half the cuts made in the past year? Do we not need a far greater increase? Would not a visitor from Mars arriving here think that we were crazy on seeing the desperate housing need, on the one hand, and 250,000 unemployed building workers, on the other?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that I always welcome his encouragement. I am very much in favour of increasing the totality of the housing programmes. Of course, I am sure that the decision announced a short time ago about the increase of £150 million in money available for capital investment in housing gives my hon. Friend considerable satisfaction, as well as it does me. It would give him even more satisfaction, which I would share, if we were able to improve on that in the future. Perhaps we shall be.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State confirm that when deciding on needs as he sees them he has no intention of limiting the discretion of local authorities to choose within which of the three blocks of apportionment they allocate their revenues and expenditure?
    Mr. Shore: There has to be some general discussion and agreement on the blocks across the country—as a whole,

    1503
    as it were—otherwise there would be no point in having any blocks at all. One would simply make a total allocation. We have gone a considerable way in liberalising the systems introduced in the past and I believe that is widely welcomed by local authorities.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest official figures for house building in the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Freeson: In September there were 28,400 starts in Great Britain, of which 13,500 were in the public sector and 14,900 were in the private sector. There were 28,100 completions, 15,600 in the public sector, 12,600 in the private sector.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these appalling figures have arisen because he and his colleagues, especially those in the Cabinet and the Treasury, paid heed to the hysteria from the Tories about cuts in public expenditure as a result of which we today have a lobbying of the House by many thousands of people protesting at the situation? Will he explain more precisely what he intends to do to increase the amount of money available for housing in 1978–79 when this exercise is balanced against the fact that, according to the IMF decision in December last, there is to be a further £300 million cut in housing? Therefore, is there not likely to be a further reduction in expenditure on housing?
    Mr. Freeson: Whatever may be the arguments over the action on public expenditure agreed in the IMF settlement, it would be a mistake to comment that the rate of house building by local authorities throughout the country in the months that have ensued has been affected by that. The position now—as I indicated some months ago was likely to be the case—is that, although the Government have provided resources for about 150,000 housing starts in the public sector in 1977, there is clear evidence that a number of local authorities are not taking up the resources already available.
    The figures that I have referred to relate to a shortfall on provided expenditure, irrespective of the argument whether or not cuts should have been imposed last year.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the £300 million cut imposed by the IMF for this year be restored next year? Should not half of the profits from North Sea oil be devoted to housing and other social expenditure? I should particularly like the Minister to reply to my first question.
    Mr. Freeson: I have my own views on the broad strategic questions relating to the future use of profits from North Sea oil and I shall participate in presenting them in Government, but that question would be best directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    As for the prospects for housing in the coming year, it is already our intention to increase provision by about £150 million in 1978. However, that is not my immediate concern. I am concerned about the failure on the part of a number of local authorities to take up resources that have been provided. I am doing my best—although with difficulty—to reallocate resources that have not been taken up by some authorities to those authorities which are able to use the cash. However, that is a difficult exercise when we are already more than half-way through the year.
    Mr. MacKay: Is the Minister aware that there will he a further reduction in the number of houses built in the private sector next year because of the decreasing supply of land that has resulted from the disastrous Community Land Act? Does he realise that those who will suffer most will be the first-time buyers whom the Minister professes to want to help, because costs will go up as a result of supply and demand?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is a little mixed up. Whatever views there may be on the future of land supply—some house builders are concerned about the prospects in three years' time—there is no reason to believe that that will affect house building in 1978. There has recently been a marginal uplift in the number of housing starts in the private sector, and I hope—and I wish to help it—that that will be sustained in 1978.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is it correct that the underspending of public expenditure allocated for housing in 1976–77 was about £400 million and is likely to be even higher this year? While I appreciate the Minister's proposals to reallocate

    1505
    money between local authorities, from those which are not pressing forward with schemes towards those which are, could there not be an additional allocation to take account of what was not spent before?
    Mr. Freeson: That is a broad issue. In fixing the allocation for the new housing investment programmes for 1978–79, we shall certainly take into account the experiences that we have had with certain local authorities in recent months. However, we cannot consider the underspending of 1976, 1975 or even earlier being made available for allocation during 1978—if that is the point that my hon. Friend was seeking to make.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister recognise that the only good figures that have come out of his Department have been ones that show that local authority and housing association renovations of older homes have increased by 9 per cent.? Does that not show a welcome diversion of resources—mostly by Tory-controlled authorities—towards improving existing houses and away from expensive new building? Does the Minister realise that, although he may tell the House that there has been a slight improvement in the number of housing starts, the House will remember that his Department recently announced that housing starts were 17 per cent. down over the previous 12 months? Does that not amount to a total failure of the Minister's housing policies?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is trawling back over points that I have already dealt with. I said that there had been a decline, but I should point out that a large part of that has been due not to a failure to provide resources on the part of the Government but to a failure by a number of local authorities to take up resources available.
    We certainly welcome more rehabilitation of homes. It is part of Government policy to increase the amount of rehabilitation that is carried out by local authorities and housing associations, and we are encouraging that. However, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that that has come about only in this year as a result of the diversion of resources from new building to rehabilitation. That is not the case. It has come about as part of the provision for which we budgeted.
    1506
    What we are seeing this year is an under-spending of resources, not a switching of resources.

    Community Land Act
    Mr. Budgenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Community Land Act to make a profit.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): We shall probably not get an overall surplus until authorities are disposing of as much land as they are acquiring.
    Mr. Budgen: Is it not now clear that there will never be sufficient money to make this legislation work, whatever its merits or demerits? Would it not now be best to attempt to help the hard-pressed construction industry, and especially its 250,000 unemployed workers, by reducing the rate of development land tax so as to encourage private land owners to make voluntary sales of development land?
    Mr. Barnett: As I have said on previous occasions, we have little evidence to suggest that there is a shortage of land for development. What we do believe is that the community land scheme must be built upon a secure financial basis, and that is precisely what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the first disposals that have taken place have shown a profit.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Act will at least prevent land speculators from making huge profits at the expense of the community, as has already happened? Has my hon. Friend seen the recent report that Mr. Horace Cutler, the GLC Tory leader, made £1 million by buying land and selling it to a local authority?
    Mr. Barnett: One of the purposes of the Act is to prevent the appalling speculations in land that have taken place in the past, but I remind my hon. Friend that its major purpose is to enable local planning authorities to plan their land for the benefit of the community as a whole.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will take note of the recent Civic Trust report that showed that no less an 250,000 acres of urban land are in the ownership of local

    1507
    authorities and other bodies? Does he agree that if that land were released on to the market now it would do a great deal to help the building of new houses? Will he do something to persuade local authorities to get on and do it?
    Mr. Barnett: I welcome the report, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the attention of the House. We shall study it carefully. I share the hon. Gentleman's obvious concern for good land management by local authorities.
    Mr. Rossi: Why will not the Minister take up the invitation that we made to him more than a year ago to ask nationalised industries and local authorities to state what unused land they have in public ownership, and if they have no use for it to put it on the market and let somebody else get on with its proper development and use?
    Mr. Barnett: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman asks me to find ways of encouraging local authorities to spend money during a time of financial constraint. We believe that it would be wrong to do that at present. That is not to say that I do not share the concern of Opposition Members about the need for good land management by local authorities. Our evidence is that the Act is encouraging just that.

    Urban Relief Roads (Planning Inquiries)
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time currently needed between the date of a public inquiry into urban relief road proposals and the publication of his decision on them.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: The time varies according to the complexity of the issues and the weight of objection.
    Mr. Boscawen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that non-reply. Does he not think that the fact that it is now 11 months since there was a public inquiry into the Wells inner relief road is disgraceful? An appalling sense of injustice is felt by those whose homes are blighted, who are having to wait so long and cannot make any plans about their future, about their homes or about their finances. There is a feeling that the officials in the
    1508
    hon. Gentleman's Department just do not care. Would he care to comment on that?
    Mr. Barnett: I shall certainly comment. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the inquiry took place at the beginning of this year. We have received the report, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I are considering carefully and urgently. I sympathise with the people who may be affected by the plans, but I must underline the importance of seeing that decisions are right and that all the factors are properly taken into account. The hon. Gentleman's is a case where there has been inevitable delay, but I assure him, as I have already done in correspondence, that we are getting on with the matter as urgently as possible.
    Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that exactly the same considerations apply to the M23 north of Hooley, which affects my constituency? There has now been a delay of about 10 years in that regard. Will the hon. Gentleman tell his colleagues in the Department of Transport to get on and take a decision which removes property blight from my constituents once and for all?
    Mr. Barnett: I shall bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that inquiries could be speeded up if information required by protesters were available at the beginning of the inquiries?
    Mr. Barnett: I shall consider that.
    Mr. Boscawen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Housing (Students)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to encourage the adequate supply of private accommodation for students at universities and polytechnics.
    Mr. Freeson: Apart from the provision of on-campus accommodation, a great deal is being done in the public sector to meet the needs of single persons, including students. The housing Green Paper

    1509
    suggested a number of measures to help those who wish to buy homes; and we shall, in the current review of the Rent Acts, take full account of the rôle of rented housing in meeting students' and other single persons' needs.
    Mr. Knox: That was a very disappointing and inadequate reply. When will the Minister take positive steps to encourage a substantial increase in student housing associations, and when will he set up a register of students' accommodation which would be exempt from security of tenure?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman's last suggestion has been considered and rejected by the Government after a great deal of discussion. The housing association movement to which the hon. Gentleman referred has trebled the amount of housing it is providing annually during the past three years. A great deal of that housing—not enough yet—is being provided for single people, including young single people, such as students.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a group of students can pay a great deal more for given accommodation than any family seeking that accommodation would be able to pay, and that removal of security of tenure would simply result in the students paying substantially higher rents and their becoming even more attractive to the landlord compared with an ordinary family, thus aggravating the problems for other people in university towns?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon Friend has summarised very well the reasons that led us to reject the proposal that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) put to me.
    Mr. Rossi: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the autumn of 1974 the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), then his Under-Secretary of State, wrote, as Minister, to me giving an undertaking that the Government would introduce legislation to remove student accommodation in the hands of private landlords from the effects of the Rent Acts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the breaking of that undertaking countless students have suffered considerable hardship every September, even including this Septem
    1510
    ber? In view of that, does he not regard his answer as both a breach of faith and terribly complacent?
    Mr. Freeson: It was certainly not complacent. We had exchanges on several occasions two or three years ago about the proposal put by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) and we rejected it for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann).
    Both before and since the 1974 Rent Act there have been difficulties, to a degree, for students in polytechnics and universities in September of each year. But it is not true that the position is worse. If anything, the evidence that I have—it is only indicative evidence—is that the position is somewhat better now than it has been in the past.

    Central Lancashire New Town
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the provision of employment opportunities in the Central Lancashire New Town is commensurate with the proposed programme of residential development.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: The revised target figure for the Central Lancashire New Town which my right hon. Friend announced in July took account of the need to achieve a balance between homes and jobs in the new town. I am satisfied that sufficient employment opportunities will be available in the new town to provide for the increased population.
    Mr. Rodgers: I thank the Minister very much for that reply and explanation. Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet in Clayton-le-Woods that accommodation for 4,000 people should be built in this area? Is he satisfied that the new town has the capacity to generate sufficient employment opportunities to meet the situation, and does he intend to hold a public inquiry into these proposals?
    Mr. Barnett: I am aware of these proposals and I am informed that the development corporation is consulting people in the area about them. This will go before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a Section 6(1) application and at that stage he will decide whether there should be a public inquiry. I

    1511
    can assure my hon. Friend that we shall examine the proposals very closely to see whether the provision of houses is justified in the context of the revised population targets, and will take fully into account the views of the local authorities, public bodies and the general public.
    On the employment side, the CLNT unemployment level is around 6 per cent. which, in national terms, is not too bad. The development corporation has been very successful in bringing new jobs to the area, and the Secretary of State for Industry has approved the first stage of the expansion of the British Leyland truck and bus division, which will provide 700 new jobs.
    Mr. Thorne: What immediate plans does the Minister have to strengthen community representation on the Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation, which has made a great impact upon the sort of housing plans it has at the moment?
    Mr. Barnett: We are reviewing the board of the Central Lancashire New Town and will be making an announcement in the near future. We are keen to see on the boards members of the local authorities who directly represent the people in these areas, and we think that this should be a requirement in respect of the boards of all third-generation new towns as well as others.

    Tenants' Charter
    Sir George Youngasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for establishing a tenants' charter.
    Mr. Freeson: The proposal for a tenants' charter for public sector tenants was set out in the housing policy Green Paper earlier this year. The details of the separate elements in the charter and the arrangements for giving effect to them are the subject of a consultation paper which has recently been issued to the local authority associations and all other interested parties.
    Sir G. Young: Can the Minister say whether a tenants' charter will be included in the proposed housing Bill, and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Freeson: No, it will not be included. Apart from anything else, the consultation process will stilt be taking place when we introduce such a Bill. The Bill proposed, as stated in the Queen's Speech, relates to particular assistance for first-time buyers and not to tenants' charter matters.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that I welcome very much his intention to bring forward some sort of tenants' charter? Will he give us an assurance that he will ensure that tenants are free from some of the bullying bureaucracies with which they have had to contend in the past? Will he also ensure that the discrepancies between the exchange' arrangements of one town and another are rectified, because some are completely absurd at present?
    Mr. Freeson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent translation, and welcome his maiden question, for some time anyway. I do not think that we have to await legislation, as indicated in the original Question, before embarking on improvements to tenants' relationships with local authorities and housing associations. We issued guidance and consultation material to local authorities on this matter, following a review by my advisory group in the Department, which I hope will produce results in the intervening period. I do not think that I can tell the House more at this stage about the second point that my hon. Friend raised. However, we are concerned about improving the national transfer and' exchange arrangements operating between local authorities.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister considering a tenants' charter which will include the right of the tenant to buy his own council house?
    Mr. Freeson: We have made it perfectly clear that we do not favour the indiscriminate sale of council houses. I refer the hon. Member to the policy statement that we made on this matter in the Green Paper.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is the Minister aware that the tenants' association in London is deeply concerned about the workings of the housing transfer system which works against certain categories of tenant? Does his Department give any guidelines to local authorities in this respect?
    Mr. Freeson: We do not give guidelines singularly in this respect, but this is one issue which is the subject of examination by my advisory group. It is a matter with which I am deeply concerned, along with other aspects of allocation policy. I believe that greater flexibility is needed, and a growing number of local authorities are embarking on initiatives in this field to make the arrangements much more flexible than they were in the past. I am glad of the support of hon. Members in pushing down this road.
    Mr. Rossi: Will the Minister say why it is necessary at this stage to consult local authorities on the tenants' charter when this matter has been debated for so long and there is general agreement on both sides of the House about the need for such a charter to protect tenants from the paternalism of local authorities? Will he assure us that he will consult tenants' associations and give a firm undertaking that the charter will include security of tenure for council tenants?
    Mr. Freeson: There is tenants' representation on the advisory group to which I have referred. In the last two or three years there have been more moves than ever before in the local authority and housing association fields, as well as in the burgeoning co-operative housing field, to involve tenants in the management and running of their estates and properties. We are consulting because that is the democratic thing to do, and we are concerned that the elected local authorities owning considerable estates are consulted in these matters because they are entitled to such consultation.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the rate support grant for Essex in 1978–79; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rate support grant for 1978–79.
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current methods of calculation
    1514
    that are used in deciding the rate support grant for counties with rapidly expanding populations.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what formula he proposes to adopt for the distribution of the rate support grant for the coming financial year as between shire and metropolitan counties.
    Mr. Shore: The rate support grant settlement was announced at the statutory meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance last Friday, 18th November. The main terms of the settlement were given in my answer to the parliamentary Question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on the same date. The full text of my statement is in the Library.
    The method used for distribution of the needs element of rate support grant is based on a regression analysis of needs in each local authority area, but any resulting redistribution between authorities is limited by provisions for a four-year damping of the results and by a safety net which restricts any loss of grant arising from the use of the new formula to a particular local authority area to an amount equivalent to a 2p rate. The system takes account of the needs that may arise in a local authority area as a result of expanding population.
    In formulating the terms of the settlement, I have taken account of the many representations I have received in the past year from local authorities and Members of Parliament, and I have already informed Essex Members that I would be very happy to meet them now that the terms of the settlement for 1978–79 have been announced.
    Mr. Newton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance at the end of that answer. Is he aware that there is considerable confusion about the operation of this so-called safety net, and that Essex calculates that its ratepayers have lost £3 million more than they should have done if the Minister meant what he said on Friday? Will he further acknowledge that, whatever he may say about taking account of the needs of an expanding population, the people in Essex and elsewhere will feel that the Government have wholly forgotten their needs?
    Mr. Shore: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the population growth is reflected in the needs formula. Furthermore, if there is any confusion in people's minds on how the safety net will operate, that will be quickly and speedily elucidated when we lay the relevant rate support grant orders. We shall be in touch with the various town halls and county halls concerned.
    Mr. MacGregor: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this continual switching of parts of the rate support grant under the present Government from rural to inner urban areas has put county councils such as Norfolk in an extremely difficult position in the past few years, especially as they have been both trying to maintain services and seeking to protect ratepayers from excessive rate increases, bearing in mind that there are often areas with below-average incomes? Is it not clear that this difficulty will continue next year, owing to the fact that inflation has been underestimated and also the fact that there have been further concessions to London?
    Mr. Shore: I believe that it is right—this is not only my belief, but it was that of the Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment in his time—that the distribution of local authority grant should be based on the best possible assessment of need. That is what we have been trying to do. It means that there will be a distribution from authorities which are assessed to have lower needs to those authorities which are assessed to have greater needs. That is bound to happen. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to exaggerate. I am glad to say that there is an increase in the amount of money being given to Norfolk. Many hon. Members have still very much in mind the great difficulty that we experienced last year, with the admittedly sharp reductions felt by most authorities.
    Mr. Madel: Is the Minister aware that before the adoption of his policies of giving extra help to inner cities, counties such as Bedfordshire have over the past 20 years taken large numbers of London's overspill and have provided jobs and education in order to help solve the problems of the capital city? Therefore, is there not an unanswerable case for counties such as Bedfordshire to be given an
    1516
    increase, in real terms, in rate support grant to enable them to do the job which for 20 years central Government have told them to do?
    Mr. Shore: The needs of counties and districts in cases of the export of population from elsewhere will be reflected in the size of the needs element granted to Bedfordshire.
    Mr. Hurd: Is it no tclear that for most shire counties, particularly for Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire, this will be another year of tightened belts? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman prevent his ministerial colleagues making foolish speeches and issuing circulars that lead people to expect improvements in services, for example, in the teacher-pupil ratio, while at the same time denying the resources on which such improvements must be based?
    Mr. Shore: I do not accept that at all. My right hon. and hon. Friends go round the country making entirely sensible speeches, as one would expect. In the case of Oxfordshire, there was a substantial reduction last year in absolute terms in the amount of grant available. This year there will be an increase in the needs element for Oxfordshire. Therefore, that authority will not be under an intolerable strain.
    Mr. Moonman: Since the Secretary of State says that he is prepared to meet Essex Members, is the door still open and will he be prepared to consider further representations? If these matters are being argued on the basis of need, he will no doubt be aware that Basildon has a considerable rate of unemployment.
    Mr. Shore: I am not reopening the question of this year's settlement, but I should be only too willing to meet hon. Members from Essex so that we may discuss whether there is any way in which we can assist them in their problems in the following year. There is a cycle in the rate support grant, and it becomes increasingly difficult to alter that cycle as we approach the statutory meeting, and certainly after that meeting has taken place.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the settlement will cause my constituents great anguish,

    1517
    because even before we begin we shall have to find a 2p rate? Is he also aware that his promises for next year will also fall on deaf ears, because we were promised action last year? What hope can we hold out to constituencies such as mine, in the Isle of Wight, that authorities will be able to maintain their social services and educational services to a sufficient standard in the coming year?
    Mr. Shore: That is ultimately a matter for the local authorities. I wish to make it plain that this year we envisage, across the country as a whole, a situation in which local government spending will continue to be stable. We are not envisaging cuts across the country as a whole.
    Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that education and other services in Essex have already been severely cut back in the teeth of opposition by many Labour representatives at county level? Is he further aware that the safety net, so far as one can see, will not prevent the need for inordinate increases in the rates to maintain depleted services? Can he offer some hope of a further change, even in the present year?
    Mr. Shore: It is counties such as Essex—and there are others, including some metropolitan districts—which have benefited from the safety net. But for the safety net this year, the rate settlement would have had a harsher effect. Therefore, we have tried to take account of the problem. The 2p figure will probably mean a 4 per cent. increase in rates. I do not think that that will impose an intolerable burden on county councils and other authorities.
    Mr. Heseltine: When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that he is helping counties this year by the new formula, does he not appreciate that he is only building on last year's injustices? In practice, 14 shire counties will receive less cash in 1978–79 than they did in 1976–77, despite dramatic increases in prices since then. Does he further understand that if he had treated shire counties in the same way as he has treated urban areas in the past three years, shire counties would in 1978–79 receive £350 million more in a year than they would otherwise do? This is the nature of the scale of hardship imposed on shire county ratepayers.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Shore: Before Conservative Members chorus "Hear, hear", I would advise them to have a word with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), because they might take a rather different view of the appropriateness and correctness of the right balance to be struck between the assessment of need in different parts of the country. If the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is asking whether I think the urban and metropolitan areas should be denied the figure of £350 million, I think he is mad.

    Mortgage Interest Rates
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek a meeting with representatives of the building societies to persuade them to reduce the interest rates on home loans.
    Mr. Freeson: The Government maintain regular contact with the Building Societies Association. There have been three welcome reductions in mortgage rates this year. If receipts continue at present high levels, I am sure that societies will consider a further reduction.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that in October there were record receipts of £590 million by building societies and that that high level has continued into November, in spite of a 1 per cent. drop in interest rates? Does the right hon. Member agree that building societies have been laggardly in passing on reduced interest rates to home buyers? Does he realise that many people believe that there is bogus competition between the building societies that smacks of the worst elements of a cartel, which is not in the public interest?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not accept that there has been laggardliness. We have seen several cuts in the interest rate in rapid succession. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger, if not directly then indirectly, on an important problem, namely, the balance that must be maintained over a period of time, because there cannot be reactions to situations month by month. Our job—which we carry out jointly with the building societies—has been to maintain stability as far

    1519
    as possible. That means that in good times we must allow an inflow of money to take place at a certain level without an equivalent outflow into mortgages, so that resources will be available should the inflow drop later, while the outflow would have to be maintained. That is the difficult balancing process that we constantly attempt, together with the Building Societies Association.
    Mr. Hooley: What pressure will be brought on the local authorities to bring down their lending rates? There is some bitterness among those holding local authority mortgages that their interest rates are higher than those paid on building society mortgages.
    Mr. Freeson: Local authorities have a different financing structure, which gives rise to this problem. It is not a matter of pressure being required. We are watching the Consolidated Fund loan rates that give rise to this pattern. However, at other times building society rates have gone up while local authorities have lagged well behind in their interest rate increases. There is a balancing process, which does not always produce bad results for local authority borrowers.
    Mr. McCrindle: With 15 changes in the minimum lending rate during 13 months, entirely as a result of Government policy, will there not certainly be a gap from time to time that can sometimes work to the advantage as well as to the disadvantage of borrowers? Do we not hear much less from hon. Members on the Government side when that happens?
    Mr. Freeson: I was not aware that the comments or queries put to me had come from just one side of the House, but I probably accept what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Building Societies' Association has informed me that there is likely to be a further reduction in the mortgage rate towards the end of the year, or possibly early in January? Will he confirm that his Department is investigating methods by which it is possible to ensure that local authority mortgage rates are brought more into line with the
    1520
    rates of building societies? What is he proposing to do in this regard?
    Mr. Freeson: On the last point, I can only refer my hon. Friend at this stage to the suggestions that we have put in our Green Paper on Housing Policy. On the first point, I am aware that there has been a general statement to this effect, but I would not define the statement that my hon. Friend attributed to the BSA as a decision that has still to be taken.

    INDIA (CYCLONE DISASTER)
    Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the need for relief for the 10,000 casualties in the disaster in Southern India, I sought your permission for a Private Notice Question. I accept that it was not allowed—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not customary to refer to the fact that an application has been made for a Private Notice Question.
    Mr. Pavitt: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether I should be in order in renewing my application tomorrow, since there has been no ministerial statement on the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: I advise the hon. Member to study what I said earlier.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although we have had an hour on Questions to the Department of the Environment, we appear to have reached only Question No. 15. Those who have been in the House throughout the hour will agree that there have not been a particularly large number of supplementary questions on those Questions. Cannot some control be exercised over the length of ministerial answers, in particular?
    Mr. Speaker: We have covered 18 Questions this afternoon, but I agree that that is not good enough. I made my appeal at the beginning, but both questions and answers tended to be longer than usual.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 21st and 22nd November. There was also a joint meeting of Foreign and Finance Ministers, a meeting of the nine Foreign Ministers on Political Cooperation, and a Ministerial meeting of the EEC/Cyprus Association Council.
In political co-operation talks, the nine Foreign Ministers issued a joint statement on President Sadat's courageous initiative. We expressed the hope that his action would pave the way for an early resumption of the Geneva Conference and the negotiation of a comprehensive settlement.
On Africa, we discussed what further steps might be taken to ensure wider international acceptance of the Code of Conduct on Employment Practices for companies of the Nine operating in South Africa; and the need to bring home to the South African Government our concern about the repression of dissent in the light of the Security Council's recent mandatory arms embargo resolution. We issued a statement making clear that we would not recognise the so-called independence of Bophuthatswana.
My colleagues and I agreed that it was too early to make a judgment about the final results of the Belgrade Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe follow-up meeting. We discussed the Community position over follow-up meetings after Belgrade.
The problem of United Kingdom and Irish budgetary contributions in 1978 and 1979 under Article 131 of the Treaty of Accession was discussed at the Joint Meeting of Foreign and Finance Ministers on the evening of 21st November. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will take an early opportunity to inform the House about this.
The Council had a general discussion on the serious crisis facing the European steel industry and agreed to return to the subject next month.
There was broad agreement in discussion of the new regional development fund on the desirability of maintaining or
1522
increasing the fund's activity. But it was not possible to reach agreement yesterday on a number of outstanding points, including the size of the fund in 1978, which will probably be discussed at the European Council on 5th and 6th December.
Other subjects covered include the mandate for negotiations on an agricultural agreement on Cyprus. I shall circulate in the Official Report fuller details of the outcome of the Council.
Mr. John Davies: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I wish to associate this side of the House with the Community's remarks on the subject of President Sadat's courageous initiative, and I express the hope that it will be recognised that what he has done is to assert the commitment to peace. That is of great value in the present tense situation. I express the hope also that there will be a positive response to the initiative taken by President Sadat.
On the code of conduct in respect of South Africa, will the Foreign Secretary say whether there was consultation with the organisation representing employers in Europe before the code was defined, particularly in relation to the apparent device of segregating black and white unions, which would seem to entrench the racial division within the framework of the industrial enterprise and which seems hardly desirable?
On the subject of the budget, and bearing in mind the very important sums, involving, I understand, upwards of £500 million, will the Foreign Secretary accept that we support the Government's view in this matter and hope that no compromise will be accepted which substantially increases what should be our proper contribution to this budget?
Finally, on the subject of the regional fund, we recognise that to reach this stage of the year without any certainty as to the future of the fund, given its importance to this country, appears to be an indecision on the part of the Community which represents serious dangers to those who have to plan in these matters.
Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about President Sadat's initiative. I am sure that the whole House will wish it well

1523
and will believe that it has broken through the wall of mistrust. We have yet to see how much progress it will produce, but I believe that things will never be the same after that visit.
On the code of conduct, I confirm that no formal consultations have taken place with the European employers or trade unions. I raised this issue when it was discussed by the Council of Ministers. The general feeling was that it was impossible to hold these conversations without the Community position being revealed, and it was felt that there should be consultations afterwards. It was felt also that the code would have to be modified after a year anyhow in the light of experience. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is anxious to commend the code to British companies with subsidiaries in South Africa and to provide explanatory guidance. He is to discuss this guidance with the CBI and the TUC in this country.
The hon. Member referred to the question of black trade unionism. I should have thought that all hon. Members thought that this matter cut across both black and white, and in the peculiar circumstances of South Africa it is widely recognised that the recognition of black trade unions is inevitable and is one of the major steps forward in eradicating segregation at work.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support on Article 131. This is a major decision, and a lot of money is involved. That is why it would be right for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to reflect on the discussions which took place before deciding formally what will be our position.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the regional fund. The Government's position has been quite clear throughout the discussions. We wish, an expansion of the fund. The sooner we can reach a decision on that, the easier it will be to carry out forward planning.
Mr. Spearing: On the question of the regional fund, does my right hon. Friend not agree that since July the EEC Assembly has received increased powers of recommendations over the budget? If it wanted a large regional fund, would that not create a dangerous confrontation
1524
between the Assembly and the Council, and if it were directly elected would that not be an even greater source of friction?
Dr. Owen: The recommendation that the figure for the regional fund should be 750 million EUAs—that is about £400 million—was originally put forward by the Commission for the first year. That seems reasonable to the Government, and it was endorsed by the European Assembly.
This is a case where the European Assembly has been acting in the best interests of the Community as a whole and of Britain and other areas with severe regional economic difficulties. I welcome the pressure on some member States to increase the regional fund, but that does not mean that the powers would be increased. That would have to be agreed between the Assembly and the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Russell Johnston: As for Belgrade, is it not the case that the European Community representatives have consciously avoided making any relationship between the trade links in Basket 2 and the human rights issue in Basket 3? If that is the case, should we not give Mr. Orlov and his colleagues some support? Is it likely, as has been rumoured, that Belgrade will drag on into February, and possibly even later?
Dr. Owen: I am not certain when Belgrade will end. Personally, I shall be surprised if it ends before Christmas. At this stage it is too early to try to assess the credit and loss account at Belgrade. It is true that the Community has agreed a position. It has been broadly agreed with the United States and many of the neutral countries that we should avoid going to Belgrade and having a confrontation inasmuch as there has been a discussion on issues which hitherto have never been discussed. To that extent, it has been successful. I cannot claim that a great dialogue has taken place. I cannot yet claim that any great progress, especially on human rights, has been maintained.
Governments have taken the view that individual cases are best discussed within general principles, but individuals have raised individual cases, such as the one referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), on which there

1525
is strong feeling. I hope that all the countries that are a party to the Belgrade discussions will recognise that they cannot ignore public feeling if we are to make progress in these discussions. I think that the point is being made clearly and forcibly at Belgrade that those who are monitoring progress on the Helsinki Act should not suffer the consequences for their monitoring.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that the time devoted to these matters will come out of the debate that is subject to a timetable motion. I hope that the House will be aware of that and that hon. Members will ask brief questions.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Did the Council discuss the French Government's threat to the regional fund, or has that threat been made since the Council met? If it has, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a serious matter? Did the Council discuss the confrontation between Britain and the rest of the member States, except Ireland, brought about by the claim made so bravely by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that Britain has the right to take unilateral conservation measures up to 200 miles? Was that discussed? If it was, how was the matter left?
Dr. Owen: Our position on our right to take conservation measures is firm and rests on the Hague Agreement that I negotiated last year, on which Britain stays quite positive and firm.
The regional fund was discussed. The French wish to change the present key. Once we start unravelling the basic key I believe that it will become almost impossible to reach agreement on the regional fund. I believe that it is wise to keep to the present key. However, further discussions are taking place to ascertain whether some flexibility can be found—for instance, on the non-quota section, if that section were to be agreed.
Mr. Dalyell: Was anything said about the Davignon plan to bring non-steel work to steel areas within the Community?
Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend draws attention to the very serious situation that faces the steel industry. This is an inter
1526
national problem. The steel industry worldwide faces a severe problem. The discussion on steel was not as specific and detailed as many of us had hoped, but we have been promised firm Commission proposals to deal with restructuring and some of the employment implications to which my hon. Friend has referred. They have been promised well before the next Council meeting. I think that at the next Council some firm decisions will have to be taken. That is the position of the British and French Governments.
Mr. Marten: Does the Community support the British Government's policy towards Rhodesia? What is its attitude towards the question of the forces that might have to take over? What is the legal status of the sort of foreign affairs statements that the Community issues, such as statements on Rhodesia, South Africa and Sadat?
Dr. Owen: Political co-operation is extra the treaty, so they have no legal or juridical foundation. They are merely statements of an agreed view between the Foreign Ministers of the Nine. As for Rhodesia, the Community countries have strongly supported the Anglo-United States initiative. One of the interesting things throughout the past few months has been the solidarity of the Community in dealing with a number of complex African problems—for example, the internal situation in South Africa, Namibia, Rhodesia and Zaire. We should not forget that France, Belgium, to a lesser extent Germany, and Italy have all had historically strong involvement with and interests in Africa. That means that the Community can speak with some authority on that continent.
Mr. Roper: Was there any further discussion on progress in member States towards legislation on direct elections? Was the German Minister able to indicate whether there had yet been agreement in Germany on the method of election to be adopted?
Dr. Owen: The Germans are confident that there will be agreement on how they handle the particular problems of the list system. They are agreed that there should be a list system. All that remains is the question how they split it up with reference to the Länder. I am not aware

1527
whether they have reached agreement. The Germans believe that they can reach the May-June target date. It is clear that eight members of the Community can meet that target date. They are looking to us, and they will pay particular attention to when we discuss the method. If we were to agree to a regional list system, I believe that it would be possible to meet the May-June 1978 target date.
Sir Bernard Braise: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most dangerous and intractable problems facing the Community is the continued deadlock in Cyprus? Is he aware of the continued refusal of the Turks to give any information about missing Greek Cypriots? On humanitarian grounds alone there is every reason for the Community to act as one. Was there any disposition on behalf of the Council of Ministers to think along those lines?
Dr. Owen: The Community discussed the EEC-Cyprus association agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made it clear that he thought that the Community position was not understanding enough to Cyprus. The discussion was on economic issues. There was no discussion of a political settlement. The political settlement has been held up by a number of problems, not least that there will plainly have to be elections for the President of Cyprus, and the situation following the Turkish elections. I have no doubt that this is a subject on which there must be further movement. The inter-communal talks must come down to discussing the nitty-gritty of both a constitution and the territorial claim. Some other way must be found to introduce a more serious discussion of the necessary compromises on both issues.
Mr. Hooley: On South Africa, was there any discussion of the possibility of taking the initiative within the United Nations to impose an oil embargo? Has any progress been made following the suggestion that ministerial meetings should be in public in future?
Dr. Owen: There was no discussion of an oil embargo. The discussion was limited to possible economic measures, and no decisions were taken. It was agreed that the study of those measures would continue. As for the Council of
1528
Foreign Ministers meeting in public, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy attempted to get an open discussion on an issue of conservation policy at the last Energy Council meeting, when he held the presidency. That proposal was rejected. I believe that there are some Council meetings that could be held in public with advantage, and that is the view of the Government. There are other sessions, especially those that are effectively negotiating sessions, when it is wise not to meet in public. There is a balance that needs to be struck.
Mr. Temple-Morris: On Southern Africa, was any reference made to trying to influence certain members of the American Administration to refer less rashly to South Africa in general, and especially to Mr. Vorster and Mr. Smith, to whom we have to talk? Was any reference made to that, and to trying to influence them to behave in a more statesmanlike manner?
Dr. Owen: No.
Mr. Molloy: On Southern Africa and Rhodesia, was any reference made to the courage of many white people in both Southern Africa and Rhodesia who abhor apartheid and demonstrate and say so, and who want democratic rights created? A word of encouragement in this House and in the EEC for their efforts—I refer to the white people in Southern Africa and Rhodesia—would not come amiss.
Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend. This was raised in the question of the code of conduct. The argument for the code of conduct is that this is a way of peacefully influencing attitudes towards apartheid in South Africa. It has been very interesting that this has received quite a warm welcome inside South Africa. The Financial Mail, which is a reputable South African economic journal, said that there was nothing in the code of conduct which would act against South African existing legislation, that it could be implemented, that it should be implemented and that all that was needed was the guts to implement it.
Mr. Newens: Was there any discussion of the need for the representation of the Palestinians at Geneva? Does anybody in the Community believe that any real

1529
progress towards a lasting peace can be brought about until this is provided for?
Dr. Owen: The statement issued by the Council of Foreign Ministers stated in one of its paragraphs:
"It is urgent that genuine peace at last be achieved for all the peoples of the area, including the Palestinian people, on the basis of the principles recognised by the international community which are embodied in particular in the declaration of the European Council of 29 June 1977."
So there is a strong recogntion that the Palestinian problem must be grappled with, and it would have to be grappled with at any Geneva conference.
Following is the information:
In addition to the items covered in my oral statement the Council discussed the following subjects.
Commissioner Cheysson told the Council of the importance the Commission attached to the dried skimmed milk programme for 1978 and to maintaining its present level. Various aspects of this question will be followed up in subsequent meetings of the Council.
The Council agreed a mandate for the negotiation of a trade agreement between the Community and the Chinese People's Republic and agreed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives should work on a draft mandate for a renewed trade agreement with Yugoslavia. It was also agreed that negotiations should open for the second phase of the EEC-Cyprus Agreement on agriculture. The Council heard a report from the President-in-Office on the latest developments in the Common Fund Conference in Geneva.
On Fisheries, the Council agreed that an attempt should be made to break the deadlock in fisheries negotiations with the Soviet Union by sending the Soviet Government a list of Community vessels which the Community wishes to be licensed to fish in the Barents Sea.
The Commission reported on the bilateral textiles negotiations. My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Trade emphasised the importance of adhering to the agreed mandate and of preparing the autonomous measures which will be necessary if the results of the bilateral negotiations are not satisfactory. The Commission confirmed that the mandate would be observed.
The Council discussed the preparations for the European Council meeting on 5th-6th December. It took note of a Danish statement on home rule for Greenland and considered the development of the EEC-ASEAN dialogue. It agreed to approve an increase requested by the Commission in the subsistence allowances for Community staff and to prolong the secretarial allowance pending a decision on the staff regulation revision.

SCOTLAND BILL (DIVISION)
Mr. Rifkind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Column 1402 of the Official Report which was published this morning purports to state that in the Division on the Question proposing that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, in yesterday's debate on the Scotland Bill, the Ayes were 184 and the Noes 199. However a scrutiny of the Division List shows that two Members—the hon. Members for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick)—voted in both Lobbies in that Division. Indeed, in the previous Division, I think that the hon. Member for Paddington voted in both Lobbies.
I suggest that the Official Report is misleading as it purports to suggest that 383 hon. Members took part in the Division, whereas it is clear that only 381 hon. Members in fact took part. Whereas on previous occasions an hon. Member has sometimes by accident voted in one Lobby, realised his mistake and voted in the other, it would appear from various reports that have been made that on this occasion the hon. Members concerned deliberately voted in both Lobbies and, according to certain reports, intend to continue doing so in future Divisions. If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, is it not necessary to ensure that the Official Report is slightly less misleading in indicating the total number of hon. Members who take part in Divisions?
Mr. Arthur Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be found that "Erskine May" provides for circumstances in which it is permissible for a Member to vote in more than one Lobby.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House to the fact that there is no voting procedure within the House for recording positive abstention? It might commend itself to the Chair and to the House that this is a novel way of recording abstention. May I further say, in response to the point of order, that as regards accidents, there are sometimes in the course of life, and certainly in the House of Commons, occasions for deliberate mistake.
Mr. Speaker: First, I have no wish to contradict the arithmetic of the hon.

1531
Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). This is not the first time that hon. Members have by mistake or for some other reason found themselves in two Lobbies.
I have the permission of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to quote from a letter which my predecessor sent to him about a similar incident. On 30th April 1973 my predecessor wrote this:
"I do not, of course, know why the Members concerned acted as they did; but I am told that it is by no means unknown for a Member who finds that he has voted in the wrong lobby, or who has realised too late that he ought not to have voted at all because he was 'paired', to walk immediately through the other lobby in order to cancel his vote. Such action has always been regarded as permissible and in no way a breach of Order."
I am quite prepared to take time to consider this matter, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that where "Erskine May" refers to people voting in both Lobbies it is regarded as a mistake rather than a demonstration. It would be quite new in our proceedings if we were to have a separate list for Members who vote in both Lobbies because they find it difficult to decide. I had better say no more on that.

FIRE SERVICE (DISPUTE)
Mr. Grylls: 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 living and working conditions of the Service men who are acting as firemen in the present dispute."
I maintain that this matter is specific as some 14,500 soldiers, sailors, Royal Marines and airmen are actually involved, and many of these Service men are at present working between 80 and 100 hours a week in appalling conditions. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I carry the whole House and you with me when I say that the living and working conditions of Service men are a matter of grave importance to all Members of the House. They are, after all, our constituents.
The matter is important because I am certain that the House will want to cross-examine Ministers as to why, for example,
1532
these Service men are not allowed to live in the comfortable, warm and modern fire stations but, instead, are forced to live in squalor and filth in leaky huts and draughty drill halls. Hon. Members will want to ask about that. Some hon. Members will want to tell the Government that it is a scandal that public property is not allowed to be used. While soldiers are risking their lives by day, by night they have to be prepared to doss down like tramps. That is why I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider this matter to be important.
The matter is also urgent because only the House can force Ministers to do something to make the lives of these Service men tolerable in this emergency situation. These brave Service men who are undertaking this duty deserve urgent action being taken by the Secretary of State for Defence, or by the Home Secretary. As Ministers are responsible, after all, for this confrontation and as they sleep cosily in their beds at night, it might cause them to think about the living conditions that these Service men must endure and do something about it rather than just come to the House and say nothing. I hope that an opportunity will be presented urgently for something to be done about this matter.
The matter is also urgent because working conditions of these Service men are extremely dangerous for very obvious reasons. I was the first person to raise, about a week ago, the question of breathing apparatus. Various statements have been made. This is not the time to debate the issue. I know that it is not easy to train people, but it can be done as a crash course in two and a half hours.
Be that as it may, I believe that hon. Members will want to have a debate so that they can ask the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence why the troops cannot use the available equipment to protect not only their own lives—many Service men are being admitted to hospital each day suffering from fumes and smoke and with their lungs badly affected—but the lives of others, because nobody appears to have explained how the Service men are to save the life of a child in a back room when the house is filled with smoke. It is a question of the lives of the Service men and the lives of the civilians involved in a fire. This is why the matter is urgent.

1533
This is, as I am sure the whole House realises, a national emergency. I hope that time will be provided so that the House can speak up for these brave people who are keeping the country going at present.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) gave me notice this morning, before 12 o'clock, that he would seek 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 living and working conditions of the Service men who are acting as firemen in the present dispute."
The House knows that I do not have to decide on the importance of an issue. I am limited to the narrow question whether the business should take precedence over that set down for today or tomorrow.
I have taken into account everything that the hon. Member has said, but I have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 9th DECEMBER
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Graham Page

Mr. Anthony Steen

Mr. Peter Bottomley

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)), the Motions relating to Agriculture may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Tinn.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCOTLAND BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 22nd November].
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  4.1 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: on a point of order, Mr. Murton. I should like to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice. It concerns the legitimacy of amendments, particularly those in relation to England.
  It may be within your recollection, Mr. Murton, that on 10th February 1977 the Temporary Chairman, then the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), said:
  "Before calling the Minister of State to move the new clause, I ought perhaps to mention that right hon. and hon. Members will have read in Hansard a point of order which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) raised last Tuesday. I think that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest."
  He went on to say:
  "The Chairman of Ways and Means has asked me to say that, in his view, were the referendum paper to contain what might be described as 'the independence question', this would not affect the unity of the United Kingdom unless some specific provision also existed to give practical effect to an affirmative answer. Amendments which involve no such provision are, therefore, not in this respect inconsistent with Clause I to which the Committee has agreed."
  He said later:
  "It may save both him and me some time if I tell him now that the Chairman of Ways and Means has previously ruled that the scope of the Bill is related to the government of Scotland and Wales, and he has ruled earlier today that this new clause is within its scope. Therefore, as wiser heads than mine have decided this, I do not see that there is any point in the hon. and learned Gentleman's pursuing the matter."—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1787–9.]
  My point of order is to ask for your guidance, Mr. Murton, in the light of events last night, as to whether, unlike the previous occasion in the spring when we debated these matters, it might be thought, in the absence of Clause 1, more acceptable to you and the Chair to accept amendments that relate to England and the unity of the United Kingdom.
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of this matter. I can only rule, as I ruled on 18th January this year in another but not dissimilar context, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, that
  "in deciding whether a particular amendment is or is not within the scope of the Bill"—
  or ought to be selected—
  "I shall endeavour to use exactly the same criteria as my predecessors have always used in the case of other equally long and complicated Bills."—[Official Report, 18th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 97.]
  I might add that one of these criteria is, and always has been, the effect upon the Bill of any amendments that have previously been made by the Committee.
  Mr. Graham Page: On another point of order, Mr. Murton. In your wisdom of selection, you have chosen Amendment No. 39 as the third item within this period. As the debate has developed on Amendment No. 17 and those grouped with it, it seems that it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 39 within that group. I wonder whether that would be convenient for you, Mr. Murton, and for the Committee.
  The Chairman: I had prior knowledge, a few minutes ago, of the matter that the right hon. Gentleman wished to raise with me. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate at this stage of the debate to introduce yet another amendment into the already large series now under discussion.

Clause 2

  THE SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  Amendment proposed [22 nd November], No. 17, in page 1, line 15, after the word "Assembly", to insert the words:
  'the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act'.—[Mr. Mackintosh.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 18, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
  '( ) Each vote in the election try 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 candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

  1536

  (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. 21, in page 1, line 16, leave out
  'Subject to subsection (3) below the initial
  and insert The initial constituency'.
  No. 26, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
  No. 27, in page 1, line 20, after 'initial', insert constituency'.
  No. 28, in page 1, line 21, leave out '125' and insert '111'.
  No. 29, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.
  No. 35, in page 2, line 3, after 'The' insert 'constituency'.
  No. 37, in page 2, line 3, at end insert 'constituency'.
  No. 40, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
  '(5) Fifty additional members of the Assembly shall be elected by the system of proportional voting set out in Part V of Schedule 1 to the Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent ordinary elections to cast a second vote such votes being referred to in this Act as "party votes".
  (6) The number of additional members of the Assembly other than at the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly shall be half the number of constituency members at the ordinary election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number).
  (7) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the first ordinary election review the suitability and fairness of the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act and may make such regulations amending that system as the Assembly may prescribe by Bill which Bill shall be subject to the powers of rejection contained in Part VI of Schedule 1 to this Act and pending any such amendment the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act for the first ordinary election shall apply to succeeding ordinary elections.'.
  No. 41, in page 2, line 9, after 'initial' insert 'constituency'.
  No. 129, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 12, leave out '125' and insert '111'.
  No. 130, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 12, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
  No. 131, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 14, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.
  No. 132, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 14, leave out 'constituencies' and insert 'constituency'.
  No. 133, in Schedule 1, page 41, line 25, at end insert—

'PART V

  ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
  15.—(1) No person shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless his name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the ordinary election concerned.
  (2) No party shall be an eligible party so as to be eligible for allocation of additional member seats to its adopted list candidates under this Schedule unless it secured 5 per cent. or more of the total of all party votes validly cast at the ordinary election concerned.
  16. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:

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

  (2) Prioriy lists showing the priority as between adopted list candidates shall be democratically drawn up by each party and shall not contain more names than there are additional member seats to be allocated at the ordinary election concerned. A person standing for election as a constituency member may be eligible for inclusion on his party's priority list.

  (3) The valid party votes cast at the ordinary election concerned for each eligible party shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum of the number of candidates of each eligible party returned as constituency member 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 eligible 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 adding the additional member elected in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph to the denominator sum of the eligible 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 eligible 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.

  1538

  (8) In this paragraph "party" means a political party whose principal objects include the adoption of candidates for election to the Scottish Assembly.

  (9) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make regulations for the drawing up and publication of priority lists by parties and the form of ballot paper to be used for ordinary elections to the Assembly under this part of this Act but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make such an Order until a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

PART VI

  REVISION OF PROPORTIONAL VOTING SYSTEM
  17.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly under the provisions of section 2(6) 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 be subject to the same powers of rejection and procedures as a Bill laid before Parliament under subsection (3) of section 36 of this Act.'.
  No. 151, in Clause 5, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
  '(c) as to the method of voting, and the method of counting and transferring votes.'
  No. 77, in Clause 6, page 3, line 40, after 'a', insert 'constituency'.
  No. 80, in Clause 6, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
  (5) Subject to subsection (4) 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 ordinary election under the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1 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.'.
  Mr. Francis Pym: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is not able to be in his place, because I thought that he made a very strong and logical argument yesterday, but it was in some particulars a different case from the one that he argued in January. In January he envisaged an Assembly of 100 Members. Yesterday he argued the case for an Assembly of 150 Members. That is a considerable increase.

  1539
  Many of us think that that is too large and too expensive. I certainly think so. It might have been wiser if the hon. Gentleman had adhered to the scheme of the original size. But as he protested the simplicity of the added Member system, in which there is a great deal of interest in the Committee, I thought of the lot of work that would still have to be done to explain the change to the public. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked some of the pertinent questions that would have to have a much wider public discussion before a scheme of this kind could be generally acceptable in this country.
  If electoral reform is to be introduced, it must be done on its own merits, as an improvement on the arrangements that we now have. I do not think that there can be any other basis upon which such a change could be justified.
  There has been talk in this debate of trying to frustrate the nationalists or one group or another by this reform, but I do not think that a reform of this kind should be brought in on that basis. It cannot be sound to change the rules with the objective of trying to frustrate any particular group or party. If the rules are to be changed, surely that should be done on principle and on their own merits, because such a change is judged to be an improvement on any of the alternatives or on the system that we already have. If that criterion is not fulfilled, I do not think that we ought to have a change at all.
  It follows from that, of course, that if the Committee decides to leave the system unchanged, all the consequences of our present first-past-the-post system remain. This means an acceptance of the fact that a majority of seats will be achieved on a minority of votes, whether it be by a small minority of votes or, conceivably, by a very large minority of votes. It also means an acceptance of the fact that whichever party wins a majority of seats will be fully entitled to put forward thereafter its policies and the case upon which it was elected. We cannot have it both ways. The Committee must decide.
  In the context of the Bill, I cannot say that I think that the House of Commons sounds ready for or is yet receptive of such a change. Certainly on the Conservative Benches there will be a free
  1540
  vote on this matter. Indeed, I think that it is to be a free vote throughout the House. I do not intend to tender advice I am known personally to be sympathetic to change. However, I think that an Assembly of 150 Members is too large, and I do not wish to vote for an Assembly of that size. Nor do I wish to vote for an amendment which has as part of its consequences the handing over to the Assembly of the responsibility of deciding how to conduct the elections that take place after the first election. I believe that that is a responsibility that the House of Commons ought always to retain absolutely for itself.
  Therefore, there are those disadvantages. But we dislike the whole of the Bill and the concept behind it, and while the changing of the method of election to the Assembly to one of proportional representation may be a marginal improvement, it cannot possibly remedy the underlying weaknesses inherent in the method of devolution proposed. To that extent I do not think that a decision on this amendment is crucial.
  This has been a useful debate and certainly a very important one in the general context of proportional representation, but I do not think that the result of the vote is critical in the context of the Committee stage of this Bill, because I think that the difference it would make would be only of a marginal kind. There are other matters that we want to bring about in the Bill which would have a more fundamental and far-reaching effect upon the operation of it. I do not think that this is one of them.
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. You will be aware that in this section of the guillotine, which concludes in two hours and 50 minutes, we have to dispose not only of the present group of amendments but of four other groups, including Clause 2 stand part, Schedule 1 and Clause 3. In the light of that, I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised this matter with me yesterday. I said at that time that this was entirely a question for the discretion of the Chair and that the Chair must make the decision in the light of all the

  1541
  circumstances. At this present time I regret that I cannot accede to the motion.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Might I humbly submit that you should not be in a position of regret about your ruling? The reason we are faced with this problem is the guillotine overall. It would have been within your perception that there were half a dozen Members who wished still to speak to this amendment. Therefore, it should not be a matter of regret that you cannot accept the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee that the debate should continue, and it is a matter of sadness that we shall not have more time in which to debate the other amendments.
  The Chairman: The use of the word "regret" was entirely as a matter of politeness to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who raised the matter originally. The Chair has no views, regrets or otherwise. The Chair must do its duty.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order. Nobody is going to blame me for the guillotine. I completely accept that the discretion must lie with the Chair whether to accept a motion for the closure, but you are faced with a dilemma, Mr. Murton, between either closing the debate on this group of amendments or not only closing the debate on the later group of amendments, which will be done automatically by the guillotine, but also ensuring, by a side wind of that, that there will not even be any vote on the later amendments. That is a very difficult position for you to be in. Neither the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) nor I put you in this situation, but I think that in reaching your decisions within that context the Committee surely would want you to give it the maximum opportunity at least to vote on later amendments. That will not be possible on any other amendment than the present one that we are on now, unless this debate is brought to a close comfortably before 7 p.m., in order to get the vote out of the way before 7 p.m.
  The worst thing of all is that it is going to be the case—it does not matter
  1542
  much on this section of the guillotine—on every other section of the guillotine. All the Government have to do to prevent a vote taking place on a dangerous amendment—which is what I am worrying about—is to get someone to put in a preceding amendment and keep the debate going. There will be plenty of people to back up the Government in this. We shall be deprived not only of debate but of a vote as well. I want Members to understand that that is the situation, and if we do not do something about it on this section of the guillotine we shall have to do something about it on the later section of the guillotine.
  The Chairman: I take note of what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said. I quite understand his views. The Chair has to use its own discretion and the Chair can only do that.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I entirely and respectfully associate myself with the principle enunciated by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), that a constitutional change of this importance should not be made, even for one part of the United Kingdom, except on its evident merits and also after the fullest possible discussion by this House.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is without those who sympathise with his point of view when we realise that the four hours of debate already devoted to this group of amendments have so far only served to indicate how many facets there are to this whole question of a change from direct to proportional representation.
  I want to refer at the outset to a general consideration. In almost every speech made on the subject of proportional representation, it appears to be taken for granted that it is desirable that representation should be fair, in the sense of somehow mathematically reflecting in the elected Assembly the proportion of individual political opinions in the electorate from which it derives its mandate.
  I do not believe that that is a correct view of this House or a correct view of any representative House which this House ought to be party to setting up inside the United Kingdom. This House is essentially a representation of the parts

  1543
  of the kingdom. We all sit here as the representatives of our respective constituencies. Although, of course, the grounds on which we, rather than others, have been chosen to represent our constituencies are party grounds, and although, without that link of party, there would be no meaning in the democratic process, the fact remains—and it is fundamental—that we are not here representing a numerical slab of the electorate of the whole United Kingdom. We are each representing a specific place and a specific comunity and its people. Indeed, this fact is embalmed in our very name, House of Commons, which does not mean the House of the common people or the House of commoners. It means the House in which the communities which make up the realm are represented.
  The first-past-the-post system, so often despised—particularly by foreigners who do not understand many of the essential characteristics of this House—has the merit that it is the natural and appropriate way of selecting one person unambiguously to represent one community. It is from this fact about the House of Commons that we derive the importance of our constituency links—something that we come up against as soon as we begin to investigate any form of proportional representation because the link of a Member with his constituency is inevitably diminished, though to varying degrees, by any system of proportional representation whatever. [Interruption.]
  I already have the assent of my hon. Friends representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, for we in Northern Ireland have witnessed—it continues today at the level of local government—the effect upon representation which is produced by proportional representation under the single transferable vote system, namely, that there is no representative whom any constituent can hold uniquely responsible or accountable for anything to which that representative assents. All is wrapped up in a kind of collective anonymity—the collective anonymity of the lumping together of constituencies and the collective anonymity of a group of people who are elected together by the single transferable vote.
  If we value, as I believe we ought to value as the very basis of our authority, our individual constituency function and
  1544
  responsibility, we encounter at the outset a severe, if not a fatal, objection to the principle of proportional representation.
  When the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) whom we miss this afternoon, was explaining his particular scheme, I think that all hon. Members, whether they were disposed or not to agree with him, were struck and were indeed shocked by the phenomenon of one-third of the Assembly who would have no constituencies at all. Unlike the giant of Greek mythology who lost his strength when he was lifted off the ground, these are to be Members who are apparently off the ground all the time, who will never touch down.
  Even if one were determined to experiment with such a fantastic system as to have one-third of the Members unbeneficed while the rest were in direct and responsible contact with their constituents, I cannot imagine a less appropriate context for the experiment than the Assembly which unfortunately we are setting up under this Bill, an Assembly to deal with those very subjects where constant and intimate knowledge, and responsible knowledge of the problems, hardships, difficulties, and experiences one's constituents meet, is the very basis of the advice which is worth giving in a deliberative Assembly.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman has used exaggerated phrases, such as "a fantastic system". It is, nevertheless, a system that operates and works—and appears to work well—in the German Federal Republic. The right hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the Germans are so vastly different from us in their appreciation of and capacity for operating competently.
  Mr. Powell: I have always made it a principle—and it does not go against the grain—to refrain from any criticism which would imply dispraise of the institutions of other countries. But we are here in our House of Commons, deliberating what measures we wish to put upon our statute book, and what Assemblies, on the basis of our experience in this House, we shall set up for devolving to them our own responsibilities in this place. So I do not believe we can be regarded as casting contempt upon those who come from a different tradition, and

  1545
  whose associations of government, of representation and of authority have different origins from our own, if we lean primarily on the experience that we in this House, and those before us, have drawn from our institutions.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he find any difficulty in opposing the idea of a minority of Members of a Scottish legislature not having a territorial responsibility when, at the same time, as I understand it, he fully supports the present composition of the legislature at Westminster, one House of which has no Members who have a territorial responsibility?
  Mr. Powell: I have taken part in debates enough on proposals for the reform of the other House but what we are discussing today is the body to which this House of Commons intends to devolve—I fear it will prove "to transfer", and I fear it will be "to transfer irrevocably" if we do this—its responsibilities. We are not here concerned with what may be the residual, or what may be the useful functions of the other House of Parliament. We are concerned with the functions of this House and of another subordinate House which, in a sense, we are creating in our own image
  The effect of proportional representation varies immensely—this is what often introduces confusion into this discussion—according to the pattern of distribution of the political population in the territory concerned. Let me explain what I mean.
  If those who are of one political point of view tend to be concentrated in certain constituencies, the difference between the results of proportional representation and of first-past-the-post will be nil or minimal. That was the experience in Northern Ireland when, to the surprise and dismay of those who thought they would correct imaginary jerrymandering by introducing proportional representation for elections in Northern Ireland, it was discovered that the proportion of representatives returned who were Unionists and non-Unionists repectively was basically what it had been before. That was predictable, given the layout, so
  1546
  to speak, of the population in Northern Ireland.
  On the other hand, the further one moves from that end of the spectrum towards the other end, at which political opinions are broadcast and peppered uniformly over all the constituencies, the bigger becomes the difference between the results of first-past-the-post and of proportional representation.
  The usual phenomenon with which those who recommend proportional representation are concerned is this latter situation, namely, that the various contending political parties are spread so evenly that minorities have an exceptional handicap, under the first-past-the-post system, in breaking through the sound barrier and obtaining substantial representation, while on the other hand there is no necessary relationship between the proportion of a political view in the electorate and the representation of that political view in terms of membership of the elected Assembly.
  We have these particular amendments before us today because there is here a special case within this latter case, namely, where one of the political parties is of a special kind—a political party which exists to reject the framework within which the elections are to take place and the franchise is to be exercised. We should not be having this debate but for the existence of the SNP as a formidable element at the moment in the makeup of the Scottish political spectrum. Indeed, some of us think that that is why we are here discussing this subject at all. However, I have no wish to be controversial in anything that I say. So far as I know, nothing that I have said lip to now is other than totally factual. Therefore, perhaps I was unwise even to stray into that subordinate clause.
  I return to the consequences that are feared by those on both sides of the argument. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) says—and says rightly—that under proportional representation we shall less often have an overall majority for one political party. Therefore, says he, we shall more often have a greater risk of having a coalition between a party that is in favour of the Union and a party that is against it. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman's proposition can be disputed, and I agree with him—and so do

  1547
  my hon. Friends—that there are considerable dangers in linking together in unholy wedlock those who do and those who do not accept the system itself.
  On the other side of the argument there are those who, equally rightly, say "Yes, but the first-past-the-post system might produce an SNP majority that has been thrown up by only a minority—perhaps not much more than one-third of the voting electorate." "How much greater then" says that side of the argument "the danger to which we are exposed under the Bill by the existence and the ambitions of the SN Punless we draw its teeth, unless we reduce it to probable coalition status by introducing proportional representation."
  I believe that the fears of both sides to the argument are justified, but that the action which they propose is not proportionate to the real danger with which we are threatened. That danger is the danger that is implicit in the Bill itself, in what the Bill proposes to do, and in the way in which it proposes to do it.
  Here again I am exactly on the same ground as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire who doubted—and I share his doubt—whether any of these remedies will remove those reasons for which nearly half the House is committed against the principle of the Bill. If the SNP did not exist, and if we nevertheless proceeded in obedience to the theory that Scotland is a nation requiring separate directly-elected legislative representation, we should still be incurring essentially the same dangers, namely by creating a Dutch auction in which the winners would always be those who proposed and pressed further developments that would lead to a continuous loosening of the Union and would focus all the discontents in that part of the kingdom not upon their true and real causes, but upon the supposed deficiencies of the system of devolution.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: If the fruits of victory for the promise of Home Rule are as great as the right hon. Gentleman says, how does he explain the extraordinary turnabout on the part of the Labour Party, which was committed to Home Rule as late as 1957, yet at that time, when it was clear that
  1548
  the Scottish National Party was coming into a considerable degree of influence, chose to give up this policy?
  Mr. Powell: There are all sorts of educational forces which operate on the minds of Members of this House. One of the educational forces is a consideration of electoral consequences; but another and perhaps equally respectable educational force is the necessity for debating alternatives to our present situation and doing so with the thoroughness which the procedures of this House, properly used. make possible. I believe that both of those contributed to the conversion.
  I do not think that the danger in this Bill lies in the coalition between a Labour group and a Scottish National group in the new Scottish Assembly, nor do I believe it lies in the possibility that a 35 per cent. vote for the SNP could produce a clear majority in the Assembly; for if it is not the general and preponderant will of the people of Scotland to be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, then neither via a coalition nor via a majority in the Assembly dealing with the subjects devolved to this one will Scotland be taken out of the kingdom.
  The danger to the Union which we have seen from the beginning lies not in the form of election, nor can it be cured by altering the form of the election. It lies in the consequences, by the nature of things, of attempting to set up a directly-elected legislative Assembly for a part of a unitary parliamentary State. As so often, the proposal before us in the amendments—the debate on which has been and will remain valuable—is, in the last resort, an attempt to evade the essential question which the Bill throws up and on which, so far, this House has been taking the wrong decision.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I should like to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in respect of three points that he made. I respect the views that he expressed on Second Reading on the need to continue the unitary State and that anything which threatens that threatens the United Kingdom as a whole, although those views do not coincide with my own. I do not believe that by continuing the unitary State exactly as it is one necessarily protects the United Kingdom as a whole.

  1549
  I should like to follow three of the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions on which he based his opposition to changes in the electoral system. I am wholly at one with him in one important respect, namely, that in this House or in any form of Assembly the identity of a Member elected by a specific area and community is one of the traditions of the British political system which I should be extremely reluctant to give up. It is an identity which the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) specifically retains. This is preferable to the proposed single transferable vote system proposed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) which would create multi-Member constituencies.
  The amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian retains the single-Member constituency, which means that the Member is totally answerable and is the only individual answerable to those who elect him to the Assembly. I support the amendment because it retains that identity of interest with the community from which the Member is elected. I do not think that there would be any confusion about the answerability of the elected Member to the community which elected him, or any confusion—as there might be in a multi-Member constituency—about the Member to whom an elector wishing to make representations could go. The amendment does not break the ties of the community, which are so essential.
  The second point on which I differ from the right hon. Member for Down, South is that I do not believe that he fully answered the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) concerning the fact that in the British Parliament there is a large non-elected element that has to be taken into account. I refer again to the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands made yesterday. He is the only Member to have pointed out that in the Scottish Assembly we shall have a unicameral system, where there will be only one chamber, whereas in the United Kingdom Parliament we have two, one elected and one non-elected. The non-elected part—it is a matter of opinion whether it works for better or worse—is there to provide a check on
  1550
  the actions of the other chamber. I strongly support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands. When we are introducing this innovation—and the whole idea of an Assembly is an innovation—I do not believe that we are necessarily breaching any principles underlying the electoral system. Under this amendment a certain proportion of the Members elected to that Assembly would not be representative of the communities which carry out the elections. I think that is a point which the right hon. Gentleman should take into account.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: With this innovation, would the hon. Gentleman go into coalition with Labour or the SNP?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall go into that question in a moment, if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will hold his patience.
  I turn to the third point that the right hon. Member for Down, South made, which underlies many of the speeches in the debate. Of course it is right that we should look at any new electoral system on its merits. One thing that marked many speeches was that—with respect to some hon. Members who have spoken—I felt that, to some extent, the approach to a new electoral system was coloured by the judgment of individual Members of what the outcome will be in party political terms. That is wrong. We must approach this on its merits and as a matter of principle.
  One argument that has been used throughout the debate—the right hon. Member for Down, South used it in passing—concerns what will be the actions and influence in an Assembly elected by proportional representation of the one group that is dedicated to separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. That argument has coloured many of the comments during this debate. There is a point that has not been made and which must be made. I am dealing entirely with the practicalities and not the principles, and I hope that I can put at rest the fears of some hon. Members who approach the establishment of a Scottish Assembly in a pragmatic way and fear what it may lead to. If opinion in Scotland is as I judge it to be, and as it has been expressed in opinion polls,

  1551
  the majority of people in Scotland are opposed to separation.
  In the circumstances of a Scottish Assembly devolved from the United Kingdom dealing with Scottish domestic affairs, it is only fair to ask whether—the SNP approach when the time comes will be interesting—a party dedicated to the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom will get the same electoral support as it gets now in elections to the United Kingdom Parliament. It is plain that the majority of people are against separation and that a party dedicated to separation will therefore not get electoral support for that very reason. I believe that we shall see a far greater polarisation back to the other parties, whether they be Socialist, Conservative, Liberal, Scottish Labour or whatever variations we may have. I believe that the rôle of a separatist party in the Scottish Assembly, having achieved that measure of devolution, will change dramatically from that which the Scottish National Party sees itself playing now.
  I believe that there are counter-arguments to the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South both on the principle of the proportional representational system and on the practical results that may flow from it.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: Surely my hon. Friend is missing the nub of the argument that those opposed to setting up the Assembly have put forward. The nub of the argument is not that the majority of people in Scotland are currently opposed to separation. We are afraid that if we set up a Scottish Assembly such discontents will arise, which have not yet arisen, as will promote the feeling towards separation. That is what most of us fear. We are talking not about the 5 per cent. in favour of separation but of those who will move towards it because of the problems that will arise from any separate Assembly.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I respect my hon. Friend's views, but I disagree with him. I believe that the balance of danger to the unity of the United Kingdom is greater by doing nothing.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that it was important to view the amendment on its merits, not to mix up different motives
  1552
  for it. Approaching the amendment in an honest way, I believe that we must accept that the proposed Assembly will be set up. Therefore, whether one is for or against the Assembly, one should consider the amendment on the basis whether a first-past-the-post or a proportional representational system is the best answer. I suggest that is the more honest basis on which to approach the amendment.
  I believe that the honestly felt fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) are more likely to be realised under a first-past-the-post system than under a PR system. Under the first-past-the-post system, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said yesterday, 36 per cent. or 37 per cent. of the votes in Scotland would give one party more than 50 per cent. of the seats.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: If my lion. Friend is putting the matter in party terms, perhaps I may put this proposition to him. If the Assembly is set up and he is right in saying that that will in the short-term lead to a substantial reduction in the SNP vote and we shall therefore see a consolidation of Labour and Conservative support in Scotland, is there not a risk that the controlling party, whether it be Conservative or Labour, will tend to blame the limited powers for its difficulties in Scotland? That may be an attractive argument to the supporters of those two parties, hut it may also lead others to the conclusion that the instability of the Assembly constitution is such that they have the choice either to dispose of the Assembly and come hack to a United Kingdom Parliament or to see the re-emergence of the SNP when the logic of its argument for separation is presented to them.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the Assembly is unworkable because it has inadequate powers, that kind of situation could occur. I have said this before. That is why we have a marginally better Bill this time than we had before. The Bill now contains a clearer division of powers. I shall hope to move amendments on this matter later.
  It is important that the Assembly he given powers which will make it more

  1553
  realistic and workable and reduce the risk of conflict. There are certain seeds of conflict in the Bill. I am glad we have the Committee stage, because it gives us the opportunity to try to improve the Assembly so that the kind of situation envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will not arise.
  I turn now to the practical point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I shall not go into the argument on principle. The question comes down to one of the workability of the system under proportional representation. As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian freely acknowledged, based on the 1974 election figures, on the PR approach no single party would have an overall majority. Whichever party is to form the Executive will have to depend on the support of other parties within the Assembly. That is not an unthinkable type of situation. Indeed, it is the situation that we have in the House of Commons today. Yet the Government have now governed for more than three years. I believe that increasingly within the United Kingdom we may have to deal with that kind of situation in purely practical terms. It certainly has not prevented the Government from continuing in office.
  Mr. Dalyell: Fundamentally.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The fundamental mistake made by the hon. Gentleman in his approach is seeing any coalition in the Scottish Assembly on too formal a basis. In many countries with proportional representational systems where Governments are formed by parties which are not majority parties, coalitions exist, but often in a very informal way. That imposes a discipline on the party forming the Government and on the other parties in an election when putting forward their programmes. They tend to put forward programmes which are likely to command the majority of moderate support within the electorate. I believe that much the same kind of thing will happen in Scotland.
  I differ from the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), whose opposition to the idea of a PR system seemed to be on the basis that it would hinder the carrying into effect of some of the more ideological purposes that he felt
  1554
  he could achieve rather better by a first-past-the-post system. I believe in having a system which recognises the reality of what the voters in general wish to have.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman point to any coalition overseas in which one of the coalition parties has as its raison d'être the break-up of the State? That is the fundamental difference between the Lib-Lab pact, any overseas coalition and, on the other hand, the situation in a Scottish Assembly. There are Members on the third Bench below the Gangway whose main plank is the hiving off of the State. That does not exist anywhere overseas in a coalition, as far as I am aware.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The situation that the hon. Member envisages will arise whether or not we have devolution. We shall have within the House of Commons as we have had in previous years, a party that is dedicated to the break up of the United Kingdom. If that party commands so much support in the electorate that it is able to work towards that end, that situation will arise here and in the Assembly. I am convinced that the majority of the people of Scotland do not want separation and that we shall see a withering of that extreme view in the Assembly.
  The proportional representation system would prevent the expression of some of these extreme views. Those advocating separatism would be subjected to greater discipline under the proportional representation system than they would be under the first-past-the-post system.
  As other hon. Members have said, the Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss changes other than those to the structure of government. We should see whether we can find a better electoral system. I believe that we can and that such a system is on the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. For that reason I welcome the debate and I intend to support the amendment
  Mrs. Margaret Bain: It is rather obvious when we listen to the opponents of the principle of proportional representation that the spectre of the SNP haunts them day and night. It is disturbing that hon. Members are not looking carefully at the principles involved in the amendment.

  1555
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) did not surprise anyone on this Bench when he said that the reason he opposed the amendment was that it transfers the power to review the system to the Assembly itself. We are no surprised that the Conservatives take that view because they do not want an Assembly in Scotland at all. According to his remarks in Scotland the other day, the right hon. Gentleman became a one-day expert on Scottish affairs. He wants to set up a tartan inquisition under which he can question decisions made by the Assembly.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that he did not like to draw comparisons with other constitutions and other countries where the traditions of authority were slightly different. The traditions of authority in Scotland are different from those that are operated by this House. In Scotland we regard the people as sovereign. We say that the people should take the decisions and that we should not regard Westminster decisions as being the touchstone or gauge of political correctitude. I do not see how the right hon. Member for Down, South can support an Assembly for Northern Ireland and oppose one for Scotland.
  Mr. Leon Britton: It is a ringing political nonsense to say that the people are sovereign in this context. We would be assisted if the hon. Lady explained exactly what "sovereign" means in terms of the practice and operation of an electoral system.
  Mrs. Bain: I am disappointed that the deputy Shadow spokesman for devolution does not understand Scottish constitutional law enough to know that the people are sovereign.
  Members of my party have no hesitation in supporting proportional representation. The consistency of the SNP on this issue is an example to others in the House. After all, ours is the party which, with a 5 per cent. swing from the October 1974 election, could well become the majority party in Scotland.
  Some people take small delight in the recent trends shown in the polls. But we know the reality of the situation because we are grass-root politicians and we do not live in ivory towers. We should
  1556
  like to fight a General Election as soon as possible.
  When considering the amendment, the all-party group gave serious thought to the comments and criticisms that were made on the last occasion, during the February debate, on this principle. We realise that there are those who are particularly keen to see the contact between constituents and Members continued. That is why we opted for a system of alternative voting for 100 members of the Assembly. We recognise that an MP is of fundamental importance, since he is an identifiable person to whom people can go. Those of us who are involved in constituency work realise that the MP is becoming the person who can be approached. People are becoming confused by the plethora of bodies and organisations that now exist.
  We also recognise that there is a general demand for proportional representation. As a democratic party we try to reflect that. I draw the attention of the House to the Opinion Research Centre survey carried out in February and March this year. That found that 74 per cent. of the electorate wish to see the principle of proportional representation brought into operation. Of that 74 per cent., the vast majority—55 per cent.—said that they would still favour PR even if it were to the disadvantage of their own party. We should bear that in mind.
  Why does the public want proportional representation? It is because many people feel that they are disenfrancised because their party is not represented in a particular area or because it is underrepresented in the House of Commons, as it could be in the Scottish Assembly.
  I was elected on a very small majority of 22. Under a PR system I have no doubt that my majority would be much larger. The people who did not vote for me feel that their parties are not adequately represented. Some of them do not contact me because I am a member of the SNP. But we wish to make contact with people who belong to other parties.
  The 50 Members to be appointed under the topping-up system ensures that there is a balance—
  Mr. Dalyell: It would give a false impression to say that people of other loyalties do not contact their Members

  1557
  of Parliament in Scotland. Many members of the hon. Lady's party come to me to discuss business which is unrelated to party politics, and they are welcome.
  Mrs. Bain: Although only a small minority do not contact their constituency MP because of party loyalties, a considerably number do take that attitude. I share my area with three councillors. Letters are passed between us because people tend to write according to political loyalties. We sort this out at a local level. The situation cannot be ignored.
  5.0 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): As I understood the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) it was that the added Members would not undertake constituency responsibilities and he predicted that Ministers would not answer letters from them. The hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that an SNP supporter, for example, would go to the added Member rather than to his Labour Member of Parliament We cannot have it both ways. Is she agreeing or disagreeing with the concept of the added-Member system put forward by my hon. Friend?
  Mrs. Bain: Our view is that this is a first step towards the Assembly itself trying to evolve a system that would be more equitable. The rôle of the topped-up Member is a difficult one to define. But under the circumstances there is a possibility for negotiation between the constituency Members and the non-constituency Members of the Assembly to work out their own philosophy.
  The topping-up system is referred to today in what is called Scotland's national newspaper, the Daily Record. Opposite a headline which says: "Crazy night in the House" there is another stating "Facing up to topping-up". There is an editorial which asks this House to consider carefully the proposition that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and his colleagues in all parties. That editorial states:
  "Whether we like it or not, Britain will eventually have to fall into line with the rest of Europe … and face up to a new voting system."
  1558
  It seems rather strange that many hon. Members who will vote for direct elections to Europe on a PR basis will not be going into the Lobby tonight to support the concept of an Assembly being elected on a proportional basis. The Daily Record continues:
  "the ASSEMBLY elections would be the ideal test bed. That is where new constitutional ideas will be discussed … and take place.
  It would make sense to start preparing for the great constitutional change here—in Scotland."
  One of the reasons we want to see PR coming with this constitutional change is that there are very genuine fears among people in Scotland about being dominated by what we in industrial Scotland call "the Labour Mafia". Some of my colleagues who represent rural constituencies have had these fears portrayed to them. Likewise, those of us who represent more industrial seats are concerned when people tell us, "Perhaps we may be dominated by fishing, farming and forestry Members." By having a PR system in the Assembly, we can ensure that all views in Scotland are represented and we can get away from the kind of ideological clashes which have held back so much work in this House.
  I have listened with great interest to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—who, again, is not present—and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) talk about dictation by the minority. When I was on a radio programme with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart he referred again to this. It seems to me that those hon. Members are saying, "It is all right to impose our views on other people". That is the kind of despotism envisaged by such hon. Members, and it is not benevolent despotism. We want to get away from the situation whereby the minority can dictate, because that is what has held back decent legislation in this House for decades.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Lady has not understood the proposition put forward nor the argument against it. The proposition put forward is that the disfranchising of many people can be substituted for by having a party list. In other words, we would be institutionalising the party factor in our system. It exists now but we would be institutionalising it.

  1559
  The problem is that people who go to Members of their own party vote for a party because they expect that party to pursue a particular policy. If we institutionalise and emphasise this party aspect and at the same time produce a system—[Hon. Members: "Too long."]—there have been longer interventions—whereby that party policy cannot permanently or ever be carried out because we have a permanently hung situation, then people will begin to ignore parties. When they begin to ignore parties they will seek policies in other directions which are outside this House.
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Buchan: On a point of order—
  The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman catches the eye of the Chair he will have the opportunity of making his own speech. He must not attempt to do so by means of an intervention in the hon. Lady's speech.
  Mrs. Bain: In response to that intervention I would say that if we were to institutionalise the party system through a system of PR then at least it would be supported by the majority of the people, and that does not happen at the moment. Secondly, it is not always the case that the first-past-the-post system produces a clear majority. In fact, in the first Assembly elections the governing party will have to take into account the views of minority parties. Under the first-past-the-post system many of the best men have not been elected or returned to the House, as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West well knows. Six British Prime Ministers lost their seats under the first-past-the-post system and since 1918 the Liberals have four times lost their leader by electoral defeat.
  If we look at the United Kingdom system, 49·2 per cent. of the people elected all 635 MPs and 50·8 per cent. elected none. But in Scotland the situation is even worse because only 43·9 per cent. of the people elected all 71 MPs while 56·1 per cent. elected none. Those were the figures for the October 1974 election.
  These people do not feel able to approach some of their MPs because of different beliefs. But if we are to provide stable government we must say
  1560
  exactly what we mean. We should not talk about a situation where it means the ability of a government to steamroller their views through on an unwilling majority. We must have a situation where a government has the support of the majority of the people.
  I know that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) regards it as a fate worse than death even to speak to an SNP Member in Scotland, but I rather doubt that he means that. However unpalatable the concept of coalition may seem, it will be the situation in the new Assembly. We must also look at the possibility of the Tories and the Labour Party combining. We know that they are both Unionist parties. But if we have a situation where in Germany there is a grand coalition of the CDU and the Social Democrats, why cannot the Scots have a coalition?
  We do not accept the political party as being of supreme importance. That is what the hon. Member for West Lothian has consistently argued in terms of his opposition to PR.
  There is also the question of what the 50 topped-up Members would do with their time in the Assembly. If we are all perfectly honest, we could all have plenty of work for 50 Members who are not laden down with constituency paperwork. It is one of my great misfortunes not to have been able to attend many of the all-party groups and, in order to get to know their problems, to listen to the private groups which come to this House. Those 50 Members could become experts in areas such as widows' taxation and one-parent families. They could be of great assistance to the constituency Member in terms of feeding information to him.
  Those hon. Members who support the amendment tonight will be voting for a principle of supreme importance. Anyone who opposes the concept will be seen as rejecting a new principle in Scotland which would bring a real constitutional change and a real change of government to the people.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Lady sits down, may I say that it is not that I think talking to Scottish nationalists is a fate worse than death? It is that I do not want the SNP, via devolution, to string us along to a separate State on a road on which we do not want to go.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady has resumed her seat.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I continue to find it odd to hear so sincere and honest men who are deeply attached to our system of democracy hold so fast to the opinion that it is an essential ingredient of our democratic process that our elections should to some extent be rigged.
  It is, of course, the maxim of any ruling class that elections should be managed in a way favourable to that class. In the past that was done by the nobility and by the monied classes. Now the great barons of the TUC exert themselves in the same way.
  We should not approve. We very much disapprove of the voting in a dictatorship, yet for ourselves we insist on a system that is likely to distort the wishes of the electorate. I said "likely", but I should have said "virtually certain", because not since 1900 has a party Government in this country commanded a majority of the votes of the people.
  What makes our devotion to an outworn system of voting so strange is that the objective of a managed election—one that turns out as one wants it to—is not attained. In fact, the results of the first-past-the-post elections are highly unpredictable. I am reminded of the compulsive gambler who every evening goes down to the tables convinced that he will win. The odds against him are sure in the end, and in the long term he is on a hiding to nothing.
  In seeking a system of proportional representation for the Assembly in Scotland I bear in mind that with a two-party system, first-past-the-post is the most exactly proportional method that can be achieved. That is why proportional representation for Ulster should not cause the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to attack proportional representation as such. As he said, it was brought in there for power sharing and not for proportionality. After all, everyone in Northern Ireland knows on which side of the fence he will come down in the end, so the system was immaterial to that. Anyway the right hon. Gentleman finished today by saying that he did not think it mattered much what the system of voting was, so I hope that in future he will not regard proportional representation with quite so frosty a glare.
  1562
  Where there are more than two parties it is increasingly likely that a minority of votes will secure the majority of seats. This has several consequences. First, I believe that it weakens the authority of Government. Every time the Prime Minister of the day goes on television to exhort us to work harder or to strike less, or uses the various Dunkirkisms with which we have become familiar over the years, we should reflect that 60 per cent. of those watching him voted against him at the last General Election and that probably by the time they see him on television exhorting them to do better 80 per cent. of them wish that he would drop dead. That must somewhat reduce the power of his appeal.
  As ideologies drift apart, we have violent changes in policy which are harmful and unsettling to the national life. In Scotland—which is, if I may say so, inhabited by a disputatious people—I believe that the situation will be even worse. Added to the ordinary conflict between Conservatives and Socialist there will be a conflict between each of those parties and the SNP. Under the present first-past-the-post system, we should probably see large swings in representation in the Assembly every four years, perhaps leading to vast changes with policies being wrenched back and forth over a period, resulting in the dismay and eventual disgust of the population. Nothing I have said is designed to deny a party which obtains over 50 per cent. of the vote the right to its majority. What I say is that a minority in the country should not have a majority in the Assembly.
  5.15 p.m.
  An additional reason for a proportional representation system in Scotland is the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—the absence of any proper constitutional safeguards in the Bill. In Scotland there will not even be the feeble protection of the House of Lords that we have here. One vote in the Assembly could bring it into conflict with Her Majesty's Government in Westminster, with no certainty or agreement about what the popular opinion is. It is noticeable that systems with no constitutional safeguards have a very correct and exact system of proportional representation. Examples are to be seen in Scandinavia and Israel.

  1563
  Implicit in what I have said is that I believe that voters are averse to changes as violent as their elected representatives sometimes contrive to thrust upon them. Therefore, there is much support for proportional representation from those who wish to prevent an extremist faction blessed with unexpected electoral fortune from running away with the spoons.
  Various criticisms are made of proportional representation schemes. The first to be voiced in the Committee was that PR was too complicated. It is extraordinary that that argument should still be advanced. How can anyone imagine that having to put two crosses, one for the person and one for the party, on a ballot paper should be too complicated for the voter in the United Kingdom, a country whose favourite sport is filling in football coupons every week? Local elections are more complicated than that, even for the parish. Every other country with PR manages perfectly well. That includes Ireland, with possibly the most complicated system of all. That the proposition that the system is complicated can seriously be advanced at this stage of the debate shows that hostility to proportional representation is all too often founded upon misapprehension and prejudice. It also explains why PR always wins the argument.
  It is said that we shall have weak government, with no majority for one party, under a PR system. That depends what is meant by "weak government". If it means a Government whose men and measures are constantly changed, we have it now. We have had more changes of Ministers let alone of policies than any analogue country in Europe, with the possible exception of Italy. Today we are inured to four Budgets a year, leading to the confusion and disruption of our affairs.
  It is also said that coalition Governments will be the norm. Some of my hon. Friends quote the only person that anybody in the Tory Party ever quotes—Disraeli—as saying that England does not love coalitions. We have one now, under our present system, and it is one that was not put fully and fairly before the electorate but was hastily cobbled together as a life raft by two old sailors—well, one old sailor and one rather young sailor—preparing to stab each other in the back if either should ever
  1564
  return to terra firma. In any event, coalitions are not inevitable. Sweden and Israel have had years of one-party government.
  One point in favour of coalitions under a PR system is that it is much easier for Back Benchers to oppose their Government without the danger of provoking a General Election, with all the bizarre and unexpected results that the first-past-the-post system constantly brings. Even if one opposes one's Government and the consequence is a General Election, the result is far more predictable, because the system is much more sensible. Finally, if the consequence of PR is a constant coalition, but if the people constantly vote for that, why should we in this House or in the Assembly deny what they have voted for?
  It is said that we should have a great proliferation of parties. We have it now under the present system. It can easily be prevented in PR systems by the 5 per cent. threshold that we have incorporated in the amendment.
  It is very difficult to get an existing House such as ours to agree to reform itself. Many a colleague—I shall not reveal who—has told me "I believe that your system is better, but I might lose my seat", and so they do not vote for it. But the position in Scotland is different, because the Assembly there will start with a clean sheet, with an opportunity to do good without having to tread on people's toes.
  The proposed system preserves the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his constituency. We have heard a number of hon. Members denigrate the list system today, but it has its merits. In the first place it provides experts. In the Conservative Party we lack, to some extent, mining experts; in the Labour Part there is a lack, to some extent, of anyone who knows anything about farming; in the SNP there is lack of experts. This is where we would be able to enlist men who would command some kind of respect because of their particular knowledge. In relation to the controversy mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) about who goes to which MP, I think that we could draw a distinction between personal cases going to the local

  1565
  MP and political cases going to the added Members, without any impropriety.
  If we had PR for Scotland it is claimed that this would be the thin end of the wedge for Westminster. I do not see why. We have proportional representation in Northern Ireland and that is not the thin end of the wedge—in fact it has not made the slightest impression on Westminster so far.
  The Government recognise that in this matter we should have horses for courses, and they are proposing for Europe the sort of proposals outlined in this amendment to the Scotland Bill. If it is found to be good after an experiment, we need not fear if we are bitten by that dog, just as long as it is not a mad one. Maybe it would make us get on with the job a bit better.
  Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I do not want to embarrass you by moving the closure once again, but I wondered whether you had given any indication when the vote will or will not come. I stress the word "indication" as this is not very strong, and wonder whether there might be some indication of the time before which the vote might not come.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member asks me a question in the form of a double negative. I can only reply that I have to use my own discretion and my discretion is exercised by the number of hon. Members who are still seeking to catch my eye. I have no knowledge, official or otherwise, of when we may come to the time for the vote.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am not asking whether an indication has been given by others in the Chamber but whether an indication has been agreed to or given by the Chair, because I do not want to embarrass you by going against those indications, if you have given any.
  The Chairman: I assure the hon. Member that I have given no indications whatever. As I said before, I have to use my own discretion in the light of the circumstances prevailing and the number of hon. Members desiring to speak.
  Mr. George Cunningham Mr. George Cunningham
  rose in his place and claimed to move, That the
  1566
  Question be now put; but THE CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) made an excellent case for the use of proportional representation in the Scottish Assembly and, for that matter, in this House as well. I would be prepared to disagree with him, and agree instead with the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) were it not that the right hon. Member has forgotten one thing. He takes great pride in our House of Commons, but whatever pride we take in this place, the electorate and the general public outside view the results produced by the House of Commons in recent years as by no stretch of the imagination meeting the desires or justifiable requirements of the people. Therefore, whatever the merits of the first-past-the-post system, I cannot go along with what the right hon. Gentleman said. If he does not believe that the electorate, at least in one part of the country, are dissatisfied with our system, all he has to do is to cast an eye on the Benches in front of him to see one practical demonstration of the dissatisfaction that exists.
  I do not think that the electoral system can be divided from the original cause of this Bill. We have been told time and time again that the Scots are dissatisfied with London government and the decisions of this House, that we do not adequately reflect the views and opinions of Scotland and that government is inevitably remote.
  On the other hand, government feels remote only because people in Scotland are dissatisfied with it. If government was more satisfactory and met the justifiable desires of the public, I doubt whether anyone but a few would be worrying about remoteness. Because of growing dissatisfaction, so the argument goes. Scotland must have its own Assembly and government up to a point, and then, to some extent, the feeling of remoteness will be removed.
  However, the sense of dissatisfaction and disillusion will remain unless the new institution can govern more in accordance with the desires of the Scottish people. Perhaps the major ingredient in the cause

  1567
  of the feeling of remoteness and dissatisfaction in Scotland is the first-past-the-post system, since it is the parent of the Parliament about which the Scots have become so critical.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, if we have a first-past-the-post system in Scotland all the consequences of it will remain. The hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan)—I am sorry he is not here—said yesterday that he wants the first-past-the-post system because he believes that it is the best vehicle by which we can change society, whereas proportional representation is merely a vehicle for managing it. I cannot see that that view has much relationship to the idea of government by the people. On the other hand, he may be right and it may be that the first-past-the-post system is a better vehicle for changing society.
  I am not opposed to change, but change will not resolve the continuing dissatisfaction unless it is change that the majority want. Our arrival in this House by means of the first-past-the-post system emphasises the points that the hon. Member made. No one can claim from outside—let alone from inside this House—that we do not make changes and set about changing society. But it would be a brave man who claimed that we did so to the satisfaction of all but a few of the electorate. Because of this a great number of the changes that we make are no more than ephemeral. There is growing confusion among the electorate about the changes that we make. Because of the constant changes, our economy, more often than not, is in a muddle. There is a grave danger that if the first-past-the-post system is used for Scotland there will be no shortage of change, but it will not be change that the people want, and it will cause continuing dissatisfaction. What will happen then? Shall we have further devolution down to the regions or to district council level, or shall we have revolution?
  On the other hand, I do not accept that PR is merely a vehicle for managing society. It is capable of promoting change provided that a clear majority has voted for one party, or if it has not, or if there is a coalition that can produce a consensus, that consensus should be a reasonable reflection of majority public opinion.
  1568
  I believe that PR will produce an Assembly which is able much more accurately to reflect the views of the public, and to act accordingly. It will promote change which is generally supported, and will veto it when it is opposed. It will not promote change in society at the whim of a few and contrary to the desire of the many. This seems all the more important in Scotland where there are so many parties—and parties within parties. In that situation, regardless of what are considered to be the merits of first-past-the-post elsewhere, a much more refined electoral system is needed, and it can be provided only by PR.
  5.30 p.m.
  I wish to make two further points, one of them in response to the view expressed by some that the introduction of PR in Scotland would be the thin end of the wedge. Perhaps it would be the thin end of the wedge, and indeed it will be if PR proves to be a more effective system. Those who are against PR and who argue that it is without doubt the thin end of the wedge, to my mind show a considerable lack of faith in the ability of first past the post to prove itself the better when the two systems are compared in practice. If there were real confidence in the first-past-the-post system, I believe that those who are opposed to PR should welcome it in the belief that it would produce poor results, that soon there would be a demand that the first-past-the-post system should be introduced in Scotland and that the apparent merits of PR would quickly prove a sham. But the opponents of PR do not so argue, and thus demonstrate the weakness of their opposition.
  Finally, I wish to refer to the view expressed that PR or any variety of it would be too complicated for the electorate to understand. I cannot accept the view that the British people, and the Scots in particular, have less ability to understand the electoral system than do the Irish, French or Germans or electorates in other parts of the world.
  I hope that when the Committee has an opportunity in the not-too-distant future, it will decide to take its courage in its hands and to introduce a system of PR in Scotland as set out in the amendment, which I believe will be to the advantage of the Scots and will be a test case in relation to the theoretical benefits of

  1569
  first past the post or proportional representation.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: It is necessary to express a dislike of this Bill at the outset of discussion on this amendment because sometimes the argument is used against an amendment, or indeed for it, that it has a deleterious effect on something that somebody does not want in any case. I believe that the Bill was thought to be politically expedient based on a mis-analysis of the situation in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said.
  Having said that, I follow the principles enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). But I wish to question one of the right hon. Gentleman's subsequent remarks which somewhat biased his arguments thereafter. It concerned his definition of the name of our House. He made the point—and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not there at the moment—that the name of the House of Commons arose from the representation of communes or communities rather than of the common people or commoners.
  Historically, as always, the right hon. Gentleman was right in that in the thirteenth century the House of Lords and the knights represented communities or communes. This is harking back to the time before the separation of the House of Lords from the House of Commons, and it was not until after the so-called Model Parliament of 1295 that the Parliament included in its ranks even the lower clergy. Once the Houses had separated, the Commons from the Lords, it was the first stage towards the House of Commons becoming truly a representative and legislative assembly rather than an instrument for raising finance for the Executive.
  Ever since then successive monarchs have tried to get round the House of Commons, and certainly the Cabinet Executive is seeking to do the same now by the use of the guillotine in this debate. Evolution has taken place and we are now discussing another step of evolution. That evolution is now not particularly attractive, but let us not stumble over an unattractive evolutionary step by making
  1570
  it even worse in practice, if it is passed into practice, than it needs to be.
  Here we come to the question of what the practice in elections should be rather than, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said in his speech, a conjecture about the liaisons that might or might not arise following one sort of electoral system or another.
  The hon. Gentleman added a rather personal analysis of what might happen by the first-past-the-post system. I thought it was an idiosyncratic analysis to say that, under the PR system, there could be misrepresentation of people's views and therefore an overwhelming SNP representation in the Scottish Assembly, whereas it is much more likely that there would be less representation and an overwhelming number of Scottish nationalists within the Scottish Assembly under a first-past-the-post system. The truth of the matter is that we do not choose an electoral system on any one person's conjecture on what the outcome may be. One does not choose the form of wedding service on the basis of the ugliness or attractiveness of bride and groom. I believe that this debate has often gone off the rails because of that factor.
  We are debating the rules of the election. I wish to suggest two yardsticks that should be applied to the rules for election to the Scottish Assembly. Should the argument not centre on choosing the system that will most accurately reflect the political opinions of people in Scotland? That should be the first rule.
  The second is that the system should be suitable to the multi-party system which we now have in this country nationally and equally in Scotland. The first-past-the-post system worked reasonably well although it did not work as well as some people liked to think it worked when we had two major parties We still had misrule or misrepresentation of majorities even when there were only two parties to choose from. In a multi party system, the first-past-the-post system is obviously lacking.
  Another way in which the debate has gone off the rails is in having concentrated on the creation of an electoral system that would lead to the election of an Assembly in Scotland that would have sufficient power to get things done. I put forward the proposition that that would be contrary to the best operation of the Scottish

  1571
  Assembly. If we look for a parallel here at Westminster we see a Government who have ridden into power with a minority and thereafter have tended ruthlessly to ignore minority feelings—whether those of the major opposition party, the Conservatives, the minorities in the minor opposition parties or, indeed, even the smallest minority of all, which is made up of some of their own Back Benchers. The fact that the Government have been in a position where they can force through legislation has not helped one jot to solve our national problems. If a Scottish Assembly were given similar powers that would not do one jot to help Scottish problems either. It is no use demanding a strong Government unless there is reasonable agreement in Scotland about what should be done and the direction in which to go. One has only to listen to the arguments put forward by the Scottish National Party to understand that there is not now that cohesion of direction.
  I had hoped that today theory would give way to reality, because that must happen. I regret that the Liberal Benches have been so empty and the Liberal contribution to the debate so mediocre—with the exception of that made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). Even though proportional representation is one of the major points or principle contained in the Lib-Lab pact, it is extraordinary that the Liberal Benches are so empty.
  If the Government put through this ridiculous measure, then—whatever the eventual powers of the Assembly may be and whatever the advisability of giving it any powers at all—the Scottish people will have the right, and should have the power, to cast a democratic vote for those they want to represent them in the new Assembly and, through the Assembly, in the new Executive. Only by supporting the amendment can we be sure that a sensible Assembly may be elected in Scotland by a sensible majority of sensible Scottish people. That is the essence of democratic choice. Is it correct for the Mother of Parliaments to diverge from that principle? I therefore suggest to the House that the amendment should be supported.
  Mr. George Cunningham rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but The CHAIRMAN
  1572
  withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. George Gardiner: I shall not attempt to comment in detail on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) because time is rather short. Nor shall I attempt to embroider upon the excellent argument put by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) earlier. My purpose is solely to put to the House a simple and practical appeal that in this discussion we should spare a thought for our poor harrassed electors.
  Let us now consider the prospect looming before the Scottish voter. If the Government get their way and the Bill proceeds through all its parliamentary stages, there will be a referendum in which the Scottish voter will be called out to record his opinion on whether the provisions of the Act—as it will then be—should take effect. If the Government and the Scottish National Party, in their alliance, succeed in persuading the Scottish voter that that should be so, then at some time next year he will be called out again to vote in elections to determine the Members of a Scottish Assembly.
  5.45 p.m.
  I also want to refer to other legislation that, I suggest, has a direct bearing on what we are now discussing. There are now before the House the Government's legislative proposals that we should, at some unspecified date, vote to elect directly representatives in a European Assembly. The target date of May or June of next year has been mentioned, although I doubt that many people now take that seriously. There is, nevertheless, the prospect of direct elections in the autumn of next year or the Spring of 1979. Therefore, at some stage, the Scottish elector will be invited to turn out to vote for the elections in the European Assembly.
  There is also at least a reasonable likelihood that next autumn the elector will be invited to turn out in a General Election. I agree that that is not a certainty, but we have the Prime Minister's word that if there is not a General Election next year there will be one the year after. The Prime Minister has certainly given that pledge and I doubt that he will have any difficulty in

  1573
  keeping it. Therefore at some stage during the next two years the Scottish elector will be invited out to join in a General Election. We must also consider that within that period he will be invited along to the polling booths to cast his vote in local elections.
  If there is any Scottish elector who does not now know by heart every step of the road between his home and the polling booth he will certainly do so by the time this great circus is finished. If, by any chance, on his periodic journeys the elector were to reel with giddiness, a knock-out blow would come if on his arrival at the booth he was invited on successive occasions to vote according to totally different electoral systems.
  In the case of a General Election and local elections he would be invited to vote according to the system that is familiar to him and that has sustained democracy in this country and the United States of America for a great number of years. It is the system that embodies the principle that the candidate who succeeds in persuading the largest number of electors to vote for him is the one who wins. According to legislation that the Government have put before us—discussion of which we shall embark on tomorrow—there will be totally different electoral system in the elections for the European Assembly. The elector will be asked to vote on a regional list system for multi-Member constituencies on a variant of the proportional representation system. It is proposed that in a succession of elections there will be at least two totally different systems of election.
  According to this amendment yet another system would face the Scottish elector upon his arrival at the polling booth to vote for representatives in a Scottish Assembly. The system would mean having local representatives topped up by others to ensure that party strengths were reflected with greater accuracy.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) over-simplifying the present situation because, at least in local government, there are already multi-member constituencies and the electorate are perfectly capable of coping with that? It does so regularly. Why does my hon.
  1574
  Friend think that the electorate is so stupid that it could not cope with a slightly different system for Europe and another for Scotland?
  Mr. Gardiner: As my hon. Friend will discover from my subsequent remarks, I am not alleging any stupidity on the part of the electorate, and I readily accept his point that a system of multi-member constituencies exists in local government elections in certain parts of the country. But here are proposed two totally different PR systems, variants of the PR argument, plus the system with which we have all become familiar over a great many years.
  My hon. Friend alleged that I was suggesting that the electorate was somewhat stupid in finding this possibly all a little confusing. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) a comparison with the Federal Republic of Germany. He asked the question which is often asked by the advocates of PR in one context and another, which is that if the citizens of one country find it easy to cope with, why should the British not do the same? I am sure that the British could cope with it, but I must take the comparison further. The citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany are not being asked to vote on totally different systems in successive elections. This is one of the most unfortunate consequences that would arise if the Committee accepted the amendment before us.
  I readily accept that many of those supporting this amendment argue perfectly sincerely for proportional representation for all kinds of different bodies, including this House. I can readily say that there would be great validity in having some kind of common system for election to all the institutions to which we have referred. But with this argument for PR a peculiar kind of case is presented. The tendency is to say that although they are in favour of a system of PR for all those institutions, it is nevertheless especially appropriate to the one we are discussing at the moment. So we hear the argument that the system of PR suggested in the amendment would be particularly appropriate to a totally new body such as the Scottish Assembly. No doubt tomorrow in the Second Reading debate on the European Assembly Elections Bill and in the Committee stage of that Bill

  1575
  we shall also hear the argument that the PR system proposed for it is again uniquely suitable for direct elections to the European Assembly.
  I suggest that that argument would acquire greater credibility if its proponents could at least fasten on one system of PR which they might advocate universally for all these different bodies.
  Mr. Rathbone: One of the reasons for choosing this form of PR for Scotland has been its absolute simplicity. Even those hon. Members who come from the other end of the kingdom might like to be reassured about the simplicity, because that is an argument that they have used when dealing with the difficulties and complications of it in articles they have written for newspapers and in speeches they have made elsewhere. The simplicity is that one puts one X against the candidate and one X against the party. I believe that the Scottish people could well manage that.
  Mr. Gardiner: If this amendment should succeed, my hon. Friend will have to explain that to the voters in Scotland in the run-up to the elections there. If he gets his way in the context of direct elections to the European Assembly he will have to set about explaining different features in a totally different system applying to those elections as well. Thankfully, no one has to explain the simplicity of the system that we are all used to. The poor Scottish voter turning up at the polling booth on his regular visits will turn to the tellers at the door and say "What system are we on today?" It is the suggestion that we change the system from one election to another that I am opposing this afternoon.
  If a democratic system is to work it must command popular understanding and support, and if we pass the amendment this afternoon we shall do that democracy to which we are accustomed in this country a gread deal of damage.
  Mr. George Cunningham Mr. George Cunningham
  rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: There is one fundamental objection to
  1576
  all forms of proportional representation—an objection that destroys the arguments so far advanced in favour of it. Proportional representation means representation of parties, not of individuals. In Europe, the two oldest parliamentary democracies, Britain and France, still believe in representation of individuals, whereas most sophisticated forms of PR are devised and enjoyed by those countries which have had the least experience of parliamentary democracy. There is something fundamentally mistaken in the whole approach of the protagonists of this idea.
  The question is: who is being represented in this House? For the purposes of some people it might be parties and institutions, and that means corporate groups. The parties are large corporate groups and no doubt they are a useful device for working the parliamentary system, but they are not inherently representative, and in any event they are, by their nature, coalitions striving, if they do their jobs properly, to represent as many people as possible across the whole range of political opinion. So if we grant to corporate groups the right of representation in this House, why should we stop simply at political opinion? Why should not we say that women are unrepresented in this House and then go on to devise a system under which they get a preference, so that there will be more women in the House?
  What about Englishmen? They are certainly unrepresented in the House. There are far more Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen representing English constituencies than there are Englishmen representing parts of the United Kingdom other than England. So in the end, if we adopt the system of proportional representation we shall get what amounts to a corporate State—a State that may be fair as between groups but unfair as between individuals. The parties themselves do not adequately represent the nation, and this is especially so when one considers that PR, or any form of it, including the one embodied in the amendment, gives extra weight to the votes of some individuals at the expense of others, that is to say, those individuals who vote for the lowest-placed candidates.
  Is it right, fair and democratic that in any particular situation the votes of any

  1577
  of the electors should have more weight than the votes of others? That is how it would work out. If the PR system were utterly fair, the vote of every individual would have equal weight, and that would mean that the number of votes available to each elector would be according to the number of candidates. If one had to put candidates in order of preference, and if there were two candidates, one could allocate two votes for the first preference and one vote for the second.
  6.0 p.m.
  What is the position if there is a large number of candidates? If there are seven candidates, are there seven votes for the first candidate and six for the second? That system would be unfair, because most people do not place political parties in order of preference. An order of preference would not reflect the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the part of an individual elector with any particular party. However, that would be the logic of a proportional representation system if there were any fairness about it. If we had a system that allowed an individual to give so many of his votes to individual candidates to demonstrate relative preference between the individuals, ultimately electors would concentrate all their votes upon the one candidate of the one party whom they strongly and vehemently supported.
  What would be the result of that concentration of votes? Ultimately we should be placing all our votes on one candidate and we should be back where we started, with the system that is the simplest and most effective method of parliamentary democracy that we have. I, for one, do not want to see it changed.
  Mr. John Smith: For the second time in this calendar year—first on the Scotland and Wales Bill and now on the Scotland Bill—we have had a fairly extensive debate on proportional representation. The amendments seek to change the system that the Government propose for Scotland, whereas last Session the Government's proposals related to Scotland and Wales.
  Naturally enough, the debate has centred on the concepts of proportional representation in general and on certain schemes in particular. I must make it clear to my hon. Friends that they will
  1578
  have a free vote on the method of election in the Division that will follow. As my hon. Friends will be aware, the Government have put forward a system of election that is the first-past-the-post method. I must pass one or two comments on the criticisms that have been made of it and the advocacy that has been directed towards proportional representation systems.
  There are two general points worth noting. First, direct election systems, such as we now have at Westminster and in local government in all parts of Great Britain, do not necessarily produce a markedly non-proportional result; they merely offer in some circumstances a higher probability of that result than proportional representation systems.
  Secondly, no workable proportional representation system gives perfect proportionality. Practical considerations always compel some abatement of ideal mathematical purity. We see that in the 5 per cent. provision, which is embodied in the amendment. In comparing electoral systems we never deal with black and white and compare fair versus unfair; we deal with degrees and trade-offs between arithmetical equity and valid considerations of every kind, the most important of which is the effect upon the political system of the change in the electoral arrangements.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister's brief be used by whoever speaks on operating proportional representation in direct elections?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should understand that there is one important difference between the regional list system and the proposals that are put forward as amendments to the Bill on direct elections. When elections take place to the European Assembly we shall not be electing an Administration, but under the provisions of the Scottish Assembly we shall be electing an Administration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is capable of understanding that distinction. He should be able to do so. I hope that he will manage to comprehend it.
  A further general consideration is that no electoral system can safely be evaluated in isolation from the political context. The effect of a system in one country may be completely unlike the effect in

  1579
  another. It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said, in justifying the party list element of his amendment, that it worked perfectly well in West Germany. My hon. Friend went on to ask why it should not work perfectly well in this country.
  In the previous Session proportional representation amendments were tabled by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend. Among them was the party list system. We were referred to the Hansard Society report by Lord Blake, which states:
  "We do not think that the West German system is suitable for adoption in Great Britain."
  It seems rather odd that it was unsuitable for adoption in Britain last year but is apparently suitable this year. The experience of West Germany was just as available last year as it is this year.
  It is difficult to undertake constitutional transplant surgery. We must justify any change in terms of our traditions and our aspirations for the electoral system.
  One practical difficulty that arises under proportional representation systems is that they are much more likely to produce coalition Governments. Of course, coalition Governments can stem from any system of direct representation, but under proportional representation systems they are much more likely. There is some evidence from Europe that such Governments are often weak, lacking authority, stability and consistency. That is a relevant consideration for us to take into account when we consider the implications for the Scottish Executive of a proportional representation system.
  It is also a valid consideration that the Government that people get may be determined not by their choice but by backstage bargaining between different groups that come together to form a coalition Government. That may mean that the programme of the coalition will depart from promises that individual parties made to the electorate. In those circumstances democratic accountability may be obscured rather than illuminated.
  There is the possibility that one partner in the coalition will blame another for the failure to implement something that was promised to the electorate in the manifestos upon which stood the Mem
  1580
  bers who were elected, or the parties. It might be difficult in such circumstances to adhere to the doctrines of collective responsibility, which is an important feature of democratic government.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely it is unfair for the Minister to make the possibility of the creation of coalitions a major criticism of the proportional representation system of elections, he having accepted that the first-past-the-post system also produces them, and when he is almost at the stage of operating one.
  Mr. Smith: I was not aware of that. I was not aware of it last evening. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, there is no coalition arrangement at present. I said—I was trying to put it fairly—that while direct systems do not mean that coalitions are impossible, I think that on balance it is more likely that coalitions will emerge from a complex system of voting that produces a larger number of parties. There is little doubt that even with the 5 per cent. qualification—I follow the logic of having it—there would be more political parties operating in Scotland after the passage of this legislation. Obvious difficulties are caused by such a situation. Some parties are put in a balancing position, and they may exert an influence upon the conduct of the Government much greater than the vote that they obtained from the electorate would justify.
  There is one feature of the argument that leads me to agree thoroughly with the right hon. Members for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and Down, South (Mr. Powell). Some have argued that we should adopt proportional representation so as to keep the Scottish National Party from power. I do not believe that the SNP will achieve a large number of votes in the first Assembly elections, but that is a matter of judgment.
  I spend a great deal of time trying to persuade my electors, and electors elsewhere who reside in Scotland, of the folly of the policies followed by the SNP. Whether I am successful in that objective or whether I am not. I do not believe that it would be ethical or prudent to select an electoral system for the sake of near-term objectives of a partisan nature. We should consider what is the best system, taking into account all consideration of fairness and

  1581
  the maintenance of an effective Government. We should make our decision on that basis, rather than considering the partisan political consequences that may flow.
  In the amendment of my hon Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian the system that is proposed recognises the value of the direct constituency link. I think that all Members will accept its value. However, my hon. Friend proposes to get the element of proportionality into the total result by adding certain other Members who think colloquially are called "topped-up Members" of the Assembly. We were told last year by the advocates of proportional representation—the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian seemed to be the leading figures in pushing forward the argument—that it was better to do it by a system based on the results of the elections rather than have a party list system. In the brief that they prepared for the debate during the Scotland and Wales Bill they advertised that feature of the scheme as being a good idea, because it avoided having a party list. Indeed, the phase used in the brief was:
  "additional Members are not determined by the parties on a list system but by the voters through the ballot box."
  That was under the heading "Advantages of the amendment".
  There has obviously been a change of policy now. I do not complain about that. People are entitled to change their minds. The proponents now come forward with the party list argument. If the amendment had been carried to the Scotland and Wales Bill, we should have been saddled with a system which on mature reflection they decided was not a wise one to advocate to Parliament and they are now advocating a different proposition.
  Mr. Kershaw: It is rather hard for the Minister of State to criticise the proposals in this amendment by referring to proposals which are not in the amendment.
  Mr. Smith: I am drawing attention to the difficulty of maintaining a consistent line of argument. A certain proposition was being advocated earlier in this calen
  1582
  dar year and in the last Session of Parliament not so many months ago and apparently a decision has been taken to abandon that feature.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does not the Minister appreciate that there is no greater difficulty as regards consistency than the difficulty he himself has in defending changes in this Bill as compared with the Scotland and Wales Bill?
  Mr. Smith: The changes that I propose to the Bill and which I hope that the Committee will accept are more sensible changes. I think that there are difficulties both with the system proposed for proportional representation last time and with the system that is proposed this year, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to point out that these differences exist.
  I am also very puzzled about what would be the rôle of the Members on the party list system. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian drew attention to a feature of the amendment which says that the party lists would be democratically decided. I do not know whether that phrase conceals more than it reveals. It does not say how a party list is to be democratically decided. It is a matter of it being up to the parties and to their interpretation of what democracy would be.
  Here we come up against a very clear distinction from what happens in West Germany where there is a complicated system of electoral law which governs a number of these things and which does not obtain in this country.
  Let us assume, though, that the problem could be circumvented, although we should bear in mind that the selection of party lists would no doubt give a great deal more weight to the party machinery of political parties than to the Members and to the electors in individual constituencies. This is no doubt a point that hon. Members will wish to take into account before casting their votes tonight.
  There seems to be total confusion about what these party list Members are to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian introduced an argument to the effect that it would bring in people whom he called politically qualified but who did not get involved in the ordinary political processes. I do not know how people acquire some notion

  1583
  of political qualification without going through the political processes.
  Mr. Powell: By getting a degree.
  Mr. Smith: They might be given a degree in the class which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian conducts in the University of Edinburgh. I have no doubt that he would think that a very suitable political qualification.
  Last night the right hon. Member for Orkney and Sheltand (Mr. Grimond) met this concept head-on and said that he had great suspicion of the notion of somehow virtuous people being drafted into the Assembly who had not been through the normal political processes. I have come across a cutting from the Scotsman which reports what appears to have been a Press conference given by those advocating this amendment in Edinburgh. There is this passage referring to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian:
  "It would, he agreed, be a way of slipping an upper house element into a single chamber legislature."
  I find the reference to "an upper house element" the most surprising of all the political concepts that have been advertised in the course of this debate. Presumably, on the argument that this is how the party list should be conducted, these are people who go on to the party list because they are above and beyond the grubby business of collecting votes and advertising themselves to the ordinary electors. On this basis I do not believe that it is an advance of democracy.
  The other point that disturbed me was that the hon. Lady the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) said that one advantage of having such party list Members was that a person who disagreed with the politics of the Member who was representing him would go to someone of his own political persuasion who was in the Assembly as a result of a party list. To take a very direct example from the hon. Lady's constituency, presumably a Labour voter should go to see a Labour Member elected on a party list, thus avoiding the hon. Lady who might be in the Assembly as a Scottish National Party Member. I think that this is not only unsound but is a rather pernicious doctrine.
  Members of Parliament—my own impression is that this is the rule followed
  1584
  by the vast majority of Members, if not by every Member—strive very hard to represent the views of every one of their constituents whatever the political views of those constituents are. It would be highly undesirable for there to be competition for the representation of people in the electorate.
  6.15 p.m.
  I know full well that it will be said that there will be two Members or three Members for the first period of the Assembly, but it is only for the first period and then for a very practical reason. We intend to make it single-Member constituencies as soon as the first period is over and we must look at this in the long term and not in the very short term. It is thoroughly bad that that idea should be encouraged.
  Mrs. Bain: At no point did I suggest that any Member of Parliament neglected people because they had a different political philosophy from his own. What I said was that there is a small distinct minority of people in each constituency who do not like to approach a Member of Parliament because he has different political views from their own. I could show the Minister letters which prove that people are embarrassed about going to a Member who is of another party. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) could also show the Minister letters from people in my constituency who have approached him. This is what happens in the normal process.
  Mr. Smith: The way in which Members of Parliament react to letters they receive from constituents who are not their own is obviously a matter for their own taste. I follow the rule, as I think do the vast majority of Members, that Members make representations only on behalf of their own constituents, and that they would normally refer a letter from another Member's constituent to that Member.
  The hon. Lady may be correct, although it has not been my experience, that there are people who refuse to contact a Member of Parliament because they do not like his politics. My view is that it is bad luck, he is the Member who represents them and other Members should not be encouraged to take up matters for them. After all, that Member is paid to represent them in the House

  1585
  of Commons, and I would say that the same principle applies to the Assembly.
  One of the difficulties that would arise if there were two classes of Members is that there would be a desire, as evidently there is in the West German system, for Members to be directly elected and therefore to speak with a little more authenticity, in that they spoke for a particular neighbourhood and had been endorsed by a particular electorate.
  There will be an opportunity for Members who are in the Assembly on the party list system to be campaigning against a Member of the Assembly who is directly elected, but not just in the normal course of being a candidate. A candidate might legitimately campaign all the time between elections, but such a person would be campaigning with the authority of an elected Member of the Assembly, although he had not been directly elected by any section of the electorate.
  These are serious and weighty considerations. They have certainly weighed with the Government in influencing them to come down on the side of the well-tried and well-understood system in this country which we operate at Westminster and in local government and which we think we should operate in the Scottish Assembly.
  Mr. David Steel: A few sentences ago the Minister skipped rather lightly over the fact that for the first elections we must have multi-Member seats using the existing system. Therefore, in that sense he must accept that it is not the well-tried Westminster system at all. The inbuilt distortions in such a system will be even greater in a three-Member seat where, given the sort of result that we had in Dunbartonshire, East at the last election, there would be one-third of the votes for each of three parties but one of them would scoop the pool and get all three seats. He must try to answer those criticisms which have been made in the debate.
  Mr. Smith: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I thought that I had made it clear I did not think that the three-Member system or two-Member system which will run for only the first period was satisfactory. It has been
  1586
  arrived at because it is not practically possible within the time scale to have the Boundary Commission report divide Scotland into single-Member constituencies. I do not think one should take as the normal situation for the Scottish Assembly that initial period of two Members or three Members, because we know that if the Bill is approved by Parliament we shall move to single-Member constituencies after a four-year period and, as that will be the normal situation, I am entitled to refer to that as the norm.
  The point about the Westminster system being well tried arose because I was referring to the method by which people vote. The method we will use for voting on the first-past-the-post system for the Assembly is the same as that which we use for Westminster, save that at the first election they will have not just one vote but a minimum of two in each constituency.
  The system is different, but it is not so different and I think that people will be able to understand it much better, though I do not make a great deal about the complicated nature of the proportional representation system. This is not one of the arguments I have chosen to adopt. I do not like saying that electors will not be able to understand any system. I think that politicians underestimate the electorate at their peril, and I think that they can understand a lot of these complicated systems very easily. I am not taking that argument at all. I think that there are many other arguments against the amendment that is proposed without my using one of the poorer ones.
  Mr. Kershaw: By the same token, the Minister of State will have noticed that in these amendments it is provided that this arrangement shall last for only the first Assembly. If it is found unsatisfactory, in the way that he says the Government's idea would be unsatisfactory with more than one Member, it could be changed, could it not?
  Mr. Smith: It is true that the amendment provides that the Assembly itself and Parliament, in a sort of overriding way, will decide what are the eventual processes. But in the Bill it has been made crystal clear that we shall stick to first-past-the-post principles and that after the first period is over we shall move

  1587
  to single-Member constituencies. In the amendment that the hon. Member put forward, there is some doubt about the eventual position, but in the Bill it is clear what the position would be, unless, of course, Parliament subsequently decided to amend it—but that could happen to any piece of legislation.
  Speaking from the Dispatch Box and having explained why the Government have chosen the first-past-the-post system, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendments. I hope that my hon. Friends, who will be having a free vote, as has been explained already, will take
  these matters legitimately into consideration, but on this occasion they must make up their own minds.
  Mr. George Cunningham Mr. George Cunningham
  rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 107, Noes 290.

  Division No. 15]

  AYES

  [6.21 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Roper, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Rose, Paul B.

  Bain, Mrs. Margaret

  Henderson, Douglas

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Beith, A. J.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Benyon, W.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hurd, Douglas

  Scott, Nicholas

  Bottomley, Peter

  James, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Bradley, Tom

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sillars, James

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Carlisle, Mark

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Spence, John

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Knox, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Lee, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Corbett, Robin

  Luce, Richard

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Crawford, Douglas

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  MacCormick, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Crouch, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, George

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Monro, Hector

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Newton, Tony

  Watt, Hamish

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Pardoe, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Faulds, Andrew

  Parker, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Penhaligon, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ford, Ben

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Freud, Clement

  Rathbone, Tim

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Ginsburg, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Reid, George

  Gray, Hamish

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Sir Nigel Fisher and

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Eric Ogden.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Allaun, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Carson, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Arnold, Tom

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cartwright, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Buchan, Norman

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Clegg, Walter

  Bell, Ronald

  Buck, Antony

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Budgen, Nick

  Cocks, Rt Kon Michael (Bristol S)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Boardman, H.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Cope, John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Campbell, Ian

  Costain, A. P.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Percival, Ian

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Cunningham, Dr J. (White)

  Jopling, Michael

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Dalyell, Tam

  Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kelley, Richard

  Raison, Timothy

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kerr, Russell

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Dempsey, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhodes James, R.

  Doig, Peter

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Dormand, J. D.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Dunlop, John

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Durant, Tony

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Eadie, Alex

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Edge, Geoff

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ryman, John

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sever, J.

  Emery, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  English, Michael

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shepherd, Colin

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Litterick, Tom

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Loveridge, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Silverman, Julius

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Luard, Evan

  Silvester, Fred

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fell, Anthony

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McCusker, H.

  Small, William

  Flannery, Martin

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Snape, Peter

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sproat, Iain

  Fox, Marcus

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

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

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanley, John

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mather, Carol

  Stokes, John

  George, Bruce

  Maude, Angus

  Stott, Roger

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Golding, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Gorst, John

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mendelson, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Grieve, Percy

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Peter

  Tinn, James

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moate, Roger

  Tomlinson, John

  Hannam, John

  Molloy, William

  Torney, Tom

  Harper, Joseph

  Molyneaux, James

  Urwin, T. W.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Moonman, Eric

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Hatton, Frank

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wakeham, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wall, Patrick

  Higgins, Terrence L.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Walters, Dennis

  Hodgson, Robin

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Wells, John

  Holland, Philip

  Moyle, Roland

  White, James (Po k)

  Hooley, Frank

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hordern, Peter

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Whitlock, William

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Neave, Airey

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Neubert, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Newens, Stanley

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hunter, Adam

  Noble, Mike

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Woodall, Alec

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ovenden, John

  Woof, Robert

  Janner, Greville

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Park, George

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

  Parry, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jessel, Toby

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Chairman: The next amendment is No. 19.
  With this we may take the following amendments.
  No. 20, in page 1, line 16, leave out subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) and insert—
  '(2) There shall be fifty-seven members.
  (3) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme dividing Scotland into fifty-seven constituencies.'
  No. 152, in page 1, line 16, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
  '(2) The initial members of the Assembly shall be returned for those Assembly constituencies specified in the first column of Schedule (Initial Constituencies and Members) to this Act, and the number of members returned by each Assembly constituency shall be that specified for the constituency in the second column of that Schedule.'.
  No. 22, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'initial'.
  No. 24, 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 those parts of Scotland over which the Assembly is granted control'.
  No. 25, 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. 161, in page 1, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert
  '(a) two Members for each Parliamentary constituency'.
  No. 162, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
  No. 30, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'initial'.
  No. 33, in page 2, line 2, at end insert
  'and one initial member for Ross and one for Cromarty and one initial member for Caithness and one for Sutherland'.
  No. 34, in page 2, line 3, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
  No. 153, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7.
  No. 154, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'Part III of Schedule 1' and insert
  'Schedule (Initial Constituencies and Members)'.
  No. 155, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'that Schedule' and insert
  Schedule 1 to this Act'.
  No. 156, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 12.
  No. 192, Schedule 1—Assembly Constituencies—page 40, leave out lines 1 to 29 and insert—

'PART II

  DIVISION OF SCOTLAND INTO ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES
  6. Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one region or island area.
  7. The number of Assembly members for each region or islands area shall be determined by the number of Assembly quotas to the next whole number above contained in the electorate of the region or islands area.
  8. Where the number of Assembly members for a region or islands area is seven or fewer, that region or islands area shall be an Assembly constituency.
  9. Where the number of Assembly members for a region or islands area is eight or more, that region or islands area 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 into Assembly constituencies, no district shall be included partly in one district and partly in another, except in so far as may be necessary to meet paragraph 9(a) above.
  11. A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of paragraph 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. 157, in page 40, leave out lines 30 to 36.
  No. 158, in page 40, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 41 and insert:
  "assembly quota" means the number obtained by dividing the electorate by 145.'.
  No. 159, page 41, leave out lines 14 to 25.
  No. 228, New Schedule—Initial Constituencies and Members—

  Initial constituencies formed from existing Parliamentary constituencies:

  number of members to be returned:

  Orkney

  1

  Shetland

  1

  Western Isles

  2

  Caithness and Sutherland

  2

  Ross and Cromarty

  2

  Inverness

  3

  Moray and Nairn

  3

  Banff

  East Aberdeenshire

  5

  West Aberdeenshire

  North Angus and Mearns

  4

  South Angus

  Kinross and West Perthshire

  4

  Perth and East Perthshire

  Central Fife

  5

  East Fife

  Dunfermline

  5

  Kirkcaldy

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  6

  West Renfrewshire

  East Renfrewshire

  5

  Paisley

  Central Dunbartonshire

  7

  East Dunbartonshire

  West Dunbartonshire

  Bute and North Ayrshire

  5

  Central Ayrshire

  Ayr

  7

  Kilmarnock

  South Ayrshire

  Midlothian

  7

  West Lothian

  Berwick and East Lothian

  5

  Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles

  Dumfries

  5

  Galloway

  Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire

  8

  Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth

  West Stirlingshire

  Argyll

  2

  Bothwell

  7

  Coatbridge and Airdrie

  North Lanarkshire

  Hamilton

  6

  Lanark

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  East Kilbride

  5

  Rutherglen

  Aberdeen North

  5

  Aberdeen South

  Dundee East

  5

  Dundee West

  Edinburgh Central

  7

  Edinburgh Leith

  Edinburgh North

  Edinburgh West

  Edinburgh East

  7

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  Edinburgh South

  Glasgow Garscadden

  7

  Glasgow Hillhead

  Glasgow Kelvingrove

  Glasgow Maryhill

  Glasgow Provan

  5

  Glasgow Shettleston

  Glasgow Springburn

  Initial constituencies formed from existing Parliamentary constituencies:

  Number of members to be returned:

  Glasgow Cathcart

  4

  Glasgow Central

  Glasgow Queen's Park

  Glasgow Govan

  5

  Glasgow Craigton

  Glasgow Pollok

  Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I ask you, please, at the conclusion of the debate on this group of amendments, to call for a separate Division on Amendment No. 25?
  The Chairman: In principle, yes.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Will you enlighten us on the way this is to work? As I understand the position, somebody is about to move Amendment No. 19. Let us assume that the debate on that amendment proceeds until 7 p.m. Am I reading the guillotine motion wrongly in thinking that if that happens you will be required to put the Question on Amendment No. 19, which will by then have been moved, and that you will then be required, also by the terms of the guillotine, to put the Question on Clause 2 stand part, on Schedule 1, and on Clause 3 stand part, as being part of this group?
  You have just indicated that in principle you are willing for Amendment No. 25 to have a separate vote, but if the discussion on Amendment No. 19 goes on until 7 p.m. no one will have moved Amendment No. 25, so how are you to have a separate vote?
  The Chairman: I think I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I used the words "in principle" advisedly, because we must see how we proceed. Everything else that the hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely correct, provided always that I have proposed the Question on Amendment No. 19 at the time of the guillotine.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I am most grateful for that explanation. Since I have created this time, I should like to use 30 seconds of it so that we may be completely clear. Am I right in thinking that if anybody wants an amendment

  1595
  to be taken, it will be necesary to persuade everyone else to conclude the discussion on the previous amendments, or on the head amendment of the group, and get any voting on it through in time to allow it to be formally moved? I think the answer to that is "Yes".
  My second question concerns the guillotine motion, which says that among the protected Questions which will go to a vote—whether they are among the group I have already mentioned or not—there is also to be included the Question on any amendment or motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any hon. Member if that amendment or motion is moved by a member of the Government. Assuming that in this group there were an amendment—which there is not—in the Government's name, would the Question on that amendment have to be put even though the amendment had not been moved? It does not say that. It says:
  … if that amendment or Motion is moved …".
  Is that to be taken to mean moved after the guillotine?
  The Chairman: Yes. It will have to be moved formally by a member of the Government.
  Mr. Cunningham: After the guillotine time, not before?
  The Chairman: After the guillotine time.
  Mr. Cunningham: It is a funny way to express it, I must say.
  The Chairman: The Chair will not comment on the way in which anything is expressed.
  Mr. Sproat: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 1, leave out lines 16 to 23, and insert
  'The members of the Assembly shall be those Members of Parliament sitting for those constituencies in Scotland over which the Assembly is granted control'.
  I can perhaps paraphrase what is meant by the amendment. The idea is that Scottish Members of Parliament should meet in Edinburgh from time to time to discuss those matters affecting Scotland that are currently discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs. It is not my wish to press the amendment to a Division because I do not regard it as an ideal situation, but I
  1596
  believe that it is a situation that ought to be aired in the general context of the debate on devolution. I am sorry that only about 19 minutes are to be given to debate this important subject together with about a dozen perhaps more important amendments.
  I believe that the matter ought to be aired because it is an idea that has been widely put forward in Scotland and in newspapers down south. The second reason for airing it is that the advantages are so striking by comparison with the disadvantages of the Scottish Assembly that the Bill seeks to set up. I accept that there are disadvantages in the idea of the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh from time to time, but they are as nothing compared to the idea of a permanent Scottish Assembly sitting in Edinburgh all the time.
  Perhaps I should, at the outset, say what I think is the major disadvantage of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh. It is worth making this point because it was made at different times by many people even before we became involved in this devolution debate. If Members of Parliament for Scottish seats are required, however infrequently, to sit in Edinburgh it will mean that, by definition, they will not at the same time be able to take part in the affairs of the House in London. I think that that ultimately would be a severe disadvantage, because if the sittings in Edinburgh were on Fridays, as some have suggested, or every fourth Monday, Scottish Members would not be able to be present at Question Time on Monday or at important debates on Friday afternoon—on Private Members' Bills, and so on. I am aware that the situation is far from ideal.
  The situation is also far from ideal because there is a certain principle that should overlie all our debates on the way in which we govern the country and the way in which we make changes. We all believe that changes are necessary—administrative, legislative and constitutional—but such changes must affect all parts of the United Kingdom equally. That is the key principle, but the Bill affects Scotland in a different way from that in which it affects other parts of the United Kingdom. That is why it is a fundamentally objectionable Bill. The

  1597
  reasons for saying that were gone into yesterday by myself and many others.
  The suggestion that Scotland should be treated differently by having a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh violates the principle to which I have referred, but it does so to a lesser degree. Even if we do not have a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh, Committees of the House should sit in the morning to deal with regional affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and I were the only members of the Conservative Party who, some years ago, voted in favour of setting up regional committees. We did so because we thought that they would increase democracy, so long as that was done within the context and control of the House of Commons.
  6.45 p.m.
  By airing the advantages of this idea one can show the severe disadvantages of the Government's proposals. For example, one of the major disadvantages—and this will come out more and more in the referendum campaign, if he ever get to it—will be more government. This argument has been put forward endlessly in the House in previous debates, and rightly so, because the matter is so important. People in Scotland are fed up with more government and more bureaucracy, and more expenditure and more taxation to back it all up. I hear one of my hon. Friends add "and more inefficiency and more elections". The people of Scotland, and those living in other parts of the United Kingdom, object to all those increases. At least the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh would not let us in for any more of that. There would be no extra bureaucracy and expense, except perhaps for a few tickets. Generally, we would get rid of all the extras.
  There are three serious problems, which nobody in the Committee has been able to overcome, and which the Bill elevates. There is the problem of Scottish Members voting on English matters, but English Members not being able to vote on Scottish matters. I shall not go into the endless ramifications of the West Lothian question, as it is called, but the tact that we go on raising this question proves that nobody has been able to
  1598
  demonstrate that there is an answer to it. The fact is that there is not an answer to it within the context of what the Government suggest. There is no way in which the question can be dealt with, but at least within the context of a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh that objection would not apply.
  Another strong objection is that in a unitary State one cannot give a permanent advantage to one part of the United Kingdom without, at the same time, necessarily and correspondingly bringing about a disadvantage for other parts of the United Kingdom. It is impossible to avoid that in a unitary State, and the idea that we should give more help to Glasgow because it happens to be in Scotland, rather than helping Liverpool which happens to be in England, although the unemployment rate is higher there than it is in Glasgow, is wrong. I see the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) shaking his head. He shook it yesterday. He is wrong, and he should check the latest figures in the Library.
  One could go through other examples, such as East Anglia having 5 per cent. less than the average wage paid in Scotland. It is totally unfair to distribute the benefits of the United Kingdom Treasury on the basis of geopraphy rather than on the basis of need. There is no way in which one can get round this under the Bill.
  Mr. James Sillars: Yesterday the hon. Gentleman was involved with the SNP on the question of London weighting and argued that it was distributed on the basis of need. Is he arguing that again this afternoon? I do not think anyone else would agree that London weighting is paid on the basis of need when one takes into account conditions in Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Dundee.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is paid on the basis of need, and it is on that basis that I support it. I hear someone say that it is paid on the basis of the cost of living. That is the answer. If the cost of living is as high in other parts of the United Kingdom as it is in London, people there should be paid the weighting allowance.
  Mr. Sillars rose—
  Mr. Sproat: I shall not give way again, because the debate has to terminate in a few moments.
  Those are just two of the irreducible conundrums that the Bill creates. They cannot be solved within the context of the Bill, but they could be solved in the context of a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh from time to time. I put this idea forward to be aired, to show up once again the fallacies, the stupidities and the anomalies that the Bill raises, and to demonstrate once again that they cannot be solved by setting up a separate Assembly in Scotland.
  Mr. Brittan: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 25, which would have the effect of substantially reducing the number of Members of the Assembly, so that instead of the 150 Members proposed by the Government there would be a number equal to the number of Members of Parliament representing Scotland. I should add that if, as seems likely, there is no opportunity for me to move this amendment formally, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends, in protest against that fact and the fact that many questions raised by the other amendments to Clause 2 cannot be debated, to vote against Clause 2 standing part of the Bill.
  I turn now to the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) about the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh. That proposal has great attractions. It does not involve the sort of constitutional conflicts which are involved in the Government's proposals. It would mean a kind of directly-elected Assembly sitting in Edinburgh and would involve substantially less cost than the cumbersome proposals put forward by the Government. It would not involve subverting the rôle of Members representing Scottish constituencies, as the present proposals undoubtedly do.
  As my hon. Friend very fairly pointed out, there are difficulties in establishing the Scottish Grand Committee as an alternative to the Assembly if it is meant to do the work which the Government seek to allot to an Assembly. In the first place there would be an enormous burden of work on the Members concerned by asking them to undertake that work as well as the normal duties of a Member
  1600
  of this House. Even more important, there are fundamental constitutional implications to the proposal. If Members of Parliament are to go to Edinburgh to sit as an Assembly they would obviously not be able to participate at the same time in the work of the House of Commons. That problem would not be solved by debating only English questions on days when Scottish Members were away in Edinburgh.
  The whole concept of the United Kingdom is that Members of this House have the right to vote on all questions, therefore to have Scottish Members effectively disfranchised from voting on English matters would be fundamentally subversive to the United Kingdom, and all of us who believe in the unity of the United Kingdom would take very grave account of such disadvantages as those which this proposal would create. It would amount to the introduction of quasi-federalism by the back door, and as such it would not work.
  It might be a different matter if the Parliament here were not sitting when the Assembly was sitting, but to expect this Parliament to impose upon itself a self-denying ordinance which would substantially reduce the amount of time that it was sitting, in order to leave time for Scottish Members to go to Edinburgh and debate the matters allotted to them, is perhaps unrealistic.
  Nevertheless I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South has done a great service to the House by raising this proposal, because he has underlined the potential of the Scottish Grand Committee as a means of providing scrutiny for the government of Scotland, which has not been adequately realised. It would be possible for the Scottish Grand Committee to have more meetings. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said yesterday that Scottish Members do not have adequate time to question Ministers compared with the time available to English Members, because Scottish Question Time covers the whole range of subjects, whereas English—no, I mean United Kingdom—Ministers have separate Question Times for different subjects. One way of dealing with that problem would be to provide a Question Time in sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee. Also in terms of providing a focus for

  1601
  Scotland, if the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee were broadcast, that, too, could have an impact on the people of Scotland. Therefore, although I do not believe that the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend would enable a solution to be found to the problems resulting from the creation of an Assembly, his proposal highlights alternatives which would be worth considering.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I must ask the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to forbear. Because of the guillotine, which is not of his making, there are precisely five minutes left to consider the very important question of the number of Members that the Scottish Assembly should have. There is no rational basis for the Government's suggestion that there should be 150 Members. That merely amounts to an approximate doubling of the number of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies. That is a greater number than almost any Assembly in the world which is not a national or federal Assembly.
  Looking at the countries which provide a comparison and which have federal or confederal solutions, we see that in Australia, for example, where the individual constituent parts have powers at least as great as those proposed for the Scottish Assembly, New South Wales, with a population of 4,600,000, has an Assembly with a main chamber of 96 Members. Queensland has 82 Members, South Australia 47, Tasmania 35, Victoria 73, and West Australia 51.
  In Canada, Alberta has 75 Members. British Columbia, with a population of 2 million, has 55 seats, Manitoba 57, New Brunswick 58, Newfoundland 42, Nova Scotia 46, and Ontario 117. That is less than the number that the Government have proposed for Scotland, yet Ontario has a population of 7,700,000. Saskatchewan has 60 Members and Quebec 108.
  That answers the argument put forward by the Government, when this matter was last debated, that it was necessary to have an Assembly of substantial size, because otherwise we could not have an Executive, Back Bench supporters for the Executive, a Front Bench
  1602
  Opposition to the Executive and Back Bench supporters to the Opposition to the Executive. If it is possible to do all of that in the federal arrangements of Australia and Canada, it is certainly possible to do it in Scotland with an Assembly of far smaller size than that proposed by the Government.
  The solution proposed in Amendment No. 25 would have other advantages. A considerable advantage would be that the Assembly would be smaller and less costly—and better for those reasons alone. In addition, it would mean that no further boundary review would be required to establish the limits of constituencies. Unlike the situation in the Government's proposals, there would be no multi-Member constituencies. We have heard in the last day or so about the tremendous advantages of having a close nexus between a Member of Parliament as an individual and his constituents. It would also be easier for links to exist between Members of Parliament and Members of the Assembly, because there would be a one-to-one ratio in which discussion of mutual matters would be much assisted. The Royal Commission suggested an Assembly of 100 Members. That lies somewhere between our proposal and what the Government have put into the Bill.
  In the last debate the Government conceded that the figure of 150-odd was not magical and that it was not to be regarded as the last word. We remain of the view that a much smaller Assembly would be able to carry out the rôle allotted to the Scottish Assembly. If New South Wales, in a fully federal structure, can manage with 96 Members for a population of 4,600,000 and i Queensland can manage with 82 Members for a population of 1,827,000 Scotland should be able to do the same
  It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The House Divided: Ayes 208. Noes 180.

  Division No. 16]

  AYES

  [7.00 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Newens, Stanley

  Anderson, Donald

  Forrester, John

  Noble, Mike

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Oakes, Gordon

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ogden, Eric

  Ashton. Joe

  Freud, Clement

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  George, Bruce

  Pardoe, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Park, George

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ginsburg, David

  Parker, John

  Bain, Mrs. Margaret

  Golding, John

  Parry, Robert

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Penhaligon, David

  Bates, Alf

  Grocott, Bruce

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Beith, A. J.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Reid, George

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hatton, Frank

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Boardman, H.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Henderson, Douglas

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hooley, Frank

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rooker, J. W.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Horam, John

  Roper, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Ryman, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Sever, J.

  Buchanan, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sillars, James

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  John, Brynmor

  Silverman, Julius

  Campbell, Ian

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Small, William

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cartwright, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Snape, Peter

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Kerr, Russell

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Kilfedder, James

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Coleman, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Lamborn, Harry

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Lamond, James

  Stott, Roger

  Corbett, Robin

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Strang, Gavin

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lee, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Litterick, Tom

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Loyden, Eddie

  Thompson, George

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Luard, Evan

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Cryer, Bob

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Tierney, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur

  McCartney, Hugh

  Tinn, James

  Deakins, Eric

  MacCormick, lain

  Tomlinson, John

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Torney, Tom

  Dempsey, James

  McElhone, Frank

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Doig, Peter

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Dormand, J. D.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Watt, Hamish

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Welsh, Andrew

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Magee, Bryan

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dunn, James A.

  Marks, Kenneth

  White, James (Pollok)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Whitlock, William

  Eadie, Alex

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Edge, Geoff

  Meacher, Michael

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  English, Michael

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Molloy, William

  Woof, Robert

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Flannery, Martin

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Baker, Kenneth

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bell, Ronald

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Alison, Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Brittan, Leon

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(Spelthorne)

  Benyon, W.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  James, David

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

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

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Buck, Antony

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Budgen, Nick

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith

  Raison, Timothy

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Carson, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rhodes James, R.

  Channon, Paul

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Clegg, Walter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Cope, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Costain, A. P.

  Litterick, Tom

  Shepherd, Colin

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Loveridge, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Dalyell, Tam

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Luce, Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McCusker, H.

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Dunlop, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, John

  Speed, Keith

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Spence, John

  Emery, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Marten, Neil

  Sproat, Iain

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Mates, Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Mather, Carol

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Flannery, Martin

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stokes, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Forman, Nigel

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fox, Marcus

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fry, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Miller. Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mills, Peter

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Gorst, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Moate, Roger

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Molyneaux, James

  Wakeham, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Monro, Hector

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Grieve, Percy

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wall, Patrick

  Griffiths, Eldon

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Walters, Dennis

  Grist, Ian

  Morgan, Geraint

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wells, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hannam, John

  Neave, Airey

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Younger, Hon George

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton, Tony

  Hodgson, Robin

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Holland, Philip

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Sir George Young.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hurd, Douglas

  Percival, Ian

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Sproat: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Perhaps you can help the Committee. We have got ourselves into a totally ridiculous position. We have spent only about five minutes discussing the important matter of the size of the projected Scottish Assembly. This is not a theoretical matter. It is of immense importance to any future Assembly: the
  1606
  functions of the House of Commons depend upon its size, but, because of the way that the guillotine is operated, we have spent only five minutes out of a total of seven or eight hours on that matter of size. Is it not possible that some way could be devised within the guillotine—I am not objecting to the guillotine at present—so that the first group of amendments in a block of amendments does not take up all the time available for that block? Is there a way in which we can ensure that each group of amendments gets a fair crack of the whip and in which we can avoid the situation where a matter of crucial importance to Scotland is debated for only five minutes and is not voted upon?
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to to the Business Committee's motion and it is, therefore, not a matter for me. On the other hand, what the hon. Member has said will be heard by those who are concerned.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I understood that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was not adressing himself to the grievances that arise automatically from the guillotine, although these are real enough, but to the exercise of your discretion. That was the point to which I was addressing myself in my several interventions earlier in the debate. In this particular block of amendments we are in a worse position in a way, in that we have only three hours 40 minutes and a larger list of groups than we had in the previous block. I suggest that you, Mr. Murton, and other occupants of the Chair, should at leisure—but not too much leisure—without giving any indication at this stage, consider whether you should exercise your discretion in such a way as to maximise the number of amendments which come to a vote. I stress "come to a vote" because that is more important than debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is more important. The House of Commons thinks that talking is what matters, but it is voting that matters. We could come to an amendment that could actually be carried, but we might not have a chance to vote because of the way in which the Chair exercises its discretion.
  Therefore, what I am saying is that if it becomes plain to you that there is an amendment, other than the first amendment on the first line of any section, which is a serious amendment in the sense of having a chance of passing, I ask you to exercise your discretion in such a way as to ensure that the Committee has an opportunity either to pass or not to pass that amendment. I ask you not to reply to my point now.
  The Chairman: I shall do so to this extent. I shall be quick about it. First, points of order come out of guillotine time. Second, the Chair does exercise its discretion, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. But I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and I am sure the Committee does, too.

Clause 4

  DISSOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY
  Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 174, in page 2, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert
  'it appears to the Secretary of State that the Assembly is unable to reach decisions on matters requiring urgent decision and that the government of Scotland is gravely affected as a result:
  Provided that no order shall be made on that ground unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament'.
  The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
  No. 53, in page 2, line 36, leave out from 'dissolved' to end of line 40.
  No. 169, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'two-thirds' and insert 'one-half'.
  Mr. Brittan: I preface my remarks by giving my full support to the observations that have been made from both sides of the House. It is an appalling reflection on the effect of the guillotine that it has not even been possible to debate the amendment on which the last Bill foundered, namely, the one proposing the Speaker's Conference to consider the principle and, by implication, the role of Scottish Members in this House after the enactment of such a measure. It was that debate which last time persuaded the House to reject the Scotland and Wales Bill and it is truly fantastic that a situation should be allowed to arise in which the equivalent amendment cannot be debated in any shape or form in this House.
  In the Scotland and Wales Bill, which was considered in the last Session, one of the features criticised to a substantial extent was the extreme rigidity of the arrangement whereby the term of office of the Assembly was prescribed by that Bill. It was variable only by variations of two months either side of the normal date. That was obviously designed to deal with very minor clashes with other dates on which it would not be appropriate to hold elections for the Scottish Assembly.
  Grave objections were made to that arrangement in the debate on 2nd February 1977. It was pointed out that it would be absurd to have so inflexible

  1609
  an arrangement, for in spite of any changes that might take place while the Assembly was in office, in spite of by-elections that might take place or, more probably, shifts of opinion within the Assembly which would lead to the Executive losing the support that it had at the outset, it was quite impossible to dissolve the Assembly or for it to come to an end in any shape or form.
  When that complaint was made objection was taken that this was no different from the situation in the case of a county council or other local government unit in which a fixed term was prescribed. But an answer was most certainly forthcoming. It was that the situation with regard to the Scottish Assembly was in no way analogous—certainly not fairly comparable—with that of a county council operating a committee system, because in the case of the Scottish Assembly what is proposed is not a committee system but an executive. It is a Government of a United Kingdom type combined with a legislature and not just an Assembly exercising executive powers through a committee system. It is that unique feature of a United Kingdom-type government sitting in an Asembly which itself has legislative power that makes it absolutely essential for there to be a degree of flexibility in the case of the Assembly with regard to its duration.
  The point was made, as so often, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said:
  "I assume, therefore, that it is held to be desirable that, for such an Assembly to legislate, its leadership should be more compact, coherent and continuous than the leadership which is given in a local authority by a caucus of the chairman, the party chairman and the respective committees or however it may be arranged. It may be that it is because of its legislative character that this mansard roof of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is superimposed upon the Assembly."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 588–89.]
  The reason for that superimposition is that it is plainly inappropriate to have a situation in which the Assembly and the First Secretary thereof may find themselves in a situation in which the Government of Scotland simply cannot continue because there is no coherent body able to give support to an Executive headed by a particular person.
  It is right to say that the Government accepted the force of that argument to a
  1610
  substantial extent, so much so that they have introduced in this Bill a provision that was not to be found in the Scotland and Wales Bill. That is the clause that we are debating, which allows for the dissolution of the Assembly on a two-thirds vote. But in our view that provision does not really solve the whole problem in an adequate way. Objection has often been made to the situation operating in this House whereby the Prime Minister of the day can secure a tremendous political advantage by obtaining a dissolution at any time of his choice. That objection may carry less validity at the moment because at least it is felt to be the case that in 1970 and 1974 the Prime Ministers who chose to exercise their power by having a premature dissolution of Parliament suffered at the polls as a result.
  However, the principle remains the same and we ought not to be recreating that situation in Edinburgh. The fact is that the provision in the clause does give power to the First Secretary to dissolve the Assembly, in effect, because assuming that the First Secretary commands a majority in the Assembly—one must make that assumption, because if he did not he would cease to be First Secretary—he will be able readily to procure a vote of the Assembly seeking its dissolution if he comes to the conclusion that it would be convenient for his party to hold a General Election at that moment.
  The only qualification provided by the clause is that the First Secretary must be able to command a substantial majority of the House—a two-thirds majority—if he is to be able to secure dissolution in those circumstances to suit what he regards as his electoral convenience. But the argument put forward in the last debate in favour of flexibility was not really designed to ensure that the Executive should be able to choose a convenient moment to have an election. That was not the objection to the previous inflexibility. We did not complain that it did not give the Executive the opportunity to have an election at a time of its own choice.
  7.30 p.m.
  The real problem, which is not adequately dealt with by the clause, is one of deadlock. Suppose the Executive loses the confidence of the Assembly but there is a majority able to put in power and sustain an Executive of a different

  1611
  political complexion, or a coalition comprising a group of alternative political complexions. There might well then be no majority in favour of dissolution. The Assembly could be faction-ridden. We have heard much talk about there already being in Scotland a multi-party system to a much greater extent than in this House. It would not be difficult to imagine there being no majority, still less a two-thirds majority, in favour of dissolution. If the powers granted to the Assembly are as substantial as those proposed in the Bill, the Government of Scotland could come grinding to a halt. If it did not, the Assembly might find that it was
  "unable to reach decisions on matters requiring urgent decision and that the government of Scotland is gravely affected as a result",
  to quote the amendment. It is to meet that problem that we seek to persuade the Committee of the merits of the amendment.
  I acknowledge that there are difficulties in any solution. We should listen sympathetically to any alternative. At present the problem is not solved. There is no way to secure the dissolution of the Assembly if there is a deadlock.
  In the United Kingdom as a whole the Prime Minister would secure a dissolution. The only alternative way to bring that about, in our view, is to enable the Secretary of State, in such a situation—necessarily prescribed in a fairly generalised way, but none the less fairly clearly prescribed—to dissolve the Assembly. As a further protection, we have included in the amendment the provision that the Secretary of State would not be able to dissolve the Assembly on his own say-so when there has been deadlock, but would need a prior resolution by each House of Parliament in favour of his draft order. I stress "each House", because it means that the House of Lord would also have to be satisfied that the circumstances laid down in the clause, as amended, applied.
  The advantage of that provision is not party political; it is that if the Secretary of State were seeking to persuade the House of Commons to dissolve the Assembly, not because there was genuinely a deadlock but because it suited him for some reason, the House of Lords would be able to take an independent and possibly more objective view. With this formula, it would be highly unlikely
  1612
  that the Secretary of State would intervene in a partisan way, because to do so would almost certainly be totally counterproductive.
  If the Secretary of State sought to dissolve the Assembly when there was clearly a majority able to carry through its proposals, and did so simply because he did not like the effect of what it was doing, it would not require a sophisticated electorate to see—even if he were able to persuade both Houses to support so brazen an executive act—that he was in contravention of the provisions of the clause as amended. The electorate would see that he was abusing the power given to him and that both Houses were abusing the discretion given to them, if they supported him. It would be so obvious that the Scottish Executive would be likely to secure an increased majority at the polls in Scotland that no Secretary of State in his senses would be tempted to follow such a course.
  Mr. Dalyell: I have spoken before about the fertile seeds of pointless conflict between Scotland and this House. I would not press the analogy ton far, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in some ways the potential here resembles the conflicts in Australia between Kerr and Whitlam?
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share to the full his concern about the potential conflicts resulting from the Bill and the view that within the scheme of government proposed for Scotland there is no way of resolving or even substantially diminishing those conflicts. But we are unhappily saddled with the grim task of seeking to make the best of a bad job. All that I am saying is that in the Bill as it stands there is a glaring flaw, to which an attempt should be made to provide an answer. In outlining our answer, I said that I agreed that any solution was redolent of difficulty, but at least we are providing a solution where the Government provide none.
  Although at first blush our solution would seem to be redolent of conflict, I think that it is not as redolent of conflict as it may seem to the hon. Gentleman. The reason is that any attempt to use the power in anything other than good faith would be so blatant, and its harmful consequences to anyone seeking

  1613
  to use it in that way accordingly so apparent, that the Secretary of State would almost certainly eschew any temptation to abuse the power. Coupled with that is the protection, limited as it may be thought to be, of the requirement for an order of each House. Both Houses, or at least this Chamber, may on occasion be ready to follow the guidance of the executive contrary to their inclinations, as perhaps happened last week in giving the Bill its Second Reading and passing the guillotine motion. But I do not believe that when the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may dissolve the Assembly are specifically and clearly defined, and when those circumstances do not exist, both Houses would be party to an abuse of that power.
  I recognise the possibility of conflict even in that way, but it is less than might appear at first sight. In any event, there is a gap that must be filled in some way. In spite of last year's debate, it is not adequately filled by this new clause, because it does not provide for a situation in which there is deadlock and no two-thirds majority in favour of dissolution. The best proposals that we have been able to devise are those in Amendment No. 174, which I therefore commend to the House.
  Mr. Sillars: The Opposition Front Bench has said that this was the best that it could devise, but it is not terribly good. It is full of potential points of conflict between the Scottish Assembly and this House. The question whether the Assembly is dissolved is a matter of major political judgment.
  If we had the present situation, many people in Scotland would object, and certainly all the Assemblymen would object very strongly, to a political decision of that magnitude being made by someone who is not in the electorate in Scotland, as the Secretary of State is not at present. There would be just as much heat generated in Scotland as there was in Australia when the Governor-General intervened on that decision. Most people reviewing Australian politics would have said before the event occurred that no one would act in that partisan way, because of the backlash. Nobody would have thought anyone would take that sort of risk.
  1614
  No one in this House would forecast a Secretary of State acting in a partisan way, but one only has to look around the Chamber and look at the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who has demonstrated time and time again that he can be very partisan indeed and can make most preposterous suggestions. For example, although the United Kingdom is a unitary State, and the hon. Member never ceases to proclaim it, he has been known to say that we should have hanging laws in Scotland but not in other parts of the United Kingdom. A person with that turn of mind could not be trusted with the clause as it would be amended by the Opposition.
  As for the proposition that the House of Lords would be, in the words of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), more independent and possibly more objective—that is ludicrous. It is also most unlikely to be accepted by the vast majority of Scottish electors, who have a special regard for the House of Lords, and it is not a kind regard. It is a remarkable proposition that people who have no basis at all for intervening in Scottish affairs should be brought in from the backwoods to make part and parcel of a decision that should be made in Scotland at the end of the day, simply because it is such a major one.
  Amendment No. 53 is a probing amendment to find out the Government's thinking in relation to the idea of fixed-term Scottish Assemblies. This is not just a nut-and-bolt issue; it contains very important principles. I agree with the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that considerable political difficulties may be caused by the fixed-term principle. We are witnessing in Scotland a situation in the Glasgow District Council in which the Labour Party did not win an overall majority of seats, so it got in a huff and refused to form an administration, despite the fact that it was the largest party. The Scottish National Party was a minority and it did not feel able to form an administration for that reason. The Conservatives were also a minority, but a larger one, and they said they would form an administration. However, it is an administration that cannot carry any majority decisions through the Glasgow District Council.

  1615
  7.45 p.m.
  These are some of the difficulties that exist. Such things matter in local authorities and they will matter even more in the Scottish Assembly. There will be a great effect on Scottish politics if that sort of situation developed in a fixed-term Scottish Assembly.
  In facing the problem of a fixed-term Assembly we must consider the obstacles against the Scottish Secretary or First Secretary, or whatever he is to be called, in doing what the Prime Minister does here—dissolving Parliament and calling an Election when it is to his advantage to do so It does seem unnecessarily restrictive to argue that two-thirds of all Members of the Assembly must vote for a dissolution, even taking into account seats that are vacant and those Members who are not present for the debate. Yet the Bill insists that there should be this two-thirds majority before the Assembly can decide to dissolve itself.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, in moving the amendment argued at one stage that the First Secretary, given a majority position, could fairly easily dissolve this Assembly; the only qualification was that he got a two-thirds majority. I would not think that that was a minor qualification, given the multi-party position that the Scottish Assembly is likely to reflect. Then, only a minute or two later, the hon. Member was arguing that the multi-party system would make it almost impossible to get a two-thirds majority. That might be the case.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will consider at a later stage slightly amending the Bill to make the qualification that of two-thirds of the people attending the Assembly and voting in that Division. That might make a difference of only two or three, or perhaps five or 10, but that could be the vital difference in breaking a deadlock in the Scottish Assembly. Or, why not have a qualification that the decision could be made by half the members of the Assembly present plus one voting to agree that the Assembly should be so dissolved? I have deployed this as a probing amendment in order to ascertain the Government's thinking because they have considered the position in various parts of Europe and the Commonwealth where fixed-term systems operate.
  Mr. Graham Page: I join with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire
  1616
  (Mr. Sillars) in questioning this figure of two-thirds. In Amendment No. 169 I seek to reduce the number to half—an ordinary majority. My amendment is a probing one to try to find out the nature of the Scottish Assembly as the Government see it. It is not to be like a county council, nor is it to be like our Parliament. It is to be something in between. Therefore, a formula is set down here which, I believe, will be extremely difficult to operate.
  When we consider the voting we have seen in this Chamber in the last two days with Members going into both Lobbies, I wonder how this fromula would apply to us. One would have to think out another formula to take account of the double voting.
  I imagine that what will happen is that if the Scottish Assembly does not run its full four years, the Executive, in the form of the First Secretary, will wish to dissolve it at some stage. He will wish to dissolve it only if he finds that he has not a majority. Therefore, what is the point of the two-thirds? How will he get a resolution of the Scottish Assembly with two-thirds voting in favour of dissolving when he cannot command two-thirds in the Scottish Assembly—or, if he can command it, will he see any need to dissolve at all? This is where the formula will be difficult to apply.
  The alternative is Amendment No. 174 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittany, but I think that possibly we may be up against some difficulties there. We would be leaving it almost entirely to this Parliament to decide on the dissolution of the Scottish Assembly. That may be tight in principle if one believes that the Scottish Assembly must be something like a Committee of this House. I understand that is not within the present Bill. One would need a substantial number of alterations to bring that about.
  Personally, I am in favour of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I should like to see a Scottish Assembly controlled by this House. I think that possibly I am in a minority in thinking that and therefore I am faced with trying to make this formula in Clause 4 work in a reasonable way. It can work in a reasonable way only if it depends on a majority resolution of the Scottish Assembly. If one asks for two-thirds

  1617
  in the one case, if the First Secretary can command two-thirds in the Scottish Assembly, he will not want to dissolve it. But if he wants to dissolve it because he has not a majority, he will not be able to get the two-thirds to dissolve it.
  The formula is fraught with deadlock all the way through. It might work by a simple majority resolution, but I still have my doubts. To a great extent my amendment, Amendment No. 169, which seeks to change the figure of two-thirds to a figure of one-half, is a probing amendment, and I hope that at some stage the Minister will intervene so that we may have a chance to return to these points. If he waits until the end of the debate because of the guillotine procedure, there will be no opportunity to take up these matters other than by our pestering him with questions to find out what is in his mind. Therefore, I hope that he will intervene at some earlier stage in the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: I should like to concentrate on this issue of deadlock. I believe then that any action by the Secretary of State would be liable to misinterpretation. One can think of an abundance of reasons why people would want wilfully to misinterpret any action on dissolution. Therein lie the seeds of grave conflict.
  In a deadlocked situation it would be a question of parties coming together in a coalition. I do not want to go back to the previous debate, but the fact is that we are talking about a situation of coalition. This Committee should question the proposition that, if this legislation is passed, never again will British parties be the same. I do not argue whether that is good or bad, but it should be clearly understood. Where there is a coalition that is Labour-Tory, Tory-SNP, Labour-SNP or whatever it may be, because of the position that would obtain in an Assembly—and many politicians in Scotland would be more interested in an Assembly than they would be in Westminster—there is the recipe for the breaking up of the British party system.
  There may be those who take the view that they would like nothing better than to see the break-up of the British Labour and trade union movement. That is not my view. I think that it is a recipe for conflict, and therefore we should understand that one of the effects may well be
  1618
  the break-up of the British party system. Things would never be the same again if there was the kind of coalition we are discussing. So long as that is understood, I shall leave my case there.
  Mr. Powell: All the debates on this Bill are turning out to be a huge exercise in the demonstration of one central proposition. It is a proposition which has already been mentioned a number of times, but is none the worse for that—namely, that in a unitary parliamentary State it is not possible to establish an elected legislature for a part of that State. In previous debates we have had what might be called the massive proof of that proposition, indeed the knock-down proof, to which deservedly the appellation of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has been attached. It consisted in demonstrating that when such an Assembly has been created, there is not a rational form in which the electorate of that part of the kingdom can be represented in this House.
  Day after day on the previous time round and many hours on this time round have been spent on that massive form of the proof of the underlying proposition. But now we come to this delightful thing, to this little gem of a clause. I would like also to call Amendment No. 174 a gem of an amendment; but I think that its authors are not entirely unconscious of its weakness. Yet it is like the setting of a precious jewel: we are unable to admire the gem unless we have the somewhat less valuable setting of the amendment in which to frame and present it. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) must not suppose that I lack appreciation or gratitude for the service he performed in moving the amendment.
  The clause provides us with what in some mathematical quarters is called the "elegant" proof of the proposition. We have discovered that it is impossible, having set up this Assembly, to dissolve it when we want to do so without falling into irretrievable conflict with the proposition that used to be Clause 1 of the Bill but, happily for the freedom of our continuing discussions, somehow disappeared in the course of yesterday's proceedings.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) who appears to have been called away to more weighty, but I am

  1619
  sure not more interesting, matters, said that he hoped to learn in the course of this debate about the thinking of the Government. We need not wait for the intervention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, although we are looking forward to it, to be able to reproduce with fair certainty the central part of the thinking of the Government on this subject.
  The Government, in drafting the Bill, had got the Assembly set up with an Executive supported by a majority of the Assembly, just like Her Majesty's Government and this House. Then somebody asked, "If there is a deadlock, how will they manage to get out of it? How will they manage to get an election?" Thereupon someone else—whether in Committee or a Sub-Committee of Cabinet or some little confabulation between the Lord President and his ad hoc friends—said "What is the problem? Do it the way that we do it." He went on to ask, "What is wrong with the Chief Executive—or whatever he may be called—who exercises the Royal Prerogative for other purposes, as it says in Clause 21(3), using the Royal Prerogative to dissolve the Assembly? That presents no problem at Westminster. We are sent for by Her Majesty; and when it pleases her, by Proclamation she sends us away again and gets another set, whatever may be her disappointment to find a certain overlap between the two."
  8.0 p.m.
  So that was all right, and there was general satisfaction and a nodding of heads, until a legally and constitutionally minded member of the confabulation said, "Are we then saying that the Chief Executive is to have power to advise Her Majesty and to give advice that she, constitutionally, must follow, just as she must follow the advice of her Prime Minister in the United Kingdom? Is that the sort of person that we are establishing as the Chief Executive in Scotland? Will he then be Her Majesty's Minister, advising her upon the exercise of one of the remaining and major prerogatives of the Crown?"
  Then a certain silence, chill and hesitant, fell upon those excogitating the Bill, because they saw what lay before them and glimpsed the gulf that was opening at their feet. They would be establishing one of Her Majesty's Gov
  1620
  ernments; an Executive in which there would be collective responsibility—it is quite clear that that is the intention, because in Clause 21 there are arrangements for the Chief Executive to reshuffle his Cabinet and sack his junior Ministers; that will all be found in Clause 21(4)(5)—an Executive with collective responsibility and whatever his name, a Chief Executive who would be Prime Minister.
  Thus the group found themselves invited to contemplate a Prime Minister who would be Her Majesty's Minister and would have the natural and, indeed, indispensable function of all Prime Ministers to advise Her Majesty on dissolution. It was at that point that, although they had looked at the coin before, the penny dropped. They realised that such a Government would indeed be one of Her Majesty's Governments, and that the country over which that Government presided could, by definition, not be part of the United Kingdom; for there cannot within the United Kingdom be exercise of the prerogative on the advice of a Minister who does not share in the collective responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom—not just on the matters set out in the Bill, but on the overriding, Government-creating and Government-destroying prerogative of the dissolution of Parliament.
  I am sure the House will understand now why I say that this is an elegant. miniature proof of the same old proposition, the same old impossibility. For when one has dissolved the unitary parliamentary State by creating in one part of the realm an elected legislature, and a Government supported by that legislature, one discovers that the thing will not work because it lacks something necessary to its functioning. That something is the possibility of resolving a deadlock by recourse to the electorate.
  In that quandary there were only two courses that lay open to this little conclave whose thinking—to use the word of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—we have been privileged to follow, rather like archaeologists or historians reconstructing an episode in history and working out what had happened.
  When our conclave shrank back from the chasm into which they had peeped there were two courses

  1621
  that they could take. One was to resort to constitution-making—and that is what some of the amendments seek to do, to set up an elaborate system of conditions and arrangements, a sort of clockwork mechanism for getting the Assembly out of a deadlock created by political facts. Nevertheless, all clockwork needs not only a maker but—as Dean Paley demonstrated to the instruction of Oxford undergraduates generation after generation—[Interruption.]—I am glad to hear signs of agreement from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), who is himself no mean theologian—but also someone to wind it up afterwards, somebody who will exercise a responsibility exterior to the clockwork.
  So the Government were driven from that apparent first alternative back to the only course that remained open to them. That was to place the power in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, responsible to this Parliament of the United Kingdom. Thereupon all the Scots, or at least the pro-devolutionists—such of them as are surviving—said, "That is terrible. There is no devolution about that. That would not mean real freedom because we should still be tied to the apron strings of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and its Parliament." Just so. That is what all these debates are about.
  So it can be seen, whether one looks at it en gros or whether one fixes a watchmaker's microscope to one's eye and looks at the details of the Bill, the same pattern—or almost lack of pattern—meets the gaze everywhere. What we are attempting to do in the Bill is a great pretence, the pretence that the impossible can be framed in legislative form. It is only fair that the labours of this Committee, curtailed as they are—and much to our loss—by the grim two-handed engine, should be enlivened from time to time by little interludes of this sort when we can contemplate in a gratifying instructive, yet amusing, form the same solemn truth that we are attempting to challenge by the Bill as a whole.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: It is hard to know what to say to follow that, but I must say at least a couple of things. It is extremely likely—I suspect this from
  1622
  the look of weariness fleeting across the Secretary of State's face, and in spite of his abundantly false smile and the fact that he denies it—that on every clause we shall be told that that clause, whatever it may be, will lead to the break-up of the British party system and the trade union movement. No doubt we shall also be told, possibly in even more eloquent fashion, that each clause proves conclusively that it is impossible to have supportive legislatures in a parliamentary State.
  I want simply to direct my few remarks to the question of fixed-term Parliaments, which is what these amendments are directly about. In the first instance my colleagues and I believe that fixed-term Parliaments are better than Parliaments which are free to dissolve at any time. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, as though it were part of the Holy Writ, that an indispensable prerogative of the Prime Minister is the power of dissolution. I do not agree that it is an indispensable power of the Prime Minister. That is the way we have handled these matters in this place for a long time. That does not mean that they must be handled like that for ever. Many countries operate fixed terms, and many systems of administration and government do that both here and abroad.
  Given that one accepts the desirability of a fixed term, we must accept that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) would mean that we could not have a fixed-term Parliament in which a simple majority for the Government of the day enabled dissolution to take place. That is not a fixed term at all.
  We then come to the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and the same applies there. He requires the support of only a half—not even of a majority—of the members in order to secure dissolution.
  We then come to the major proposition from the Opposition Front Bench. That was recomended to us—I think that is the proper word—with the exciting terminology of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who said that his amendment was not quite as redolent with conflict as it appeared. I think that was one of the most persuasive arguments for the adoption of an amendment that I have heard for a long

  1623
  time. Of course the amendment is redolent with a great many obstacles, some of which have been pointed out. Obviously the reason for dissolution is not necessarily the loss of a majority. One might wish to dissolve the Parliament if the political circumstances were appropriate and one could take advantage of them. That might well happen in normal circumstances in mid-term.
  The Government have carefully written in the provision that when premature dissolution takes place there would be another election at the end of the four-year term, and that would be a considerable inhibiter and brake on such action being undertaken. But with two years to run one could visualise circumstances in which a political party felt that it was to its advantage to build up a majority, compared with waiting for another two years. It is not so long since we had two General Elections in one year.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I appear to be the only occupants of the Government Back Benches, but we would be glad to hear whether this new change was made on Liberal advice.
  Mr. Johnston: It has always been difficult for me to understand when the Government have followed advice. I can only say that we are in favour of the change, but that does not prove that the Government have taken our advice.
  8.15 p.m.
  The wish to have a General Election, therefore, need not arise from a deadlock; it could come about through a desire to take advantage of a political climate at a particular time. To do as the Opposition have done and merely to transfer responsibility to this place does not remove the reasons and does not lessen the likelihood of deadlock in the Assembly. As was so cogently pointed out by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, this would create real difficulties in the Westminster parliamentary structure, if the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby genuinely believes that the House of Lords would fulfil the rôle of objective referee which he has rather optimistically portrayed for it.
  Let us take a practical example of a Labour Prime Minister in the House of Commons who is in conflict with the
  1624
  House of Lords. It the Prime Minister is considering the possibility of dissolution of the Scottish Assembly, but it is objected to by the Opposition in the Assembly, who, let us say, are Conservatives and who then encourage the House of Lords to take a different view from the Government, one is immediately in a considerable crisis at Westminster.
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has blurred over the fact that it is not just a question of proposing a dissolution on any grounds that suit the majority in the House of Commons or, for that matter, in the House of Lords. In our amendment there is a definition of the circumstances in which that could be done. The amendment makes sure that that can happen only if there is a deadlock. If the Government are given an opportunity, for political reasons, to put a resolution before the House, that is one thing. If it is empowered by the Act to do so only if there is a deadlock in the Scottish Assembly, that is prescribing an objective test. Of course, the system can be abused, but it would have to be a pretty blatant abuse by the Government and by each House of Parliament. That is a possibility, but I hope that we have sufficient confidence in our institutions to think that that is unlikely.
  Mr. Johnston: That is not an unreasonable way of putting it, but while the amendment clearly prescribes that where the Assembly is unable to reach a decision on matters requiring urgent decision that is a deadlock, a deadlock can be created. The optimism that the hon. Member has demonstrated in our existing institutions, while admirable, is not such as would make me confident enough to put such a prescription into the Bill.
  It is undoubtedly difficult to try to prescribe what one might call bolt holes or ways out of deadlocks in fixed-term Parliaments. There is this difficulty witty out any doubt. The Government's prescription necessitates a degree of agreement which many hon. Members—the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby may well chide me back on this—would feel was difficult to achieve. I am referring to the proportion of two-thirds. But given that, I agree, from the other side of the argument, with the hon. Member

  1625
  for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that in the Assembly one will see the development of a new kind of attitude and approach to the operation of the Assembly's procedures. That could be an effective way out in a deadlock, but it could not be taken advantage of for political reasons by a Government with a very small majority who wished for their own advantage to call an election very quickly.
  Mr. Budgen: The amendments demonstrate very well the widely differing views held in the House of Commons on the fateful and fatal ambiguity at the centre of our consideration of the Bill. It is still unclear whether the Government regard the Scottish Assembly as being an independent Parliament or wish to describe it as a puffed-up county council. As we continue our considerations it is plain that they wish to describe it as a puffed-up county council when they speak to the packed Benches in this place, and as an independent Parliament when they are campaigning in Scotland.
  The amendments illustrate the dilemma in which each Member finds himself in trying to understand what the Bill is about. On the one hand, Amendment No. 53, in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is plainly designed further to enhance the powers and importance of the Scottish Assembly. It is plainly trying to give it an independent voice in deciding when it may end its life if that he necessary. On the other hand, Amendment No. 169, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is an honourable attempt to make this bodged-up idea work in a slightly more efficient and easy manner. I prefer Amendment No. 174. I prefer it in very much more vigorous terms than my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was able to advocate in introducing it.
  My hon. Friend spoke first of the possibilities of conflict within the Assembly. However, the possibilities of conflict are much wider than that. There is the prospect of conflict between a party in the Assembly, or the Assembly itself, and the Westminster Parliament. I know that Clause 62—I hope that this will not reinspire the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—raises the
  1626
  whole question of the effect of Community obligations and international obligations upon the Scottish Assembly. I know that those obligations may in certain circumstances be described as not being devolved matters. However, when we think, for instance, about the present effect of the Community fishing policy upon the Scottish people, we realise that there is a fruitful area for conflict between a Scottish Assembly and Westminster, and then with the Community.
  I welcome Amendment No. 174, because it gives total discretion to the Secretary of State. It is no good saying "This power will be exercised only in certain circumstances and always in a reasonable manner". I am sure that that is true, because the essence of our unwritten constitution is that there is a general corpus of opinion within the two Houses of Parliament that prevents excessive and unreasonable use of power by any party that has temporary control of either House. However, to say that there is something within the amendment that places some sort of external constraint upon the Secretary of State is untrue. If we consider the first leg of the amendment, the first condition is
  "that the Assembly is unable to reach decisions on matters requiring urgent decision."
  It may be said in respect of some decisions that if they are not decided within a week those concerned have been unable to reach a decision on matters requiring urgent decision.
  The second part of the amendment provides that the
  "government of Scotland is gravely affected as a result."
  Neither leg of the amendment is capable of an objective assessment by relation to certain outside criteria. Both legs are concerned essentially with the criteria that are subjectively designed by the Secretary of State subject to his responsibility to this place, or to another place if he happens to sit there.
  I welcome the amendment because it breaks into the ambiguity at the centre of the Bill. It says to the Scottish Assembly "You are no more than a puffed-up county council. You are a subordinate body. If there is any conflict, it will be resolved by the decision of the Secretary of State."
  The amendment does not deal with the extra layer of government. It does

  1627
  not deal with the ridiculous extra bureaucracy that the Assembly is imposing on the happy people of Scotland. However, as long as the Assembly lasts—if it comes into being I hope that it has a short and disagreeable life, for I do not wish to see it breaking up the unity of the United Kingdom—
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman may wish it a short and disagreeable life, but some of us think that if it is established it will be difficult to bring it to an end.
  Mr. Budgen: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view. My first preference is that the Assembly should not be born. If it is born, I believe that it may well walk down the road towards separation. I go further than saying "may well"; I say that it is overwhelmingly probable that it will lead to separation.
  It is my hope that by introducing amendments such as Amendment No. 174 and retaining the powers of Westminster over a subordinate legislature, we shall resolve in part the dishonest ambiguity that lies at the heart of the Bill. We may at least demonstrate that it is no more than a puffed-up county council.
  When, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) talks about demanding more powers and extending the influence and authority of the Assembly in Scotland, we in this place are able to point to the ultimate fallback power of the Secretary of State, which in my opinion is a power that, if enshrined by the acceptance of the amendment, will be unconstrained by any of the objective criteria, and that conforms to the essence of our unwritten constitution, in that it changes, bends and varies so that the government of the country can be carried on without the breakable constraints of a written constitution.
  Mr. Ian Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has described the proposed Scottish Assembly as a puffed-up county council. That view could not be held from studying the provisions of Part I of Schedule 10.
  It is most extraordinary that the effect of Clause 4, which has as few friends as any of the three preceding clauses which we have considered very briefly in Com
  1628
  mittee, read in conjunction with Clause 3 should be that, if the Assembly should be dissolved prematurely, either following a two-thirds majority, as the Bill provides, or, if Amendment No. 174 should be passed, in the circumstances envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), a newly elected Assembly should be elected only for the remainder of the four-year period.
  It is an astonishing proposition that the people of Scotland should have inflicted upon them all the burden and expense of what would really be a General Election campaign to provide an Assembly which might last for only a month or two.
  If that is felt to be fanciful, one has only to look at the Explanatory Memorandum which precedes the Bill, where it is spelt out, and in the clearest terms, as follows:
  "Following a premature dissolution the newly elected Assembly will serve only the unexpired period of the original four year term."
  What is the thinking of the Government who say that, if one goes through all the paraphernalia of an election to the Assembly, those so elected following a premature dissolution will hold office only for the remainder of the initial four-year period? What can the justification be for saying that those who were elected on this basis can hold office only for the period of literally a few weeks?
  8.30 p.m.
  If we are invited to choose between the draftsmanship of the Government Front Bench and that of my right hon. Friend, there may not be a great deal to choose between the two. Certainly on balance I think that Amendment No. 174 is an improvement, because in the situation envisaged in subsection (1)(b) where two-thirds of the members of the Assembly are required to vote for their own dissolution it would be perfectly possible to have an Assembly which was wholly unmanageable but where two-thirds of its Members could not be found who were anxious to terminate their period as Members of the Assembly.
  Indeed, if we had a system in the House of Commons where we would dissolve ourselves only if there were a two-thirds majority, that would be a situation in which we would be very likely to have a five-year period of Parliament.
  Mr. Powell: We would be all Liberals.
  Mr. Gow: My right hon. Friend says that, but I hope that I would not fall into such dangerous company. The procedure which is envisaged by the Bill, that there could be a two-thirds majority voting for the dissolution of the Assembly, is one which, to say the least, is exceedingly improbable. That is why I believe that the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is worthy of support, because, although the test which is applied is certainly a subjective one, it would be open to the courts to seek to interpret whether it appeared to them—
  Mr. Powell: No.
  Mr. Gow: I find myself in respectful disagreement with my right hon. Friend. If the Secretary of State for some quite different reason wished to dissolve the Assembly, it would be justiciable whether it appeared to him that the Assembly was unable to reach decisions. The Secretary of State might have quite different reasons for wishing to dissolve the Assembly.
  Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I totally agree with him. It would not be open to the courts to intervene once the matter was decided by each House of Parliament, but if the Secretary of State was inclined to put an order before the House of Commons in that form and did so in bad faith, and if it was possible to establish that no reasonable Secretary of State directing himself to the proper considerations and applying the test in the Bill could possibly have reached that conclusion, action could be taken in the courts to restrain him from putting the order before the House.
  That would be on exactly the same basis as was done in the Tameside case, where a similar point arose and the Secretary of State appeared to have power, but the discretion, although comparatively subjective, none the less was such that it was conceivable in the circumstances to satisfy the courts that no reasonable Secretary of State could have exercised the power in that way. In that circumstance the amendment has greater force and validity than has perhaps been allowed for, because, although necessarily sub
  1630
  jective in form, it does not simply leave it totally to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Gow: I am grateful to have the support of my hon. Friend, who played such a distinguished part in defeating the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the Tameside affair. Not only do I have the support of my hon. Friend but also I have the support of the Court of Appeal for the proposition that I am advancing.
  Clause 4 is one of the most extraordinary clauses in the Bill because it envisages a situation which in reality will never occur. It is not in the nature, above all, of Scotsmen—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in his place—to wish to put an end to their remuneration when they have an opportunity of continuing it. The prospect of Members of the Assembly actually resolving by a two-thirds majority to bring their employment to an end is so improbable as to be impossible.
  As we actually come to examine the reality of the situation that will occur in Scotland should the Bill become law, we find that this clause, like the others, turns out on examination to be in practice another example of the unworkable features of the Bill. That is why we shall continue to try to frustrate its passage through the Committee. I hope that we shall support Amendment No. 174, because it is at least an improvement upon the Government's drafting.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should be very sorry if I prevented the Secretary of State from rising to speak, because I am one of those who believe that it would have been very helpful to the Committee if the Secretary of State had intervened in the debate a little earlier so that those of us who have been somewhat confused by the Government's thinking on this matter could hear from him how they have got themselves into this extraordinary situation. We might then have been able to comment more effectively on the clause. Since we are in Committee, if the Secretary of State is unable to deal with the many cogent points that have been raised on both sides of the Committee, as I fear will be the case, I hope that there will be opportunity for some of us to come back to him and ask him—
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman. I am confident that the hon. Member will be able to dispel any confusion.
  Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Sir Myer. The question is not whether I shall be able to dispel the confusion, although I hope that it would not be impossible for me to do that. The duty here lies on those who have created it, and certainly they are now sitting with the Government Chief Whip, I notice, on the Treasury Bench.
  All of us who sat in the Committee during the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) have had today a rare treat of eloquence, logic and humour, which the House of Commons is seldom able to hear. I can only regret that so many hon. Members were not present to hear his quite devastating indictment of this clause. I was particularly impressed with his allegorical description of how he believed, within the confabulations of the Cabinet, this particular arrangement was constructed. I suspect that he was precisely right in recognising that, at some stage at least, it was understood, within the confabulation, that while the Cabinet would have liked the power to dissolve the Assembly to reside in Scotland, as soon as they reached the point at which that would happen they had, of course, to recognise that they would virtually be creating an alternative power, a new State, within the United Kingdom. Consequently, of course, they have recoiled from it.
  But the logical recoil from that proposition is the one represented by Amendment No. 174, which brings the ultimate power to dissolve the Scottish Assembly back here to Westminster. The Government, unfortunately, did not accept that consequence of their own decision, so what they have done is to create a most extraordinary constitutional notion, namely, that the only power there shall be to dissolve the Scottish Assembly shall be in the Scottish Assembly itself. That is a most extraordinary proposition—that the Assembly shall dissolve itself.
  Then the Government had to provide some mechanism by which the Assembly would reach that conclusion, and therefore, for reasons which have not been explained, they have put in the magic
  1632
  proportion of two-thirds. This means that if one-third of the Members plus one are not prepared to be dissolved, the Assembly cannot be dissolved. This, of course, is another extraordinary proposition.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is the major difficulty here that, assuming there is an Assembly at all, even people such as myself think that it would be very difficult to have it dissolved from London, for then the issue would become like the Lords versus the Commons, or any other emotive issue, and the details would be forgotten in an atmosphere of "what Westminster did to us".
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Precisely. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. But, of course, we are caught either way. If the power to dissolve is to be restored or is to be in Whitehall or in Westminster, as the amendment suggests, then, as he rightly supposes, there will be the most enormous conflicts. There will be a sort of Lords versus Commons conflict between the Scottish Assembly and this place. There is no doubt of that at all. But, equally, what are we to say if it becomes manifestly the case that the Assembly in Scotland is not able to conduct its business and the Secretary of State of the day is manifestly dissatisfied with what is happening? Suppose that the Scottish Prime Minister is frustrated in all his policies. None the less, one-third of the Members of the Scottish Assembly plus one can prevent any dissolution from taking place. That is the absurdity of this situation.
  Let us suppose that the Secretary of State for Scotland is convinced that the Assembly should go; that the Scottish Prime Minister believes that it should go; that it is perfectly clear that its remaining there is doing no good service to anyone. What is the mechanism for getting rid of it, for dissolving it, for going to the people? The position, apparently, is that if one-third of its Members plus one are not prepared to dissolve, it cannot be dissolved. This is an absurd proposition.
  But then there is the further difficulty. What is to be the position of the Scottish Chief Executive? He bears the responsibility for his programme. He has campaigned on it. He may well have won

  1633
  a majority. He is dealing with housing, with health, with local government, and with all the many things that affect the Scottish people. As we all know, there are vicissitudes in politics. There may have been a profound change in the attitudes of the Scottish people and they may be totally opposed to what is going on. Suppose that the Scottish Chief Executive recognises this and believes that the Assembly, in the public interest, ought to be dissolved? Imagine the illogicality of the situation. If the Chief Executive has two-thirds of the Assembly on his side, then, of course, he need not dissolve, but if he has not two-thirds on his side there is no way in which he can procure a dissolution.
  I think that this mathematical problem needs to be underlined. The only way in which the Chief Executive, the Prime Minister, can achieve a dissolution is if he commands two-thirds of the membership. But, if he commands two-thirds of the membership, why should he have a dissolution?
  8.45 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I do not see the hon. Gentleman campaigning against the system in this House, where 534 Members might not want Parliament to be dissolved, but one man can have it dissolved.
  Mr. Griffiths: The position here is clear. No matter what the majority of Members might believe, if the Prime Minister approaches Her Majesty and advises her to dissolve Parliament, it is dissolved. That is the difference.
  Mr. Gow: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is on sound constitutional ground, because to say that means the end of the Royal Prerogative. Her Majesty is not bound to accept the advice of Her Prime Minister in all circumstances. There are some circumstances, which we can all envisage, when it might be right for Her Majesty not to follow the advice of Her First Minister.
  Mr. Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend is right, and in so far as I overstated the case I withdraw.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: There is still some argument about whether the Prime Minister has this right
  1634
  anyway, quite apart from the position of Her Majesty. Until not all that long ago it was within the decision of the Cabinet as a whole, rather than the Prime Minister, whether Parliament should be dissolved. It was Sir John Simon who, by sleight of hand, transformed it into a decision by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Griffiths: One of the more fascinating features of the debates on the Bill is the amount that one learns about entirely different matters in the course of discussing various clauses. I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he, too, is right.
  The point that I want to make is a simple one. If the Scottish Prime Minister commands two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly there is no logical reason why he should seek a dissolution. But if he does not command two-thirds of the Members and seeks a dissolution he will not get the vote through anyway. That is the mathematical illogicality of this situation.
  The Government have provided a means whereby a Scottish Prime Minister can dissolve the Assembly when he does not need to, namely, when he has a two-thirds majority, but they have provided him with no means of dissolving the Assembly when he lacks that majority. That is precisely when he would wish to dissolve, when he has lost his majority.
  I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is absurd to provide mathematically within the Bill for a position that will not achieve what is needed by the Scottish Chief Executive at a time when he forfeits his majority. That must be the reason for dissolution, and the mechanism that the Government have provided is absurd.
  That is why I prefer—as many of my hon. Friends do—Amendment No. 174. I do not believe that it is the right answer, but one cannot have the right answer when one has the wrong question. However, it is a better answer than the one provided by the Government, because at the very least it provides, in effect, a prerogative, and dissolution ought to be by prerogative and not by particular mathematical proportions.
  Amendment No. 174 is more sensible, It is certainly not the right answer, but at least it provides some definition of the

  1635
  circumstances in which the Scottish Assembly shall be dissolved. The language of the amendment is clear. It must appear to the Secretary of State
  "that the Assembly is unable to reach decisions on matters requiring urgent decision and that the government of Scotland is gravely affected as a result."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) speaking with the experience of Thameside, said that this matter could be justice able, and perhaps that is one of the failures in the drafting of the amendment.
  Mr. Britton: I suggested that that was a merit. Because the matter is justiciable, it would prevent the Secretary of State from operating the clause on a capricious, arbitrary and political basis, rather than on the basis of an objective assessment of whether there was dead lock in the Assembly.
  Mr. Griffiths: That might be right, and it might be sensible, but the dissolution of an Assembly ought to be by prerogative, and not be the subject of a great deal of reasoning. The prerogative is either a prerogative, or it is not. Once one lays down in statute a set of reasons that must be met, one removes the essential feature of a prerogative.
  Therefore, in believing that this amendment is better than the Government's proposal, I am bound to say that it is a very modest improvement and cannot possibly meet the real constitutional and political requirements because we start off with the wrong question. We start with a false premise, namely, this clause.
  Mr. Gow: Has my hon. Friend addressed his mind to the following point? Let us suppose that under the amendment the Secretary of State decided to dissolve the Assembly but his decision was then challenged by the courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) rightly said it could be. We would then have a hiatus. The matter could go to the High Court, then the Court of Appeal and then to another place. This whole process might take months, particularly during the long vacation.
  Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friends are continuing to shoot more and more holes
  1636
  in the tissue that we have before us. I wish to put the point very simply to the Secretary of State, who I hope will clarify all this confusion in the speech that he is about to make. The advantage of Amendment No. 174 is that it is far more in keeping with our constitutional practice. It is understood, and, above all, it will allow the prerogative to be exercised in a manner which, in my view, is constitutional. Above all, it allows the Scottish Parliament to be dissolved only by a Minister who is accountable to what we were told—until Clause 1 disappeared—was the supreme authority of the United Kingdom Parliament. However, Clause 1, for better or worse, never meant what it said. It was always a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts and it is as well that it has been removed from the Bill.
  None the less, the advantage of Amendment No. 174 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is that it makes clear what the rest of the Bill does not make clear, namely that the supreme authority remains in this House. That is precisely the point. The Government have put the supreme authority to dissolve an elected legislature in the hands of that legislature itself, with the sole proviso that one-third of its Members plus one do not oppose it. That is illogical. It would be far better to give that responsibility to a Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 169 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and myself, among others. I do not believe that reducing the proportions from two-thirds to one-half would resolve this thorny problem. I say only that it is nearer the mark than the two-thirds-one-third division put forward by the Government. If a Chief Executive, feeling that he needs to dissolve the Scottish Parliament, must obtain two-thirds support from the Members before he is able to do so, the odds are that, on most occasions, he will not succeed. But if the number that he must achieve is only half of the Members plus one, which I think is the intention of my right hon. Friend, he is far more likely to be able to achieve the result that he seeks. I believe that Amendment No. 169 is much more sensible than the arrangements proposed by the Government.

  1637
  The problem here is that the Government, faced with the dilemma of how to bring about the dissolution of the Scottish Assembly without, at the same time, creating a power comparable with that of, and able to challenge, the Secretary of State himself, and this House itself, have created a bogus mathematical arrangement whereby only the Assembly in Scotland can dissolve itself. That cannot be right. I am sure that it is constitutionally bad.
  I hope that the Secretary of State, in reply to the debate, will at least give us some comfort by saying that the Government have taken heed of the points that have been made, that they will remove the clause, and that they will think again and come back with something better.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: From some of the comments that I have heard in the last two days it would appear that, in the words of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the Government are in a dilemma. That is quite wrong. Indeed, another word used by the hon. Gentleman to describe the situation was "confusion". Both "dilemma" and "confusion" are figments of the imagination of Opposition Members.
  The Scotland and Wales Bill made no provision for the dissolution of the Assembly. This Bill, partly in response to representations made by Opposition Members in debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill—they criticised the fact that there was no power of dissolution—contains such a provision. The Opposition have now become the party of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When they get what they want, they do not want it
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has a querulous expression on his face. I am stating a fact. The hon. Gentleman may not have asked for this provision, but the Conservative Party did.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman misdescribed the record, save only in one respect. Did anyone in any part of the Committee suggest that the mechanism for dissolving the Scottish Assembly should be the Scottish Assembly itself?
  Mr. Gourlay: I am not suggesting that was the situation. The Government have decided that this should be the procedure, and I support it. Indeed, I shall state my reasons for supporting it.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) talked about its being ridiculous to suggest that Scotsmen, of all people, would vote by a two-thirds majority to do away with their own salaries. We had an example of that in this Chamber in the last Session. If the vote had been successful and there had been a majority, Members would have done away with their salaries. It is preposterous for the hon. Member for Eastbourne to suggest that Members of a future Scottish Assembly would fail to go into the Division Lobby to dissolve the Assembly without having regard to their personal positions. The hon. Gentleman imputed that we in this Chamber are more holier than the Members of a future Scottish Assembly.
  Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented what I said. We have no power to dissolve Parliament. If the Government Front Bench were invited to dissolve Parliament, I am sure that among the factors that they would take into consideration—it is only human nature—would be whether some of them would find it difficult to get jobs if they were not re-elected. That is natural. That is human nature. The point that I made was that we do not have the power to dissolve Parliament. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should ask the Secretary of State whether he would vote now to dissolve this Parliament.
  Mr. Gourlay: It may be that in theory, as Members of Parliament, we do not have power to dissolve Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Prime Minister were to be defeated on a motion of confidence, only one result would follow; he would take the honourable course of going to Her Majesty and tendering the resignation of his Government. That is the method by which Parliament dissolves itself. It is all very well bringing in niceties, but those niceties are not comparable with what is suggested in the Bill.
  We in Scotland think that the jury system in England is absolutely preposterous. We believe that our jury system is much fairer than the English system. In Scotland a simple majority of the jury

  1639
  can convict. In England there is the preposterous position that the jury is locked in a chamber until such time as a sufficient number are persuaded that they have to convict. That produces an artificial situation.
  9.0 p.m.
  A recent commission on the law in Scotland has recommended that the number on a jury should be reduced from 15 to 12 and that a simple majority of seven to five should convict. It recommended that if there is an even vote of six to six acquittal should follow. That is logical. In this Bill the Government are proposing a higher proportion. They say that two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly must be willing to support dissolution before the Assembly can be dissolved.
  Most Opposition speakers start from the wrong premise. If it were seen, either now on the Bill or in the future when an Assembly is elected, that this House was unduly interfering in the devolved powers of the Scottish Assembly it would drive the people towards separation quicker than anything else. That is why we support the Bill.
  We also support the proposition to give elected Assembly Members the right to dissolve the Assembly within a four-year period if they so wish. It is not a question whether the Executive wishes the Assembly to be dissolved but whether two-thirds of the Members of the Assembly wish it, perhaps, if they disagree with the Executive. I believe that that is fair.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Member accept that the two-thirds proportion is difficult to justify? Surely an Administration with a two-thirds majority would be able to get its legislation through without difficulty. It does not need the power of dissolution unless it has a major clash with Westminster. Surely the case for dissolution is valid only if the Administration cannot get its legislation through.
  Mr. Gourlay: No one is suggesting that dissolution would arise only if the Executive could not get its legislation through. The reason for a dissolution is a matter for the Members of the Assembly. All that this House is doing is to give them that power, which they did not have in the previous Bill. Whether the majority required should be
  1640
  two-thirds or one-half is a matter of opinion. I would not be unattracted to the proposition that it should be one-half rather than two-thirds.
  Mr. Raison: Can the hon. Member explain why there should be a power of dissolution at all? He has not addressed himself to the basic argument.
  Mr. Gourlay: I have said that I support the right of the Assembly to dissolve itself. After all, the Members will be elected representatives with a considerable amount of power. If they have the capacity and responsibility of legislation in Scotland surely they should have the same powers, or relatively the same powers, as Members of this House. By expressing a vote of no confidence in the Executive by a two-thirds majority they should have the right to dissolve the Assembly.
  Mr. Raison: Why should not the Assembly operate on the same basis as local authorities and the American Congress, which do not have the power of dissolution? There is no iron law about it.
  Mr. Gourlay: The analogy of local authorities is not a good one. The local authority is an administrative rather than a legislative body. The people of Scotland want to have control over these developed powers. Any attempt, particularly by English Members, to prevent this Bill from reaching the statute book will do more than this Bill will do to drive the Scottish people towards separation. I am convinced, as a Scottish Member of Parliament for 18 years, that the Bill will do more to keep the United Kingdom united than any action of the Opposition.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): It might be convenient if I were to say one or two things now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) has reminded us, the question of premature dissolution of the Assembly was debated during our discussions on the Scotland and Wales Bill. That Bill did not provide for any power of premature dissolution. It simply provided for a fixed term and assumed that the Assembly itself, and the administration at any particular time, would he able to solve any political problems that might arise during the term of the Assembly.

  1641
  There is a perfectly respectable argument for maintaining that position. It is, after all, a position that is maintained in many other legislatures in other parts of the world. By and large those legislatures find ways, as practical politicians normally do, of living with the situation in which there is no premature dissolution.
  For a number of practical reasons, quite apart from the question of principle, our first view when considering the matter with regard to the Scotland and Wales Bill was that we should simply provide for a fixed-term Assembly and not allow the various political complications that could arise from premature dissolution. There are practical problems, for example, in terms of the dates of Assembly elections in relation to local government elections and, perhaps, elections to this House and the rest. Apart from any argument there may be on principle, that argues strongly for a fixed-term election for the Scottish Assembly. That was what was in the original Bill.
  However, during the debate on this matter there were considerable representations from different parts of the House, and from hon. Members who were not in favour of the Scotland and Wales Bill that it was unsatisfactory to have an Assembly in a deadlock position for what ever reason—either as a result of by-elections or the result of the breakdown of a coalition. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) believes that this will happen in the Scottish Assembly and that for whatever reason we might have an Administration that would find it very difficult to administer and legislate in a sensible and effective way. There were very strong pressures during the debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill to provide some mechanism for premature dissolution.
  The Government considered these representations, as we said we would, and took account of them, as we did of other representations, during the interval between the failure of the timetable motion and the bringing of this Bill before the House. Having looked at the matter again, we decided that there were strong arguments to provide for some form of premature dissolution. It is a balanced matter. One could well take the view that the Assembly should simply have to work out its own problems if it were a fixed-term Assembly
  1642
  and that there should be no power of premature dissolution at all. But, of course, we had in mind the arguments of practicality, deadlock and the rest advanced by hon. Members in the previous debate.
  We also had in mind the fact that in this country there is a tradition of premature dissolution although it is done in a particular way which we believe—as I shall explain in a moment—would not be appropriate for application to the Scottish Assembly. But the question whether there should be premature dissolution or not is one of judgment. Having reconsidered the matter, I can only say that it was our judgment that we should provide for it in this Bill. In doing so we were responding to the arguments put forward in the previous debate. Many of these arguments came from the Opposition Benches.
  If we believe that there should be premature dissolution, is necessary to provide a way in which that objective can be achieved. One way is to allow the Secretary of State to take the decision, as Amendment No. 174 would provide. That was not the kind of solution that came from most Conservative Members who took part in the debates in February. I am not making an argument of that, but there were Opposition Members who said, for example, that it should be done simply by the Chief Executive, as he was then called, or the First Secretary, as he would be called under the present Bill. Some said that it should happen as a result of a motion of confidence. A variety of suggestions were put forward in February. I make the point simply as a matter of fact that the mechanism that the official Opposition have chosen in their amendment was not the only one advanced by Conservative Members then.
  I am not pretending that there is any obvious right way by which we can provide the mechanism of dissolution. It is possible to take a view about different methods. There are arguments for various solutions. But in principle I consider it highly undesirable that the decision should be taken by the Secretary of State, because the Executive and Assembly Members should effectively take the decision.
  The amendment's requirement for an order in the House of Lords would simply make the matter a political football, even

  1643
  if the general arrangements for the Secretary of State's intervention would not lead to that, as I believe they would. In principle, the amendment is wrong. It would place a considerable and unnecessary burden of responsibility on the Secretary of State. Whatever the circumstances were, he could not easily avoid charges of political malpractice, particularly if it seemed that a further election to the Assembly was likely to favour his party, whether Conservative or Labour. It would be an extremely uncomfortable and unnecessary position for the Secretary of State to be in.
  Mr. Graham Page: Would not that also arise under the clause as it stands? It says that the Assembly
  "shall be dissolved by order of the Secretary of State".
  The Secretary of State is still responsible to the House. He would have to make the order by Statutory Instrument, and I presume that it would be debatable in the House.
  Mr. Millan: It would not be debatable in the House. If it were, that would defeat the purpose of this mechanism. It would effectively take it out of the hands of the Assembly and put it into the hands of the House. That is what we wish to avoid.
  Mr. Graham Page: If he is to make an order under the Bill, the Secretary of State must make it by Statutory Instrument. It is true that in this case he does not have to lay it before the Scottish Assembly or Parliament, but if the Secretary of State has to act in a formal way by making a Statutory Instrument, surely he will be answerable for it in this House.
  Mr. Millan: I have learnt from experience that the Secretary of State is answerable in this House for practically everything he does, whether or not it is done by Statutory Instrument in a formal way. That will certainly apply here. Subsection (1)(b) says that the Secretary of State is under an obligation to make an order. The word used is not "may" but "shall". We are providing for the Secretary of State to be the instrument of the decision of the Assembly, for reasons which—
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Raison: Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this dissolution
  1644
  was reached immediately before a General Election in the United Kingdom. It could be argued that it would be extremely inconvenient and damaging to have two sorts of election at the same time. Would the Secretary of State be able to hold the matter over or leave it on one side, or would he be compelled to dissolve the Assembly immediately, possibly with damaging results?
  Mr. Millan: Because of the possible difficulty of clashes with election dates there is a practical argument against premature dissolution. There is no absolutely ideal answer to this problem which would satisfy every hon. Member. When we provided no premature dissolution at all we were asked by many Conservatives to provide it, and one of the aspects that we had in mind was the difficulty about election dates. There is a certain amount of flexibility in subsection (2), just as we have provided a certain amount of flexibility in Clause 3, on the holding of ordinary elections.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Secretary of State has generously accepted that he is accountable to this House. Let us suppose that he makes his order and the House disagrees. How can the Scottish Assembly be dissolved in those circumstances?
  Mr. Millan: There will be no parliamentary procedure, as I have said. If there were a parliamentary procedure it would defeat the purpose of allowing responsibility to rest essentially with the Scottish Assembly. That is where we believe that responsibility should rest.
  There is another argument against the Secretary of State's having responsibility, quite apart from the argument that he might be charged with using it in a politically contentious way. The other argument is that if he had responsibility there would be a possible encouragement to irresponsibility on the part of certain Members of the Assembly in a situation of potential deadlock, when there was no obligation on them to produce an answer. They would simply say that they were passing over the problem to the Secretary of State and asking him to make a judgment about dissolution.
  Opposition Members have expressed concern about possible areas of conflict between the Assembly and the Secretary of State, and that would certainly be one

  1645
  of them. We have adopted a specific and categorical position that if there is to be the power of premature dissolution the responsibility and initiative for it basically should rest with the Assembly itself.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I would like confirmation on two points. In the case of a Statutory Instrument not being subject to affirmative approval in the House, if the House passes a Prayer requesting the annulment of the order that annulment takes place. If the House passed a Prayer in favour of the annulment of the Secretary of State's order, it would be illegal for him to annul the order that he had made.
  Secondly, presumably in the most extreme circumstances—where there were colossal reasons, in the view of the United Kingdom Parliament, why the provisions of this clause should not be pursued—it would be possible by principal legislation in this House to override the provisions of Clause 3. Is that the case?
  Mr. Millan: To take the second point first, it will be possible by amending legislation to amend the Bill. Whether the House would be sensible to try to legislate in the middle of some kind of political difficulty between the Secretary of State and the Executive and the Assembly would be another matter, but it would be possible for the House to do that.
  On the first point, there are some Statutory Instruments which are not subject to any kind of parliamentary procedure of either the affirmative or negative sort. That is what is in mind here.
  I repeat the simple point that, unless we do that, we shall not leave the problem in the hands of the Assembly; we shall take it out of its hands in an indirect way and put the responsibility on Members here. We are clear that we do not want to provide a mechanism that is at the initiative of the Secretary of State we want a mechanism that is at the initiative of the Assembly itself.
  Mr. Brittan: On this specific point, if what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that there should be no parliamentary intervention in any circumstances and that the rôle of the Secretary of State is purely mechanical, why does he need to have a rôle at all? Why not delete the words
  1646
  "by order of the Secretary of State' and simply say, "The Assembly as constituted from time to time shall be dissolved if the Assembly resolves in the circumstances specified"? If that were the case, the Bill would enact itself without any confusion.
  Mr. Millan: The reason for that is simple and it was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) a little earlier in the debate. I do not want to go beyond that now.
  Mr. Brittan: What is that reason?
  Mr. Millan: It raises questions of Royal Prerogative. We are not providing here for an initiative to be taken simply by the Assembly itself without a mechanism involving the Secretary of State.
  Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend saying that in relation to this constitutional act the Secretary of State is in the position of the Crown by constitutional use, in that it always accepts the advice of the Prime Minister in respect of dissolution? Is my right hon. Friend saying that he will be no more than a dignified rubber stamp?
  Mr. Millan: I am saying that the mechanism is activated by an order introduced by the Secretary of State. It is provided in this Bill generally that there is not access for Members of the Scottish Executive to the Crown in any particular matter.
  Having decided that the mechanism should basically be one involving the decision and responsibility of the Assembly and not of the Secretary of State, I should now like to describe what the Bill provides and say something about Amendments Nos. 53 and 169, which are directed towards this specific mechanism and not towards removing it and introducing another.
  Mr. Brittan: I wish to revert to the earlier matter to try to clarify the situation. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would explain what the Royal Prerogative has to do with this at all. If there is a specific statute which seeks to provide that the Assembly can itself dissolve if there is two-thirds of the Assembly to do so, why cannot the statute say the same thing without interposing the Secretary of State, because he

  1647
  is given no say in the matter? If the statute did say that without any reference to the Crown at all, it would be doing no more than many other statutes do. It seems to me that unless the Secretary of State is able to provide an adequate explanation, his reference to the Royal Prerogative is a complete smoke-screen further to obscure an already very obscure provision.
  Mr. Millan: I have already said what I have to say on that matter. We believe that this is a matter in which there should be some function, even if only a formal one, for the Secretary of State.
  I was coming to the question of the mechanism and the question of a majority in the Assembly, and also to the subject of the length of the term of the new Assembly which will be elected after a premature dissolution. That point has not been mentioned in the House much during the debates on this clause, except by the hon. Member for Inverness. How-ever, if I mention it, it may answer some of the difficulties to which hon. Members have referred.
  The Bill provides that the new Assembly, following an election and premature dissolution, will run for only the remaining portion of the four-year term. It will not start a new term. I think that that point was particularly at the back of the mind of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). There will be no incentive for an Assembly Administration with a two-thirds majority to provide for premature dissolution by means of the votes of that majority, because there would be nothing that it could gain from that. The length of office of the new Administration would simply expire at the time that it would have expired in any case. That is not just a powerful disincentive; for all practical purposes, it excludes the possibility of the Administration's deciding to have an election simply at a time that it finds suitable. The length of time is, of course, provided for as being not beyond the length of time of the Assembly then constituted.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I accept that, but since the condition preceding any dissolution would be that the Assembly had become deadlocked and unable to proceed, there are two possibilities. If the
  1648
  Assembly were deadlocked, how could there be a two-thirds majority to dissolve it? If there were a two-thirds majority available to the Chief Executive, why would he recommend dissolution anyway?
  Mr. Millan: What the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has omitted from his calculation is that—and given the present state of the Tory Opposition here I am not surprised that Conservatives have omitted this simple fact from their calculations—it is usually the Opposition rather than the Government who are anxious to have a premature dissolution and a new election. I know that the present Opposition are not anxious for an election, but has it escaped their minds that the two-thirds majority does not have to be made up of the Administration? If there were deadlock, and a keen Tory Opposition of 10 Members—or whatever it will be in a Scottish Assembly—I dare say that their 10 votes would be cast for premature dissolution and a new election.
  It is perfectly true that with a two-thirds majority made up of the Administration and anybody else, there would be no incentive for premature dissolution, but in the terms of the Bill that would not necessarily apply. We do not provide for a 50 per cent. simple majority because in those circumstances the Government might take the view that an election would be extremely suitable, even though it could not provide them with a longer term of office, because it could provide an enhanced majority. We do not take the view that the House should consider that an election in such circumstances would be a desirable feature of the arrangements for the Assembly, because that would be allowing an election to take place for the purpose of political advantage and manoeuvre. We are not willing for that to happen.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gow: Is the Minister telling the Committee that the only reason for including in the Bill the provision that an Assembly elected before the expiry of a four-year period will last only for the remainder of that period is to discourage it from dissolving itself?
  Mr. Millan: The House is very ambivalent about this. Hon. Members are pointing out all the difficulties that exist

  1649
  if there is no power of premature dissolution, but they are not willing to face the practical problems involved in having that power. The clause faces those problems.
  The provision for a two-thirds majority prevents the mechanism from being activated simply for party advantage. I think that that deals with the point about Amendment No. 169 and, for that matter, Amendment No. 53. Of course it would be possible to rule that the majority should not be two-thirds but should be 60 per cent., or 75 per cent., or some other percentage. We believe that two-thirds is just about the right practical level at which we shall achieve the main purposes of the clause.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: Before the Secretary of State leaves Amendment No. 174, does he agree that as the clause stands, in any future conflict the last word will rest absolutely with the Scottish Assembly?
  Mr. Millan: The drafting of the clause is such as to place a responsibility on the Assembly to take the effective decision about premature dissolution. But the clause seeks to do it in a way that discourages the overactive use of the provision for simple party political advantage. That is why we are providing a shorter term for the new Assembly after the election, and also why we have provided for more than a simple majority in the vote that is to be taken in the Assembly itself.
  Mr. Powell: Would it be true, then, to say that an Executive that has lost the confidence and support of over half the Assembly has no remedy unless it succeeds in losing the support of two-thirds of the Assembly?
  Mr. Millan: Not at all, because where there is a deadlock and the Executive wishes to carry on in a minority—I stress that there is no obligation on the Executive to carry on, but we shall come to that later in the Bill—and when there are questions of coalitions, or understandings, and so on, and practical political questions which the Government believe the Assembly should determine, there are no grounds whatever for the House to take the view that those political difficulties can be settled only by the
  1650
  intervention of the House or the Secretary of State.
  It will be for the Assembly itself and for the Executive in the last analysis to solve these problems. If, as I hope, it will solve these problems without the need for premature dissolution, the clause will never apply. If there are circumstances in which, as a matter of practical politics, it is not possible for the Assembly to create an effective administration, this mechanism could come into play, and I believe that it would be effective.
  The previous Bill provided no mechanism for premature dissolution. This Bill, partly in response to arguments put forward on the Scotland and Wales Bill, provides for premature dissolution. It does it by putting the initiative and responsibility for that in the hands of the Assembly, but at the same time it provides certain safeguards, which cause us to believe that we shall not be handing over an unfettered power on the part of the Scottish Executive to call an election at any time that it may desire for its own political advantage.
  With that explanation, I recommend the Committee not to accept any of the amendments.
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher Mr. Alexander Fletcher (Edinburgh, North)
  rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: I thought that the Committee was ready for the Chair to put the question.
  Mr. Fletcher: I am sorry, Sir Myer, if the arrangements that you thought were taking place had not actually happened. I think that it is right for me to reply to the explanation that the Secretary of State for Scotland has sought to give the Committee.
  The Secretary of State has offered an innocent explanation but he must know from the questions that he was asked during his reply that the Committee is far from satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to define the Government's intentions by saying that the idea to give the Assembly the ability to break any deadlocks within itself would not be used by a majority party in the Assembly as an opportunity to go to the country in the event of it thinking that a fair wind existed. However, the possibility of that course being taken robs the Assembly of the discipline of a fixed term.

  1651
  The amendment provides an alternative to Clause 4 and gives discretion to another body—in this case, the Secretary of State, acting with both Houses of Parliament. It works in accordance with the principle that the Government are trying to build into the Bill—namely, that although the Assembly will be elected for a fixed term the system of prior dissolution is desirable, which I understand is the usual feature of a Parliament elected for a fixed term.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) objected to such a rôle being played by the Secretary of State and Parliament, and no doubt would call it outside interference even before the Assembly is established. [Hon. Members "Hear, hear."] To judge by the cries of "Hear, hear", it seems that even before the Assembly is established there are those who cannot wait altogether to divorce it from Westminster.
  The Bill tries to treat the Assembly as an integral part of the Government of the United Kingdom and of this Parliament. Therefore, the House of Commons should have a continuing rôle to play in the Assembly's affairs. The powers that we are proposing for the Secretary of State and for Parliament will prevent a deadlocked Government from merely sitting it out when they cannot govern. That is a situation that existed not so many months ago in the House of Commons. Some people think that that situation is not very far from the surface at any time in this place.
  Some Members have asked why we voted to divorce Westminster from Edinburgh last night. We did so for an obvious reason that had nothing to do with the divorce between Edinburgh and Westminster. It would have been quite hypocritical for the House of Commons to allow the clause to remain when one has only to read through the additional clauses to realise how dishonest Clause I was.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing Mrs. Winifred Ewing
  rose—
  Mr. Fletcher: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Lady because I have not seen her in the Chamber this evening. Incidentally, if this subject is now suddenly so important, I am surprised that we have not had a contribution from any nationalist Member during the debate.
  1652
  I turn to the contribution from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The right hon. Gentleman described the clause as elegant proof of the tyranny of the Bill. Although we have not got a Down, South question to match the West Lothian question, our debates have been graced by Down, South elegance and I and many other hon. Members have appreciated my right hon. Friend's contributions.
  That elegance was particularly clear when my right hon. Friend pointed out the difficulty that the Government would face if the Secretary of State for Scotland were to have direct access to Her Majesty for dissolution or any other purpose within the Assembly. This is a fascinating example of the inadequacy of the Government's thinking, dominated as it is by sheer political expediency born out of fear rather than any deep considerations of the constitutional worth and the implications of the Bill. This evening's debate has indicated the difficulties the Government find themselves in.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fletcher: I have already made clear to the hon. Lady that I have no intention of giving way.
  The hon. Members for Inverness (Mr Johnston) and for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others were concerned about the possibility of conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster. Conflict is, of course, inevitable, but it should be our purpose here to minimise conflict and to try to ensure that during this Committee stage we take steps to achieve that.
  We shall not achieve that end by going further to sever the Westminster connection as the nationalists and one or two other hon. Members would do Surely we who believe in the House of Commons and in this Parliament should remember that we were elected to the House of Commons to protect the interests of Parliament. We shall not do that by giving ground time and time again to the demands of some hon. Members. We cannot shirk our responsibilities to the House of Commons for the unknown attractiveness of a House that is still to be set up.

  1653
  The Secretary of State said that the decision to dissolve should be taken by the Assembly. Our amendment would not prevent the Assembly from expressing the desire to dissolve, but it would give Parliament the power to satisfy itself that this would not be for any frivolous or party reason. Surely that is in the best interests of the good government of the United Kingdom and of Scotland. It is much better that Parliament should have this rôle rather than that the Secretary of State revert to being a glorified Governor-General of Scotland, a rôle
  much criticised during the debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill and one which everyone in the House of Commons thought, perhaps until this evening, had been removed.
  The Secretary of State has achieved one thing tonight. He has added to the West Lothian question a new Craigton question and he has proved equally that it is incapable of being answered.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 192.

  Division No. 17]

  AYES

  [9.43 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Hodgson, Robin

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Alison, Michael

  Holland, Philip

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Baker, Kenneth

  Hurd, Douglas

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Benyon, W.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Raison, Timothy

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  James, David

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir peter

  Brittan, Leon

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

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Buck, Antony

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Budgen, Nick

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Carlisle, Mark

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Channon, Paul

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shepherd, Colin

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Silvester, Fred

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Clegg, Walter

  Litterick, Tom

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Luce, Richard

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Cope, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Costain, A. P.

  MacGregor, John

  Speed, Keith

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sproat, Iain

  Dunlop, John

  Marten, Neil

  Stainton, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mates, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stokes, John

  Emery, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mills, Peter

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Fox, Marcus

  Moate, Roger

  Wakeham, John

  Fry, Peter

  Molyneaux, James

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Monro, Hector

  Wall, Patrick

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walters, Dennis

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Wells, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Neave, Alrey

  Younger, Hon George

  Grylls, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Sir George Young and

  Hannam, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. Peter Morrison.

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Percival, Ian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pink, R. Bonner

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Bain, Mrs. Margaret

  Anderson, Donald

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Norman

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Haywood)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bates, Alf

  Beith, A. J.

  Ginsburg, David

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Golding, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gourlay, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Boardman, H.

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Ovenden, John

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pardoe, John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Park, George

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Parker, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Hatton, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Penhaligon, David

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hooley, Frank

  Reid, George

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Horam, John

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roper, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hunter, Adam

  Rose, Paul B.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cartwright, John

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Janner, Greville

  Sever, J.

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  John, Brynmor

  Sillars, James

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silverman, Julius

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Small, William

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kerr, Russell

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Kilfedder, James

  Snape, Peter

  Crawford, Douglas

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lambie, David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lee, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Litterick, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Davidson, Arthur

  Loyden, Eddie

  Strang, Gavin

  Deakins, Eric

  Luard, Evan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dempsey, James

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thompson, George

  Doig, Peter

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Dormand, J. D.

  MacCormick, lain

  Tierney, Sydney

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tinn, James

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McElhone, Frank

  Tomlinson, John

  Dunn, James A.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Torney, Tom

  Dunnett, Jack

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Eadie, Alex

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Edge, Geoff

  Madden, Max

  Watt, Hamish

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Magee, Bryan

  Welsh, Andrew

  English, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Whitlock, William

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Molloy, William

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Woof, Robert

  Ford, Ben

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

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

  Moyle, Roland

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Freud, Clement

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  George, Bruce

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Noble, Mike

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

  ELECTIONS TO ASSEMBLY
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 3, line 3, leave out from 'who' to first 'at' in line 7.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
  No. 55, in page 3, line 6, leave out from 'constituency' to end of line 10.
  No. 170, in page 3, line 6, after 'constituency', insert:
  'and resided within that Assembly constituency on the qualifying date for inclusion on the electoral register'.
  No. 57, in page 3, line 7, after '(b)', insert 'life'.
  Mr. Page: I move the amendment in order to discuss, or address my remarks to, Amendment No. 170, because I think that this is the main amendment in this group.
  These are amendments to subsection (1) of Clause 5, which sets out the persons who are entitled to vote as electors

  1657
  at an Assembly election. Paragraph (a) describes those electors as
  "those who, at the date of the election, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in the parliamentary constituency comprising the Assembly constituency."
  As we know from other parts of the Bill, a parliamentary constituency may include three Assembly constituencies. If one turns to Schedule 1, part II, paragraph 9, it is there said:
  "A parliamentary constituency, the electorate of which is more than 125 per cent. of the electoral quota, shall comprise three Assembly constituencies."
  There might be the occasion when there is an election to the Assembly and the electors will be called upon to vote in each Assembly constituency, but according to the wording of Clause 5(1)(a) an elector will be able to make a choice of three Assembly constituencies, because all that he is required to show the returning officer is that he is an elector in the parliamentary constituency in which the Assembly constituency is situated.
  10.0 p.m.
  It is probable that under another part of the Bill one could not use all three votes together, applying the Representation of the People Act, but, as the clause stands, any person who was on the electoral rôle within a parliamentary constituency that contained three Assembly constituencies—as many might do given the directions to the Boundary Commission in Schedule 1—could choose in which Assembly constituency to vote. I cannot think that that is the intention of the Bill, but those are the words in it.
  We are ruled by the guillotine. Although I could enlarge upon the other amendments, this is the vital one. It is an amendment to a complete error in the Bill that has been entirely overlooked in the drafting. I should think that, without further delay, the Minister could say that he accepts the amendment.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is the occasion when we can first legitimately raise the whole issue of the position of those who regard themselves as Scots—because they come from Scotland or are first or second generation—[HON. MEMBERS: "The next amendment."] Is it not to be taken at this time?
  The First Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Amendment No. 59.
  Mr. Dalyell: In that case, I withdraw my comments.
  Mr. John Smith: I am a little surprised that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) did not make any reference to his other amendments. It may be that on mature reflection he has decided that they are not appropriate. It is odd, however, that he has not chosen to refer to them. One odd feature is that one amendment seeks to debar hereditary Peers from voting in Assembly elections by allowing only life Peers to vote. I cannot understand the logic behind such a proposition.
  Some of the amendments are incompatible, but the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to focus on Amendment No. 170 which, as I understand it, seeks to ensure that electors are those residents in the Assembly constituency on the qualifying date for inclusion in the electoral register. Persons eligible to vote in parliamentary elections have to be resident in the constituency on the qualifying date.
  The intention of the amendment is to ensure that only those resident in the Assembly constituency may vote in the Assembly elections. This is not spelled out in Clause 5(1), but it will be achieved by the order that will be made under Clause 5(3) dealing with the conduct of elections. Clause 5(4) provides that the order may apply any provision of the Representation of the People Acts. It can apply, with necessary modifications, the provisions of the Acts relating to entitlement to vote by reference to residence on the qualifying date and the provision that people cannot vote more than once in the same constituency.
  Mr. Graham Page: I do not intend to rely on an order that may be made at some future date. The whole of this clause is wrongly written. The latter part of the clause says that the Statutory Instruments that may be made shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House, but we do know what happens to Prayers against Statutory Instruments. They may never be heard. We rely entirely on whether the usual channels can find time for

  1659
  them. Such an order may never be discussed in the House and the Bill may be left in this way to be corrected by an order. It is not good enough.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister of State will give us an assurance that at a later stage he will try to sort out the Bill.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I must say that the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) were offensive and uncalled for. We have 59 minutes left to get from Clause 5 to Clause 17 and many important amendments on the establishment of a new form of government for Scotland will not be discussed. The Minister chided my right hon. Friend because he did not deal with all the amendments that he had tabled. That is to rub salt into the wound of the Opposition, who feel bitterly aggrieved because, due to the jackboot tactics of the Government, we are unable to discuss all these matters.
  The subsection refers to those who would be entitled to vote living in the parliamentary constituency. Would it not be sensible to alter the words to what my right hon. Friend proposed in his amendment?
  The Minister said that he would sort this matter out in an order. Would it not be sensible to sort it out in the Bill? The important issue is that a person should vote only in the Assembly constituency in which he resides. Would it not be easier and sensible to put that in the clause?
  If the Minister wants to do it by order. why are the words "Parliamentary constituency" in the clause? Why can it not say "The people who can vote in an Assembly election are those who live in an Assembly constituency"? That would be sensible. Why cannot we alter the words in the Bill to give effect to what we know the Government and the Opposition want?
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) sometimes gives the impression that guillotine motions have not been passed on any Bill by any Conservative Government in our history. That comes oddly from the Opposition, as I have had 1660
  occasion to remind them, when the European Communities Bill, under a guillotine, went through both Houses of Parliament after a deliberate decision by the Conservative Government not to accept any amendment in either House. I do not propose to take lessons from the Opposition on the constitutional propriety of how a Government or an Opposition should conduct themselves under a guillotine motion.
  The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) tabled four amendments. It is perfectly in order for me to pass comments on them in two sentences. I realise that we are under the guillotine, but the point is whether we should write the provision into the Bill or whether the Secretary of State should make provision in line with expressed Government policy, by making an order. That is a common provision in Bills. It is subject to the annulment procedure and is a sensible way of dealing with the matter. It is not a question of sorting anything out. I have stated the Government's intention of using the order-making procedure which the Secretary of State has for that purpose. I think that we can achieve what we want in that way. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman's point about the necessary consequence of reading the Bill being that people would be entitled to vote in three Parliamentary constituencies is not valid.
  Mr. Graham Page: I must press the Minister on this matter. Unless I get a firm undertaking that he accepts that some amendment is necessary and that an order will be made in the spirit of the proposed amendment, I shall not withdraw it. The Bill will be left in complete confusion. Will the Minister give me the undertaking that I seek?
  Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have understood what I said. In my first intervention in the debate I said that the intention would be achieved by the order. I have given the undertaking that an order will be made. I thought that I had already made that clear. However, if there is any doubt about it, I repeat it now.
  Mr. Graham Page: On that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. George Gardiner: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 3, line 10, at end insert—
  '(c) those who, at the date of the election, have registered their names on a special register to be maintained in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland of electors born in that constituency but currently resident within the United Kingdom outside Scotland'.
  The issue that we are seeking to raise in this amendment covers a question that came before the House when we debated the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session. It concerns the position of the expatriate Scot. The discussion on this matter at that time was in the context of the proposals for a referendum. There was then strong pressure from the Scots, whom we all have living in our constituencies, to have a voice in determining whether the provisions of the Bill should finally take effect in Scotland. That discussion was in the context of the electoral roll for the proposed referendum. I hope that, despite the tight guillotine, time will be found for pressing that issue again.
  This evening we are on slightly different territory. We are dealing with the claim of expatriate Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a voice in the proposed elections to the Scottish Assembly. We know how much we are all indebted to the many Scots who have moved south of the border for either long or short periods for their contribution to the life and strength of the United Kingdom. Indeed, we take that as proof of the strength and vitality of the Union which we have been seeking to preserve in our amendments.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House probably have in their constituencies active groups of Scots who band together to keep the flame of their Scottish identity alive. There are the Burns societies and the Caledonian societies whose activities keep them in close contact with Members of Parliament. Those societies seek to express the continuing patriotism felt by Scots and their affinity to their native land when they have moved away to work and live in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  In the last session there was a little more time to canvass this issue than there is now. But one still finds in one's postbag letters from Scots who demand the same right. They say "We are Scots in
  1662
  virtually every sense of the word, so why are we being shut out from determining the provisions of the Bill?"
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: If all the Scots living in the hon. Member's constituency are so keen to vote in a Scottish Assembly and so keen to have an Assembly, how will he face them when he goes back and says that he has been voting against such an Assembly?
  Mr. Gardiner: I did not say that they were in favour of an Assembly. Some of my constituents are not aware of the modest rôle that I play in these procedures. Some of them grab me and ask me what I am doing about this legislation. I am only too pleased to tell them. There is certainly a strong feeling among Scots in my constituency that they do not want to be shut out in this way from the proposals. They feel that their expression of Scottish identity and the loyalty that they feel to their native land is being ignored by the Government in this legislation. They feel as if the flame of their patriotism is being snuffed out.
  No doubt the Government Front Bench will say that these people are not living in Scotland at the moment and there is no reason why their voice should be heard when the composition of the Scottish Assembly is determined. I do not suppose we shall hear anything from the Back Benches, because we hear little in defence of these provisions from that quarter. I merely make this point. Some of the people to whom I am referring are engaged in long-term stays in other parts of the United Kingdom. Some of them are engaged on short stays. But what distinguishes them all is that they regard Scotland, and particular parts of Scotland, as their home.
  10.15 p.m.
  I see no reason why in the context of Assembly elections—if, Heaven forbid, they ever come about—we should not regard these Scottish citizens in the same light as we regard service voters, employees of the Foreign Office and so on who are serving away from these shores during a General Election. They, too, can be on the electoral register in what they regard as their home constituencies and they can cast their votes in a General Election. For the life of me I cannot

  1663
  see why expatriate Scots living temporarily in other parts of the United Kingdom should not have their voices heard in the same way if and when it comes to Assembly elections.
  If the structure being put before us by the Government were a federal one, the argument would be totally different because there would be elections to an English Assembly and, obviously, these voters would automatically be on that electoral roll. But no English Assembly is proposed. There is no mention of dual voting. The proposition is simply that these people should be allowed to express their view in electing a Scottish Assembly if that comes about.
  I draw attention to the wording of the amendment. I have referred to the Scots. We know that not every Scot south of the border is an active member of the Burns Society or the Caledonian Society. We know that there are a vast number of them. But from the wording of the amendment is it really imagined that there will be a vast flood of extra electors on to the registers in the different Scottish Assembly constituencies? As proposed in the amendment, the initiative has to lie with the people concerned. They must make the move to register their names on a special register maintained in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland. The initiative lies with them. They are not automatically caught up. This is designed simply for those who feel most strongly in their hearts that if this election is to take place in Scotland they shall be part of it.
  I do not imagine that this will have a vast effect on the composition of the Assembly. Indeed, it may have only a marginal effect in a certain number of constituencies. Neverthless, I put it to the Government Front Bench that in their enthusiasm for drafting and presenting the Bill they must not shut out the Scots living outside the present borders of Scotland. Those people must have their interests taken into account.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is a matter of no little irony that in a summer when the Scottish football team will be going to the Argentine, and there will be a tremendous euphoria, those of us who went to Hampden will realise that nine out of the 11 men whom we saw beating Czechoslovakia will be unable to vote. People
  1664
  like Mr. Ken Dalglish, Mr. Bruce Rioch, Mr. Joe Jordan, Mr. Willie Donachie, Mr. Gordon McQueen, Mr. Andy Gray, Mr. Martin Buchan and Mr. Asa Hartford are just one group among many others who will be unable to take part in what we are discussing.
  More seriously, last Thursday I was the guest for an hour of London Broadcasting on one of those phone-in programmes. It was the view of the producers that the telephone lines were jammed. With only one exception, the callers were Scots living in London who were horrified and shared the general view that I have been putting forward. Many of those people, like those to whom we have all talked and who have written to us, are genuinely angry that they have no say in what they see as the future of their country.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has just repeated what is a considerable problem, not only for the members of the Scottish football team who are unable to vote but, we gather from what we read, for the Secretary of State for Scotland himself.
  Mr. Dalyell: I did not want to be personal. I was rebuked last time for bringing that in as a factual point, and I shall not return to it and be indelicate in that way. Let us not be personal, but let us admit that there is a problem.
  I wish to put on record that I do not blame the Secretary of State or anyone else in his position who has properly decided that he must be near his job and has made his domestic arrangements accordingly. What I said was not meant as a criticism then, and it is not now. It simply illustrates the problem of those footballers, Secretaries of State and many others who are in a certain part of the United Kingdom on wholly legitimate business. But in a sense it is very ironic.
  I agree with the Government that it is impossibly complex to trace those with first-generation credentials and those with straight credentials. It would be like painting the Forth Bridge. One would go round in circles, because as soon as one had a meaningful register it would all change. To trace Scots exiles—no, those living in England, New York or any other part of the world—is impossible. To me, this is just one more argument against the establishment of an Assembly at all.
  Mr. John Stokes: As an English Member for an English seat in the West Midlands, I feel that I must in duty bound represent in this short but important debate the feelings of many Scotsmen now living in my constituency, who would like to be able to vote if there is to be a Scottish Assembly as proposed in the Bill.
  Here I pay tribute to those Scotsmen in my constituency, and all those living in other parts of the United Kingdom outside Scotland, who have so greatly enriched our national life in many important aspects. There can be none of us, wherever we live, without friends and acquaintances who come from Scotland, and are exceedingly proud of the fact, and who are deeply worried about what we are doing with their country, even though they are not living in it.
  I have not met one Scotsman in England, let alone in my constituency, who wants the Bill. On a recent visit to Scotland I could hardly find one Scotsman there who wanted the Bill. I tried to speak to everybody I saw—
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: They would not talk to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Stokes: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to be offensive. He is a neighbour of mine and should know how to behave in a neighbourly way.
  If by any mischance the Bill is passed into law, the Scotsmen living outside Scotland do not see why they should be deprived of their vote and excluded in this marked fashion.
  I suspect that the Government have specifically proposed this exclusion because they know very well that almost all Scotsmen living in England, and, I suspect, all Scotsmen living in Wales and Northern Ireland as well, are completely opposed to everything that the Bill stands for. The Government fear the views of all expatriate Scots—those living abroad as well—because these Scots are particularly British, and proud of the United Kingdom, and they fear the Bill. They fear that it will menace the essential unity that has stood the test of time over a period of years during which much Scottish blood has been shed on behalf of the United Kingdom.
  This is yet another clause in this wretched Bill which shows the pitfalls
  1666
  and problems that will beset us on every side, and I am sure that many more have not yet come out in the short time that we have had to debate the measure.
  There are two specific categories excluded. The first is those Scottish people in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland who are serving, often with distinction, in the Civil Service. The second, and even more important, category that I hope will not be omitted includes the soldiers in those great Scottish regiments of the British Army who happen at the time to be serving outside Scotland. If arrangements can be made for British soldiers to vote in United Kingdom General Elections although they are serving in BAOR or Hong Kong, surely Scottish soldiers serving outside Scotland but within the United Kingdom should not be excluded in this preemptory manner.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I have practically nothing nice to say about the Bill, but even I find it impossible to go along with some of the remarks that have been made on this clause.
  I have some authority for speaking in this debate. I am a Scotsman representing a London seat. I am very proud of being a Scotsman but I have spent nearly two-thirds of my life in England. The last thing I want is to have a vote for an Edinburgh Assembly if, regretfully, it is set up. It would be absolutely preposterous for me to have such a vote.
  It is arguable that some emigré Scotsmen should be entitled to vote in the referendum, although the practical difficulties of achieving that are overwhelming and one has to go along on both counts with what the Government have proposed. Although there are some categories who should, perhaps have a right to vote in the referendum, there is absolutely no case for saying that if the Edinburgh Assembly is passing laws on education, housing and local government within Scotland, people who are subject to education, housing and local government law in some other part of the United Kingdom should have the right to vote for a representative on the Edinburgh Assembly.
  If we all put aside our opposition to the very nature of the Bill and address ourselves to the merits of the individual clause we are discussing, I suggest that

  1667
  there is no case for an amendment along the lines proposed, or for those associated with it. We should concentrate our ideas on doing something like this when we discuss the qualifications for voting in the referendum, which depend not on this clause but on the provisions of Schedule 17.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Grieve: I very much regret that on a Bill on which I find myself in almost complete agreement with everything said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), on this matter I disagree with him. May I briefly tell the Committee why?
  The hon. Gentleman asked what right Scots living in England would have to participate in debates and decisions on matters affecting education, health, local government and housing in Scotland. The answer is simply, speedy, and quick. Those are the very matters which go to the root of the quality of life in Scotland. The Scots living in England—and I have many in my own family—are deeply concerned with the quality of life in Scotland. Many of them intend to return to Scotland when they have ended their careers in this country. Many such people have contributed to the service of the United Kingdom in all sorts of ways, and this has been the case for centuries. Nevertheless, they remain in the fibre of their being Scots. I believe that they should not be excluded from a voice in the election of those who are to decide so much of the future of Scotland in the Assembly at Edinburgh.
  I shall not rehearse all the arguments which have been repeated in this debate about the homogeneity of our nation over the centuries and the fact that we are now completely interlaced and part of the fabric of one another. We must remember that, just as there are many Scots in England, there are many English in Scotland. They should not be excluded from a voice in the election of the Assembly in Edinburgh.
  I wish to add one further category of persons who should have a voice in that election. I refer to ministers of the Church of Scotland who are serving in England. Why should those ministers, people who are deeply concerned with the quality of life in their own country, be excluded from a voice in the election
  1668
  of their representatives in the Assembly at Edinburgh—if there is to be an Assembly, and, speaking for myself, I deeply regret it.
  Reference has been made to the difficulties, or so-called difficulties. Let me deal with the procedural problems. The French constitution gives a vote in national general elections to every Frenchman who registers, wherever he may be in the world.
  Mr. John Smith: We do not.
  Mr. Grieve: "We do not", says the Minister. I believe that we are wrong. Why should we exclude expatriate Britons abroad from having a voice in determining the future of their country? There are a vast number of British overseas, but registers could be set up in embassies. But, even if there are procedural difficulties, if the French can do this for the French throughout the world, surely we can do it for Scots living in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. George Cunningham: One great difficulty is that, because of the crazy nationality laws in this country, the people who on the ground of nationality, leaving aside residence, would be entitled to vote—if we overlook the residence test—would constitute one quarter of the population of the world—by virtue of subject status, not United Kingdom citizenship. To give such a vote to people in Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ghana and India would be overdoing things a little, even by British standards.
  Mr. Grieve: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think I made it myself impliedly. I recognise that there is a distinction between our problem and the situation in the French Republic. Never the less, they have a number of people living abroad, and they have such a system as I have outlined. I am not here to argue that point. However, if France can do that for all French citizens living throughout the world, surely we can do so with regard to the Scottish Assembly for those Scots who were born in Scotland who are now living throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. That would not present any problem. If the suggestion is to be rejected on administrative grounds, the argument on which that rejection is based is spurious, and the Government must know that. The United Kingdom has thrived on the service of

  1669
  Scots living in this country. I deeply regret this legislation and would have wished to have nothing to do with it at all. As it is, I must be here to try to improve what the House has done in giving it a Second Reading
  The amendment is an improvement because it would enable Scots in this country—in England, that is—to have a voice in the future of the part of the United Kingdom from which they come and to which they may wish to return. I therefore support the amendment.
  Mr. George Thompson: I am a charitable man and I normally should not like to say that any amendment was nonsense, but I am bound to break my rule tonight and agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). If the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) had really been concerned about the Scots who were born in Scotland and are now resident south of the border he would not have put down the amendment as he did. He would have worded it, "whose birth was registered in that constituency", because it is possible for people whose parents are registered in Scotland to have been born in England but now to have their births registered as having been in Scotland so that they will feel themselves to be Scots. The hon. Gentleman must pay regard to those people too or he will constitute a minority who will be displaced.
  We ought to make a distinction. There are the Scots who left Scotland freely and went elsewhere and have become, to all intents and purposes adopted citizens of England, adopted Englishmen—which they are perfectly entitled to do—just as some English people who have come to Scotland want to be Scots, regard themselves as Scots, send their children to Scottish schools and, to all intents and purposes, have become naturalised Scots, as they are perfectly entitled to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] There is no rubbish in that, because I know English people who are resident in Scotland who consider themselves to be Scots and whom I look upon as adoptive Scots. If the two countries had been separated, those people would have become naturalised Scots citizens. Hon. Members may say "rubbish" as much as they like, but I can assure the Committee that there are
  1670
  English people in Scotland who, had they had to make such a choice, would have done that.
  Mr. Raison: Is the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) saying that those people want to have separatism forced upon them?
  Mr. Thompson: I am terribly sorry that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is not capable of following a simple, plain Scots argument. I am sorry if his mind is so convoluted that he cannot follow it. Some Scots had to leave Scotland because there was no work for them and they had to find it south of the border.
  It might be said that, according to this amendment, those people who want to regard themselves as English would not be in any way obliged to register in the way that the hon. Member proposes that they should. But there are hon. Members who would be going round—they are not interested in the Assembly working well, only in scuppering it—urging these people to get themselves registered.
  Mr. Grieve: Is the hon. Member suggesting that there are people who would go round getting Scotsmen living in England to register in order to sabotage the work of the Assembly in Edinburgh?
  Mr. Thompson: I would not put it past certain hon. Members, and I do not think that those who read the debates on this Bill will have any doubts about who they might be. Many of the amendments we are debating are not concerned with improving the Assembly. They are concerned more with not having an Assembly. It is to the credit of those hon. Members that they say so plainly.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: It is not a question of making the Assembly work well or otherwise, but of simple common justice to people who have been born in Scotland and have left but wish to record their vote there because they are going back there to end their lives.
  Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Member wants to move a verbal amendment to achieve the aim he has just set out, that is all very well, but what he described is not what is in the amendment we are now discussing.

  1671
  The hon. Member for Reigate talked to us about people living temporarily in England. Quite obviously, he did not tell us how long "temporarily" is. I would have expected an hon. Member of his acuity to have given that information. If we accepted his view—and I stress that I do not—surely something would have to be done about those English people who are temporarily resident in Scotland.
  We must consider the English people who will be temporarily resident in Scotland and, quite properly, will be entitled to vote in the Assembly elections even though quite soon afterwards they might actually move back to England. The hon. Member did not mention that. He also told us that had there been a federal system he would not have moved the amendment. But I should have thought that, on his line of argument, although I am sure he will tell me that I am wrong, under a federal system people should be able to choose where they would register for voting purposes. That is to carry this amendment to the absurd lengths that are possible.
  The Conservatives are deeply concerned about public expenditure. Never a halfpenny should be spent that should not be spent. But surely this amendment would be asking for the spending of a considerable amount of money in checking the claims of people saying that they had been born in Scotland.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: To help us understand this question of rationality, can the hon. Member tell us whether in his opinion, and that of his party, an Englishman resident in Scotland who did not take the opportunity to take Scottish citizenship should have the right to vote in Scotland?
  Mr. Thompson: I am sure, Mr. Murton, that you will observe, as I have done, that that question is quite irrelevant to the amendment we are discussing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Conservative Members always want "Yes" or "No" answers. That is because those are the sort of questions the Tories like to receive at General Elections. It is said that the candidate is in a great hurry and questioners are asked to provide questions that can be answered quickly with a "Yes" or a "No". Surely these matters would have to be decided between the Government of England and the Government of Scot
  1672
  land when the day arrives, as it surely will.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: What is the hon. Member's view?
  Mr. Thompson: I shall not give way to sedentary interruptions.
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. ThompsonNo, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is not very good at giving way himself.
  Mr. Buchan: On the contrary.
  Mr. Thompson: Very well.
  Mr. BuchanIn such a situation of negotiation, what would be the hon. Gentleman's view? For what would the hon. Gentleman be arguing?
  Mr. Thompson: If I could be assured that the hon. Gentleman would not attempt to say that I was stating the SNP's view, I might answer the question.
  Mr. Buchan: Answer.
  Mr. Thompson: I take the view that, just as citizens of the Republic of Ireland are allowed to vote in elections here, personally—I stress "personally"—I believe that it would be a matter for negotiation between the independent Governments. I, personally, would be willing to accept that English people resident in Scotland would be entitled to vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I see no reason for hon. Members to cry "Oh". Citizens of the Republic of Ireland are allowed to vote here. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has suggested that that should not be the position.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Thompson: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: Get your wig on, Teddy.
  Mr. Thompson: Neither shall I give way to sedentary interruptions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson).
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Findsbury spoke about those who are not resident in Scotland and not rooted in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that they might not know the issues

  1673
  in the constituency in which they wish to vote and they might not want to retire to the constituency. Surely this is one of the most nonsensical amendments that have been deployed. I could not possibly support it.
  Mr. Hector Monro: If I were permitted to begin with a prayer, I should say "Lord save us from the SNP". It grieved me to hear the remarks of my neighbouring Member, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson). It grieves me that such rubbish should come from anyone from Scotland.
  The debate has highlighted the shambles that the Bill has become. It does not encourage the unity of the United Kingdom if it is to begin with so much dissension as to who is to vote in the referendum.
  I want to hear the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who asked about Scottish Service men in the Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy. It must not be said that they will be registered somewhere in Scotland, because that is not necessarily the position. If a Scots Service man is married in England or Wales, he very often registers, at least temporarily, at the home of his wife. That means that the Service man is prevented from voting.
  The hon. Member for Galloway said that some Scots born near the border in England can now be registered in Scotland. That does not apply at present, because none of those under that provision can be anywhere near 18 years of age. The hon. Gentleman should remember that a substantial number of my constituents were for geographical reasons born at the nearest maternity home—one in Cumberland—and that if they were still living in Cumberland they would be prevented from voting. [Laughter.] There are many good Scots who happen, for geographical reasons, to be borne in Cumberland. They have to work in Cumberland and live there. That does not stop them from being Scots, however.
  A point which we must come to grips with and which no doubt for administrative reasons the Minister will try to dodge is the very important one that there are
  1674
  many hundreds of thousands of very good Scots who were not born in Scotland and, therefore, have not a birth certificate registered in Scotland. They are no less worthy of the chance to vote in the elections. This is highlighted by the large number of Scots who are born of strong Scottish parents but whose parents happened to be living abroad at the time of their birth. Should they, too, be excluded?
  Mr. George Cunningham: Of course they should. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Monro: I do not know what the interest of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is in this.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is only my interest in this nonsense.
  Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman will be, as usual, in both Lobbies in the next Division if he can move from one to the other fast enough.
  I hope that the Minister will not, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said, hide behind administrative reasons to prevent good Scots from voting. I believe that he intends to do just that, because every indication in the debate has been that he will not accept this very promising amendment.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a few words at this point in the debate.
  I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Munro) advanced his argument. When he reads the report of his speech tomorrow, I am sure he will realise just how confused he was tonight. He was talking about the referendum and not about elections to the Assembly, which is what the amendment is about. Even the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is the architect of the amendment, will confirm that the amendment is about elections to the Assembly. I see the hon. Member for Reigate nodding in agreement. Perhaps the hon. Members for Dumfries and Reigate should get together earlier in the evening, and then perhaps later on the hon. Member for Dumfries would not be so surprised.
  In fact, many of the contributions were about the voting procedure on the referendum. The hon. Members for Dumfries

  1675
  and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) and, to a certain extent, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about this subject. I do not intend to deal with the question of voting procedures and just who are qualified to vote in the referendum. We shall come to debate that matter in due course and you, Mr. Murton, would not want me to stray on to the subject tonight.
  The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) demolished his own argument that people who are Scots and, for one reason or another, have moved their home and now live in another part of the United Kingdom should, because they are interested in the fabric and quality of life and everythting that goes to make up life in Scotland, have a vote in elections to the Assembly.
  Mr. Grieve: Perhaps I may correct the Minister. That was not the basis of my argument at all. The basis of my argument was that they are Scots and should have a voice in the election to the Assembly of their country. Part of that argument is that obviously, as Scots, they would be interested in the future of their country.
  Mr. Ewing: I accept that there were two legs to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument—first, that they were Scots, and, secondly, that they had an interest in the quality of life. I suspect that both legs are linked. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite specific in saying that Scots living in England had an interest in what education policies were implemented in Scotland. When he reads that in Hansard tomorrow, he will confirm that in his own mind.
  Conversely, if that is true of Scots living in England, it is equally true of English people living in Scotland. That is an argument not for a vote in the Assembly elections but for a vote in local government elections. It is local government where that kind of policy is made.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared, to me at least, to be arguing that English people living in any other part of the United Kingdom—indeed, some Yorkshire people, I suspect, living in London—ought to have a vote in the local government elections of the area of their birth; for example, Yorkshire. Yorkshire people will naturally be in
  1676
  terested in the quality of life in their own county. [Interruption.] It is not a regional question. I am not saying that it is a regional question. I am taking the argument as put by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull. He was arguing that because a person had been born in a particular part of the country. that person was, therefore, interested in the quality of life and how life developed there because—in the hon. and learned Gentleman's own words—there will come a time when the person's working days were over and he might want to return to the area of his birth.
  That is an argument that could be applied throughout the United Kingdom. If it has any validity at all—I do not believe that it has—it has validity only at local government level. It certainly has no validity at the level about which we are talking. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, will examine his remarks and look at the proposition in favour of which he is really arguing. The proposition has no substance whatsoever.
  Mr. Grieve: I apologise for intervening a second time, but is the Minister really equating this great Scottish Assembly that the Bill will set up with an instrument of local government?
  Mr. Ewing: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that perfectly well. I am dealing with his argument and pointing out how shallow and lacking in substance it was.
  I turn now to my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). If any amendment to the Bill attracts the universal condemnation of my two hon. Friends, that amendment must surely be wrong. There can be no validity for suggesting—
  Mr. Raison rose—
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should control himself. There can be no validity for suggesting that we ought to accept such an amendment.
  There was one other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that I should correct before our sports writers in Scotland get it wrong. It was on the question of the Scottish international football team. There are two players in the Scottish international

  1677
  team, Rioch and Masson, who would not qualify for a vote even under the amendment, because neither was born in Scotland. Yet they are going to Argentina next year to help us win the World Cup.
  Finally, on the question of births, it must be perfectly clear that a birth that takes place in England must be registered there. There can be no question concerning a birth taking place in England. I do not want letters sent to my Department about this, and I am making that point clear.
  The standard principle in the United Kingdom is that citizens have a vote in the areas where they have a permanent residence. The responsibilities of the Scottish Assembly will be exercised in relation to Scotland and will most affect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I wish that some Conservative Members would
  do some reading. The responsibilities will most affect the people resident there. The strength of feeling of the expatriate Scots for their country is not to be discounted. What is proposed would be illogical and not found—
  It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthtwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question, That the amendment be made,put and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 153.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 6 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

  SUBSIDIARY POWERS OF ASSEMBLY
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided:Ayes 186, Noes 154.

  Division No. 18]

  AYES

  [11.00 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Eadie, Alex

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ashton, Joe

  Edge, Geoff

  Luard, Evan

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Atkinson, Norman

  English, Michael

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bain, Mrs. Margaret

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  McElhone, Frank

  Bates, Alf

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Beith, A. J.

  Flannery, Martin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Madden, Max

  H.

  Ford, Ben

  Magee, Bryan

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

  Marks, Kenneth

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Bradley, Tom

  Freud, Clement

  Meacher, Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  George, Bruce

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mitchell, Austin

  Buchan, Norman

  Golding, John

  Molloy, William

  Buchanan, Richard

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J, (Aberavon)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Roland

  Campbell, Ian

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hatton, Frank

  Newens, Stanley

  Cartwright, John

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Noble, Mike

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Hooley, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ovenden, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Horam, John

  Park, George

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Penhaligon, David

  Crawford, Douglas

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Reid, George

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Janner, Greville

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Davidson, Arthur

  John, Brynmor

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Booker, J. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roper, John

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kerr, Russell

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kilfedder. James

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Sever, J.

  Strang, Gavin

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Whitlock, William

  Silverman, Julius

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Skinner, Dennis

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Small, William

  Thompson, George

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Snape, Peter

  Tierney, Sydney

  Woodall, Alec

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tinn, James

  Woof, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Tomlinson, John

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Torney, Tom

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Watt, Hamish

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Stott, Roger

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Alison, Michael

  Hodgson, Robin

  Powell, Rt Hon J Enoch

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Holland, Philip

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Baker, Kenneth

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Benyon, W.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Bottomley, Peter

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

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Brittan, Leon

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith

  Rhodes James, R.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Knox, David

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Lamont, Norman

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Channon, Paul

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Luce, Richard

  Silvester, Fred

  Clegg, Walter

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  MacGregor, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cope, John

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Costain, A. P.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Marten, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mates, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Dunlop, John

  Mather, Carol

  Sproat, Iain

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mawby, Ray

  Stainton, Keith

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Emery, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mider, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Mills, Peter

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Fox, Marcus

  Molyneaux, James

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fry, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wall, Patrick

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Walters, Dennis

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grieve, Percy

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wells, John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Neave, Airey

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Grylls, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Younger, Hon George

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Newton, Tony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Spencer le Marchant and

  Hannam, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Sir George Young.

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Percival, Ian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Division No. 19]

  AYES

  [11.17 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Anderson, Donald

  Ford, Ben

  Newens, Stanley

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Noble, Miks

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Oakes, Gordon

  Ashton, Joe

  Freud, Clement

  Ogden, Eric

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Park, George

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ginsburg, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Bain, Mrs. Margaret

  Golding, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Bates, Alf

  Grocott, Bruce

  Reid, George

  Beith, A. J.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Boardman, H.

  Hatton, Frank

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Rooker J. W.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roper, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Henderson, Douglas

  Rose, Paul B.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hooley, Frank

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Buchan, Norman

  Horam, John

  Sever, J.

  Buchanan, Richard

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Silverman, Julius

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hunter, Adam

  Small, William

  Campbell, Ian

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cartwright, John

  John, Brynmor

  Stallard, A. W.

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Stott, Roger

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kerr, Russell

  Strang, Gavin

  Corbett, Robin

  Kilfedder, James

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lambie, David

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Lamond, James

  Thompson, George

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Loyden, Eddie

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Cryer, Bob

  Luard, Evan

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Tinn, James

  Davidson, Arthur

  McCartney, Hugh

  Tomlinson, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Torney, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  McDonald, Or Oonagh

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Dempsey, James

  McElhone, Frank

  Watt, Hamish

  Doig, Peter

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Welsh, Andrew

  Dormand, J. D.

  Maclennan, Robert

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Whitlock, William

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Madden, Max

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Dunn, James A.

  Magee, Bryan

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marks, Kenneth

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Eadie, Alex

  Marshall. Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Edge, Geoff

  Meacher, Michael

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Woodall, Alec

  English, Michael

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Woof, Robert

  Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Molloy, William

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mr. Peter Snape.

  Flannery, Martin

  Moyle, Roland

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Dunlop, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alison, Michael

  Carlisle, Mark

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Channon, Paul

  Emery, Peter

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Benyon, W.

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Bottomley, Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Brittan, Leon

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Cope, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Brotherton, Michael

  Costain, A. P.

  Fry, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  1682

  1683

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mather, Carol

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mawby, Ray

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Grieve, Percy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Grist, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Grylls, Michael

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter

  Silvester, Fred

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Molyneaux, James

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Hector

  Speed, Keith

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Hodgson, Robin

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Sproat, Iain

  Holland, Philip

  Morgan, Geraint

  Stainton, Keith

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hurd, Douglas

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Neave, Airey

  Stokes, John

  James, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, J.

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

  Newton, Tony

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Jessel, Toby

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Tebbit, Norman

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Percival, Ian

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Knox, David

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Wall, Patrick

  Lamont, Norman

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Walters, Dennis

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Lawson, Nigel

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wells, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Raison, Timothy

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Luce, Richard

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Younger, Hon George

  MacGregor, John

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Rhodes James, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Marten, Neil

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Mr. Peter Morrison.

  Mates, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].
  Committee report Progess; to sit again tomorrow.

CATTLE (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION)
11.32 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Artificial Insemination of Cattle (England and Wales) Regulations 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1260), dated 25th July 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
At around midnight we are to spend an hour and a half discussing for the first time a complex set of regulations covering two rather difficult and intertwined subjects of great concern to all livestock farmers, and particularly to some people who have spent their lives acquiring a degree of expert knowledge. This does not seem a very good way for Parliament to win respect for itself.
Nobody would complain about lack of consultations, although whether they have always been directed to the right people is another question. Certainly, consultations started in 1971 on whether the 1957 regulations on artificial insemination should be amended. At the end of July this year—and this is one of the points to which we particularly object—new regulations were suddenly published. We were told that they would become effective on 1st September, which meant that there could be no debate before they came into effect. Now, some months after the event we are left debating the simple question whether we shall throw them out or accept them. There is no possibility of amendment.
Faced with these very complicated regulations, I should say that as recently as last week the Conservative Agriculture Committee received representations from the National Farmers Union, the National Cattle Breeders Association and the Milk Marketing Board asking that we should give our support to the regulations. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the weight of that representation, it would be very difficult for me to advise the House to vote against them. But I shall ask the Parliamentary Secretary for some clear undertakings about his approach to these matters in the future.
As I understand it, the main change brought about by these regulations—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me
1686
if I am wrong—is that for the first time there will be very strict control over the distribution of semen. It has been said—the hon. Gentleman used the phrase in correspondence with me—that some people have "exploited a loophole" in the 1957 regulations. For a start, I say that that is a rotten bad argument. The mere fact that regulations allow people to do something does not necessarily mean, save possibly in the language and in the world of Whitehall, that they should subsequently, for that reason, be stopped from doing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not spoil his case by deploying an argument that smacks of costive bureaucracy rather than common sense.
I want to be fair. As I understand it, the arguments that the hon. Gentleman will adduce in favour of these regulations are twofold. First, there is the question of animal health and the control of disease. I particularly want the hon. Gentleman to say how these regulations provide for animal health. What safeguards for health do they provide which could not be assured by other people who are active in the industry and are just as concerned as are the Government?
Secondly, the argument is put forward—and on the whole this is a more respectable one—that there must be a viable network in order to assure a comprehensive service to all farmers, no matter how small they may be, or how remote. I believe that that is a fair and important argument, and one that, I understand, has commended itself to the National Farmers Union.
At this stage it is fair to outline the duties which I understand the board will undertake. Not only will it be obliged to provide an inseminator service; it will be obliged to train personnel for D-I-Y A1; it will be obliged to provide flasks and service them with liquid nitrogen and, in addition, to provide semen from any approved bull—not just bulls belonging to the Board.
The farmer who wishes to carry out artificial insemination for himself will be free to store semen of any approved bull and will be allowed—if he lives in Scotland—straws amounting to three times the number of breeding females in his herd. If he lives in England he will have straws amounting to only twice the number of females.

1687
I move for a moment to the general question of livestock quality controls, with which the AI regulations have been somewhat confused. A great deal of the controversy aroused refers rather more to the livestock quality controls generally than to the AI regulations particularly. There is much criticism of the criteria adopted by the Government for the selection of bulls on the grounds that they are altogether too narrow, that far too much weight is given to butterfat on first lactation, and that other important factors are treated too lightly.
In Regulation 5 very wide powers are given to the Minister with discretions to himself, but with no discretion at all to anybody else. It is clear that Parliament has no formal opportunity to comment on the criteria or upon any change in them which the Minister in his wisdom may adopt from time to time.
I should like to deal briefly with the principal objections. The first relates to the scheme of things. I have always thought that the way Whitehall produces this strange literature stands entirely on its own. One has only to look at the first page to find something that sticks out like a sore thumb. We have in the interpretation provisions the astonishing announcement that
"'animal' includes a domestic fowl, turkey, goose and duck".
I dare say that it has some relevance, but it seems a strange way to start the thing off.
One of the first objections made, with which I have a certain sympathy, is that these regulations spring at least as much from a desire in Whitehall to know what is going on and what everybody else is up to at all times as from any concern for animal health or the welfare of our breeding herds.
There is a reasonable anxiety that monopolies tend to overcharge, not to be brisk in the performance of their duties and to be somewhat inattentive to complaints. We have plenty of experience of State monopolies, and it would be fair, in passing, to mention that the Milk Marketing Board, which is a producers' organisation, has performed distinguished service for the dairy farmers. Nevertheless, there are these anxieties, and I think that the Minister should closely concern himself with them.
1688
Thirdly, there is the fear that breeders will find these rules unduly restrictive, particularly that a breeder will not be able to store semen from his own bulls on the farm unless it is delivered to him by one of the authorised centres. It seems that the control has gone a little crazy.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: In view of the powerful arguments adduced against these regulations, does my right hon. Gentleman intend to vote against them?
Mr. PeytonI am obliged to my hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. In view of the powerful representations that we have received in support of the regulations and the arguments that have been adduced—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will echo them—my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends would be ill-advised to throw the regulations out. However, I hope to get from the Government some really fair and clear undertakings about their attitude in future, and we shall watch carefully to see how the Government will perform.
I now return to the various objections that have been expresed to the regulations. We must ask what other countries do and learn from the example of others.
Mr. Hamish Watt: Is not the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) being somewhat illogical in saying that he fears a monopoly in the use and sales of AI by the Milk Marketing Boards when, in other spheres, he has argued in favour of the retention of the boards. Surely the power of the boards in the sale and control of milk is far greater than for a few straws of semen.
Mr. Peyton: That point was hardly worth making. I suppose the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) did so for fear of the risk that he might not be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later on.
Mr. Peter Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) should declare an interest as a member of a Milk Marketing Board.
Mr. Watt: I am an ex-director of the Banff Milk Marketing Board. I no longer have any interest whatsoever in the workings of that board.
Mr. Peyton: I hope that I may be allowed to congratulate the board on now being without the hon. Member for Banff.
I now want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what lessons the Government have learned. They must have considered what happens in other countries. Do other countries that are not unsuccessful in breeding cattle find it necessary to resort to such a battery of regulations, and, if not why do we?
My next question is one that is being asked by many people: why are there different regulations for Scotland compared with England and Wales? In Scotland farmers will be allowed to store three straws per breeding animal while in England and Wales the limit will be two. I cannot really believe that the Government will seek to pursue that absurd distinction and deny breeders in England and Wales something that will give them a little more flexibility.
I also wonder why it is that, while special provisons are made for such areas as the Secretary of State for Scotland may consider to be remote, no such discretion is given to the Minister responsible for England and Wales in respect of remote areas. The Minister must be aware that there are three points in the regulations for Scotland in which special provisions are made for remote areas but there is no such provision in the regulations affecting England and Wales. Why is that so?
The regulations provide for a plethora of licences. One in particular seems to me strange. It is a requirement that firms supplying liquid nitrogen to farms must have a licence. It seems a little odd and pedantic to impose such a requirement when it is not imposed on the same firm when it supplies the same product to a hospital.
I seek three specific assurances in addition to the questions I have asked. First, I hope that the AI part of the regulations will soon be reviewed, and in a genuine manner. In a letter to me not long ago the Minister said that he would like to leave this for two years. I do not believe that that will be adequate. There must be an early review and a readiness on the part of Whitehall to listen to the objections made by people of great knowledge, wisdom and experience in this business. Too often Whitehall finds the business of listening tedious, tiresome and
1690
unpleasant. But in this ease the people there must get down to it and show themselves ready to listen to those who perhaps know more than they do.
I hope that there will be a permanent standing body to consider livestock quality controls, and particularly the criteria for the selection of bulls. The Ministry is reviewing the criteria and will be making a statement in the near future. But I hope that the review will be continued after that and will include the review of the AI part of the regulations that I have referred to.
Will the Minister make a concession by allowing the three breeding straws pct animal permitted in Scotland to be extended to England?
Mr. Ian Gow: With my right hon. Friend's knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary, does he not think it clear that the assurances my right hon. Friend seeks will most emphatically not be forthcoming, and in those circumstances will my right hon. Friend give different advice to his hon. Friends from that which he offered at the beginning of his speech?
Mr. Peyton: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will gave me the assurances for which I have asked. because they are very reasonable. I have given him notice of my intention to seek these assurances. But if he is not able to give them I should certainly be prepared to reconsider the advice I have given to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
In advising against a Division tonight I am counting heavily on the Parliamentary Secretary's willingness to take a constructive view of the problem and of what I have said. It is possible that before many months are out there will be a change of Government. In that event—the Parliamentary Secretary may laugh, but I have seen people laugh from the Treasury Bench before and the laughs have turned rather sour. I say to the hon. Gentleman—if he does not want to listen I address my remarks to a wider audience—that, if there should be a change of Government, let there be no doubt that a Conservative Minister would wish to look again carefully at the regulations and the livestock quality controls, and ensure, above all else, that intelligent and wise people with great experience and knowledge of the industry

1691
are listened to and that their voices are heard and weighed well in the balance against the arguments of mere bureaucratic convenience.
11.56 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the House and my hon. Friends are familiar with the 1957 regulations on artificial insemination that run to seven regulations. The present regulations run to 29 regulations with six addenda. What has been the change? When the 1943 regulations on artificial insemination were introduced the whole concept was novel, but between 1957 and today it has become a familiar process for a great many farmers.
I must ask immediately why it is necessary now to impose complicated regulations on an industry that is doing fairly well. I say "fairly well" because I happen to be connected with the breeding of cattle and I speak with some knowledge. My Scottish friends will agree that in the shorthorn sector my family are rather distinguished as breeders. They do a fair amount of cattle exporting.
I regret to say that this country has little to be proud of as regards the excellence of its average livestock. Two years ago my family and I exported about 1,500 head of Friesians. I must tell the House that much the cheapest and best animals did not come from the United Kingdom but from Canada. When the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers Union and the breeding societies come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to tell him that they think the regulations are good, I very much question their judgment.
I am involved in the cattle trade, and I and others have been brought up to believe that British cattle are the best in the world, rather like we have said that the British racehorse is the best in the world. I regret to say that that is no longer true. The essentials in cattle breeding are freedom and initiative and, if one likes, the whim. It is those essentials that lead to the design, planning and construction of a successful breed or herd. However, the Whitehall bureaucrats and the Milk Marketing Board, whose back is being scratched by the NFU, say "We can do it better". I have never heard such nonsense.
1692
One of the greatest cattle breeders I have known in the world was a man named Bob Kekerg, a Texan, who developed a breed—I am sure that the House will know that it is difficult to get an established breed within a generation—called Santa Gertrudis. That breed is now of great use throughout the world. If Bob Kekerg had been faced with people like the Parliamentary Secretary, he would either have emigrated or gone out of business.
I am amazed by the attitude of the Conservative Party on this issue. This is one of the outstanding areas where private enterprise really has something to contribute.
Mr. Peter Mills: Is my right hon. Friend saying to the House that he is dismissing all the work that the Milk Marketing Board has done over the years to improve cattle, not for expert breeders, but for rich breeders, but for ordinary small farmers? Is he dismissing this as of no importance and as of no value? Will he please think again?
Mr. Fraser: Of course the cattle have improved. Of course the yields have risen. Of course the Milk Marketing Board has done a good job. But any suggestion to the effect that we are producing the best average cattle, as we used to do, is just a load of codswallop. Of course the Milk Marketing Board has done a fair job. What we want to do is an excellent job. We want to restore this country to its former position. It used be the marvel of the world, with the finest breeds. Does my hon. Friend want to see a dead flat, below average, sort of Socialist type of animal, a good average sort of 1,000 gallon animal? It is not I who should think again. My hon. Friend should examine what he is thinking of. If my hon. Friend is in the export business, he knows the trouble I have had. The fact is that this country has a chance now, by chucking the regulations out.
The regulations that exist under the 1957 Act are perfectly satisfactory. Have there been three-horned animals, five-headed monsters, bred under the present regulations? Has there been a disgusting exploitation of ancient semen? People talk as though farmers are half-wits. They are not half-wits. They are extremely able, competent people. If the

1693
semen service offered is unsatisfactory, they will reject it. There is now an opportunity to go on developing a system which has grown up over the past three, four or five years of individuals trying to go in for building up their own semen banks and making co-operatives, by which they become keen on improving the breed. This should be encouraged.
What is proposed now is the establishment of a monopoly which is not in the interests of the cattle bred, not in the interests of the farmers, but mostly in the interests of the NFU, which, as I said before is inevitably scratching the backs of the Milk Marketing Board. I hope that the Conservative Party will show some guts and throw this regulation out.
12.3 a.m.
Mr. Wm. Ross: We in Northern Ireland have a slightly different kettle of fish in regard to AI. At least, we import semen from the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of that facet of our problems, I have decided to say a few words about our problems.
So far as I can see, one of the principal reasons for th introduction of the regulations is an apparent need to improve the standards of hygiene in the collection, storage and dissemination of semen. I do not think that any practical farmer can logically argue against the highest possible standards in this matter.
I want to question one or two aspects of the order. First, it is said that we shall have the best bulls, or that we shall have good bulls. What are good bulls, Who chooses them? Who decides what a good bull is. Are we seeking, as a lot of the stuff that has come through the post and a lot of the stuff that I have researched for this debate has suggested, the highest milk yield? Are we seeking beef? Are we seeking dual-purpose animals? Or are we seeking animals that simply look good and have good conformation? What are we looking for?
Indeed, in one of the pieces of material that I came across the comment was made, by what I can only describe as an interested party, that ordinary bulls were all right for commercial service because the ordinary farmer simply wanted to get his cow in calf. If there is
1694
any ordinary farmer who is satisfied simply with getting his cow in calf, he will not be an ordinary farmer for long. He will be broke. It is as simple as that.
A number of things are endangered by the introduction of these negotiations if they should create a monopoly. I believe that we need as many blood lines as possible. There is no guarantee that that will come about under the regulations. We need a great many bulls under test. From what has been said, it is clear that there are simply not the facilities to hold and investigate the potential of the bulls available in the country. We need to test many bulls for the characteristics that we need—or, rather, the characteristics that the market is prepared to buy. That is the final arbiter of whether the standard of bulls being selected is correct.
As I have mentioned, Northern Ireland now imports semen. At one time we had a considerable stud of bulls there for the Northern Ireland AI service. I am pleased to see that the Minister in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland is present for this debate. I very much regret the big fall in the number of bulls in that stock, because it is a retrograde step that the Northern Ireland livestock producers will live to regret.
Furthermore, I must ask another question. How many cattle breeders do we want in this country? I sincerely believe that all farmers, in their own way, are cattle breeders, because they are breeding the stock that they need for the purpose for which they want it. It does not matter whether it is for milk or for beetf. If he is sensible, every individual farmer who wants to remain in farming will pursue the line of breeeding that is successful on his farm. Therefore, in that respect and in the facet of farming, every farmer is a breeder, be he breeding for himself or for sale.
What assurances can the Minister offer to us that individuals will have the freedom to experiment? Is he prepared to say that if the line that he is now drawing between the various interests is proven by events after three or four years—it will take at least that long, and possibly longer—to be drawn in the wrong place, there will then be a willingness on the part of the present Government to draw it in a different place in the light of

1695
experience? Will there be a similar willingness to that indicated by the Conservative Party?
It was neither this House nor the Government who created the very successful breeds of cattle that we have in the United Kingdom. It was private breeders who did that, and it is private breeders who will continue creating and maintaining new breeds and maintaining and improving the standards of existing breeds. To some extent the private operators fulfil that function today.
Sir George Sinclair: Does the hon. Member agree that the point he is making is at the heart of the failure of Russian agriculture? The Russians have taken away from their farmers their natural interest in the upgrading of their stock and the management of their crops, and they have left their farmers no choice. The farmers have had to rely on the advice and direction of some "qualified" person—in my view, some unqualified person—who is divorced from both the local scene and the seasonal changes of weather in that sort of country. This is the sort of thing that will take the heart out of initiative and skill in the breeding of livestock in this country.
Mr. Ross: I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. As he is well aware, a totalitarian process operates in Russia. There is no private enterprise there at all.
The regulations do not cut out private individuals completely. They simply place them under very severe restrictions. I have asked the Minister whether he is prepared to change the line that he is is now drawing if it should eventually prove to be in the wrong place.
If, however, all semen has to be stored at a central point and distributed from there, can we be given an assurance this evening that the financial burden that will be placed on the private individual will be shared in equal measure by institutions such as the Milk Marketing Board? If it is not, the individual will be placed at a very severe financial disadvantage which will inhibit the putting forward of his particular facet of cattle breeding, perhaps to the long-term detriment of the rest of the cattle herd in the country.
1696
The House will recall that a short time ago it abolished bull licensing. It is claimed that no harm has come from it. However, in the regulations we find the reintroduction of standards to be applied by the Government to the bulls that are being used in this country. Why is there a difference here? What is the diference? Is there a difference other than in the number of cattle and the number of cows which are affected by a given bull? If there is, we need to be told about it.
I believe that in a position such as this the only thing the Government can ask for is the right to control the spread of disease and the maintenance of bull health. This is very difficult because the health of a bull can alter from day to day. I think that the Government should also ask that the very clearest details of the quality of the progeny of the individual bull should be made available to those who wish to make use of the semen, because that will sell the cattle produced by that bull.
Finally, I return to my central question. If experience shows that this line has got to be re-drawn, are the Government prepared to re-draw it?
12.11 a.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I must immediately say that I have no interest in this industry, nor do I have any technical knowledge of cattle breeding. But I think that I can smell a monopoly when it is coming, and I think that what is proposed in the regulations is about as blatant a national monopoly as I have recently seen.
I cannot understand, first, why the Government propose it, because I remember the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of State for Energy at his party conference when he railed against the monopolies in this country and said that they were the cause of our economic decline. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who made his point about the monopoly, was so hesitant about expressing his views in the Lobby against the monopoly which is proposed here. I know that it is not a perfect monopoly. I know that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that some private breeders can select their own semen and their own bulls, but the economics involved and the weight of the

1697
licensing arrangements and bureaucracy are unlikely to allow full freedom to develop. The House is excusing itself from asking questions and asking for assurances, having been bought off by the promise of a review.
I have a letter from the Minister of State to the effect that next year the standard of bulls will be reviewed, but that will be too late if we pass the regulations. Next year he can do what he likes because he will have the regulations on the statute book. I am not persuaded to grant a monopoly by hearing the monopolist promising to be a good boy while his application is being granted or not granted by this House.
It is alleged that the Milk Marketing Board knows best which bulls to use and which to develop for the health of the cattle breeding industry. We are told that the main criteria are lactation and butterfat, but there are other characteristics which farmers who breed cattle care about. This sounds rather like the Miss World contest. I understand that the cattle should have good feet, good legs, sound-wearing udders and longevity. These are also qualities which are essential in cattle for various purposes. I do not know, and I suspect that the Milk Marketing Board does not know and that the Government do not know, from which particular bulls to breed in order to produce the optimum combination of these qualities. The only way in which this can be done in a free society is by allowing different people to take different mixtures, different breeds and different strains to ensure against the calamitous national mistake that we have backed the wrong breed with all that we have.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for giving an industrial analogy. The total monopolistic concentration upon Magnox nuclear power stations proved to be a mistake, and the nation paid dearly for the fact that it did not have several people making different sorts of nuclear power station, because one of them might have been right instead of the whole effort having proved to be wrong.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: This is a question that I shall put to the Minister, and, therefore, I give notice by raising it with my hon. Friend. If he looks at Part I he will
1698
see under the heading "Interpretation" that "animal" includes a domestic fowl. If he looks at Part IV he will see that "teaser animal" means
"a bovine animal which is used as an aid in the collection of semen from a bull".
Can my hon. Friend help by telling me what is a teaser fowl, turkey, goose or duck which is used as an aid in the collection of semen from a bull?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. and learned Friend declared that he was slanting his question off me to the Minister, and I must plead with the Minister to deal with it because I said that I had no great technical knowledge of this subject.
I want to draw one more analogy in what will be a brief speech, because it is possible to take this question of the monopoly selection of breeding into a more advanced and sinister sphere to demonstrate what I am trying to say.
Let us suppose that some future Socialist Party, in some future country, took upon itself the development of the most ideal human being through selective breeding organised by the bureaucrats. That is not very far from reality. That is what Hitler tried to do before the days of AI. He and his party tried to breed the perfect Socialist, abounding in bogus compassion, not clear about the facts, and equipped with a cloth cap or long beard, depending upon the age at the time. They could achieve all that, but what a loss in human diversity there would be, because it is by the very diversity of the animal kingdom, as well as the human kingdom, that progess is made.
I believe that the entrusting of this monopoly to the Milk Marketing Board could be a death-blow to the independent development of different breeds of cattle for different purposes. It could well be a distaster for the future of this industry, just as it has been in all the State monopolies that we have seen, whether coal, steel, nuclear power, gas, electricity or any other. The development of State monoplies has probably been the biggest error that this country has ever made, and to impose it upon the farming industry after midnight on a night like this seems to me a decision that my right hon. and hon. Friends should oppose.
I plead with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, who made some powerful points against the regulations, to

1699
allow his vote to follow his voice, because once these regulations are through it will be very much more difficult for a future Conservative Government to take them off the statute book than it would be to prevent them from going on it now, even at this late hour.
12.20 a.m.
Mr. Geraint Howells: In accordance with the tradition of this House, I declare an interest as a farmer and a member of one of the producer boards in this country.
I have listened with interest to the debate and I was impressed by the powerful speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). I also listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He made a powerful speech too, condemning the Government and saying that he was against the regulations, but he was weak when he advised his hon. Friends not to vote against them. My hon. Friends and I take a different view. We shall vote against the regulations, and I hope that Conservative Members will follow our example.
The intentions of those who formulated the new regulations were, no doubt, laudable, but, having studied the implications, I have concluded that they should be rejected. I stress that in opposing the regulations I am not against upholding the highest standards of hygiene and health control, but these can be maintained without additional burdensome regulations.
The effect of the regulations would be to ensure a monopoly in the service for the Milk Marketing Board, and as a Liberal I am against any sort of monopoly, whether in the private or the public sector.
Mr. Peter Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman against the monopoly of the Milk Marketing Board as regards the collection and distribution of milk—something that has done so much for all producers and consumers?
Mr. Howells: We are discussing artificial insemination regulations. They cut across the right of the individual and the small man and hand over control of the semen market to what has been described in some quarters as "co-operative supermarkets".
We must not allow further bureaucratic control of the farming industry, or any
1700
other, if possible. This is one instance in which we can dispense with the red tape. We did away with bull licensing, and I have not heard any adverse comment on that from farmers. I believe that we must do the same with these regulations.
The regulations are an intrusion on the liberty of the individual in society. We have no such regulations for sheep or pig producers or for producers of any other livestock. We shall oppose any such regulations that may be introduced on the Floor of the House in future.
The NFU brief says that, in general, the regulations provide for the supply of semen through the AI network, controls over "do-it-yourself" AI—I am worried about these controls—and the approval of bulls for use in AI. It goes on to say that the NFU and the National Cattle Breeders Association have jointly approached the Parliamentary Secretary for assurances. I wonder whether they are satisfied with the assurances that they have been given. Can the Minister give us the assurances, because unless we oppose the regulations they are here to stay?
I turn now to the views of another group of people who give a great service to the industry. The British Association of Independent Artificial Insemination and the National Association of Semen Suppliers ask:
"What's wrong with the regulations? With regard to livestock quality control, they leave the Minister with the right which he uses to interfere."
The Minister will have the right to answer that query when he replies to the debate.
The associations maintain:
"With regard to distribution of semen, they enhance, indeed secure, the AI/MMB network's monopoly position."
They also say that the regulations
"Create a heap of unnecessary red tape and humbug."
I am very interested in this paragraph from the association's brief:
"The regulations leave the Minister's finger firmly in the pie! He controls the quality criteria which bulls must attain before semen is released on the market."
The associations go on to say—and I agree:
"We believe farmers are not idiots—in a free market they will continue to use the progeny test as only one important tool in deciding which bulls to use. They will not use so much unproven semen as to materially

1701
affect the genetic make-up of their own herds or the National herd until they have proved the traits for which they are looking."
Let us look at the comparisons. The associations state:
"The firm control of livestock quality in Britain in the last 20 years has not shown great results:
In Britain 1954–1973 Pedigree Friesian recorded average had increased by only 8·4 per cent.
In Canada the Pedigree Friesian Holstein recorded average has increased by 20 per cent. The Canadian Government guides, the farmer decides."
Mr. Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in gaining this extra milk the Canadian Holstein lost all ability to transmit any beef qualities to its progeny?
Mr. Howells: I do not accept that. According to the figures, the Canadians are doing much better than British farmers.
The associations points out that
"The recorded herd average of Canada, America, Holland, Israel and Japan are all higher than ours—without rigorous statutory control."
On the Milk Marketing Board's monopoly rights, the associations state:
"The regulations fully protect the AI network monopoly of the semen market. No other firm or person will be given a licence to distribute semen.
However, the private breeding companies are now forced to distribute their semen through the established AI network, thus disclosing to their main competitors 'who is buying exactly from what'—a market intelligence service competitors in any other industry would pay a fortune to obtain."
Finally, the associations point out:
"Note: During the recent BOC strike the MMB refused to deliver semen to DIY users for six weeks. Private distributors managed to continue operations. During the recent AI inseminators strike no AI services took place at all. Private competition would at least maintain the DIY service."
What should the legislation do? In my view, it is required to achieve sensible material control of semen production and distribution and to promote the production of statistics for the farmer to consider in his breeding plans.
In view of the shortage of time, I shall leave it to other hon. Members to speak against the regulations. However, I have advised my colleagues—I hope that many other right hon. and hon. Members will support us in the Lobby—to seek to annul the regulations.
12.30 a.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: The Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry are open to criticism for the appalling publicity and the way they have presented the new regulations. They have created unnecessary fears which have caused a great deal of consternation among those who practise DIY AI. That was quite unnecessary. At the beginning, they created a belief among farmers that the Milk Marketing Board was to have a complete monopoly of the supply, collection, storage and distribution of semen. I understand that that is not the situation.
I was approached by farmers in my constituency on this matter. I wrote to the Minister at the end of July. I received a reply and I hope that he will be able to reiterate what he told me then. The Minister of State pointed out that, far from creating a monopoly, the new regulations would enlarge the range of genetic material for breeding programmes. I hope he will confirm that.
The Minister also said that farmers previously had had access only to semen which derived from privately-owned bulls, whereas in future the choice of semen would be extended to that derived from all bulls that were approved for use in AI in Great Britain. That was not made clear.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Nonsense.
Mr. Morrison: The Parliamentary Secretary may say that it is nonsense, but we were at the receiving end of the worry and concern expressed by farmers. Whatever he may have thought he did to publicise the provisions in the regulations, he failed completely. I hope that he has learned his lesson and that he will not do this again. The extent of the misunderstanding has been emphasised during the debate.
Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Does my hon. Friend feel that hon. Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) have confused the definitions in the regulations of permitted person" and "qualified person"? Is it not clear when one reads

1703
the regulations carefully that the definition of "permitted person" allows a considerable amount of freedom of the kind which worried my right hon. Friend in connection with the use of artificial insemination from a bull in that person's ownership which is applied to a cow or cows which are also in that person's ownership? Is it not a fact that a "qualified person", as described in the first part of the regulations, is a veterinary surgeon whose duty is confined to supervising the collection of semen from "permitted persons"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The time is short. The hon. Member must not confuse an interjection with a speech. I hope that he has finished his interjection.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I shall be brief. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) to say whether he feels that the misunderstanding may have arisen out of that confusion.
Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has, with great dexterity, clarified the situation even further. If hon. Gentlemen turn to paragraph 4 on page 4 of the Statutory Instrument, they will discover precisely what my hon. Friend has said. That helps to make it clear what the regulations in respect of AI set out to achieve.
Nevertheless, I want to criticise the Parliamentary Secretary for the inadequate way in which he has publicised the proposals that are now before the House. Secondly, I want to add my brief support to what has been said by a number of hon. Gentlemen with regard to livestock quality control. From the points that have been made to me, it is perfectly clear that the existing criteria are too narrow and that the time is long past when they should be widened to take account of a situation which has developed since the original AI regulations of 1957. It is no longer adequate to think solely in terms of milk production. Other considerations such as longevity and the need to maintain a variety of blood lines are of growing importance.
As far as I am concerned, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) demanded. Even on the basis
1704
of those assurances, I shall regard the Government as being on probation and no more. It is essential to look further at the livestock quality controls with the intention of relaxing them.
I finally want to refer to the extra cost to individual farmers. What estimate has the Parliamentary Secretary made of the effect of these new regulations on AI in terms of cost to farmers?
12.38 a.m.
Mr. Hamish Watt: I am surprised to find so many Opposition Members out of their beds at this late hour in order to pray against this Statutory Instrument.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) suggested that I had a particular interest in this subject. I must point out that I am no longer a director of the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board. I am a dairy and beef farmer, but I am not a pedigree breeder and I do not breed bulls. Therefore, I have no special pecuniary interest in this matter.
I have been involved in farming for a long, time. For 17 interesting years I was a director on the AI Committee of the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board. During that time I saw the rise and fall of an advance in the AI service.
In the course of the few minutes available to me, I want to warn the House of the dangers that may arise if we fail to pass this Statutory Instrument this evening. There is the danger of allowing what I would call the "cowboy" operators to continue in the service, and there is also the fear of the Milk Marketing Board that they might lose their position of being able to supply an AI service to the average breeder in this country.
The Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board ran no fewer than seven sub-centres throughout the North of Scotland, many of them at the behest of its neighbour, the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board, in areas where cattle were very thin on the ground and the Milk Marketing Board had to subsidise the AI service from its other activities. We ran a very interesting service with our own stud of bulls for a time. When frozen semen came in after a few years, we soon found that we could not give our herd owners the service that big brother in the South of Scotland or even bigger

1705
brothers in the Milk Marketing Board in England could give, because of their sheer size.
Any hon. Members who have been to Warren Farm in Hampshire and have seen the excellent job that the English Milk Marketing Board does in assessing the beef-transmitting qualities of many of the beef bulls in the AI stud will surely not be voting against the regulations. No private individual could afford to lay off the tremendous number of dairy bulls that the English Board can throughout the proving period. A very small percentage of animals return from the proving farms as proven bulls. Therefore, it is essential that we allow the Milk Marketing Boards to continue the excellent job they have done in providing AI over the years.
Although the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board gave up its AI stud, it still managed to run a fairly viable service until some of the private insemination services came into the field. Although it has not been licensed until now, the system of do-it-yourself has been operating on the quiet for several years. The private insemination companies have been selling large quantities of semen to individual farmers, and as a result the inseminator service of the Milk Marketing Board is no longer viable and must be heavily subsidised.
If the regulations do not go through, the "cowboy" operators will be able to take an even bigger share of the market and the inseminator services now provided by the Boards will no longer be able to operate. The small man who cannot afford to keep a flask of semen or the time to learn how to do the job himself will suffer. I hope that hon. Members will take note of that when they vote.
We had to listen to many irrelevances from the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). These regulations in no way seek to stop the private cattle breeders using their own bulls to establish breeds, as was done by the gentleman of whom the right hon. Member spoke. But I wonder whether the Minister has made the regulations tight enough. Has he given thought to the practice that is becoming prevalent of the syndication of the ownership of bulls and certain breeding cows? It is in everyone's interest that the regulations are tight.
1706
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said that doing away with the licensing of bulls was not a retrograde step. I cannot agree. He and I know that immediately after the licensing regulations were withdrawn we saw cross-bred bulls of all kinds being used on farms throughout the country. There are very few of those cross-bred bulls left now, because within two years we saw a hotch-potch of animals coming through the markets from them. We saw the 57 varieties taking over. These cross-bred bulls quickly disappeared as the farmers found that they could not put an even bunch of cattle on the market. I should not like to see the same thing happen to the AI service, where anyone can do as he pleases. I therefore ask the House to reject the Prayer and support the regulations.
12.45 a.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I must declare an interest as a farmer, and I want to ask the Minister some questions. I am in favour of the regulations, although I have some reservations about the livestock quality control side of them. That is a very important subject, and the Minister must look into it again. The problem must be decided in terms of what is a fair balance between the needs of the DIY AI service and the needs of the majority of farmers who still require an economic inseminator service. It is a question of finding a balance between freedom and the whole system that we have grown up with—a service that is giving an economic service to farmers, many of whom are small farmers. That is the problem to which we should be applying ourselves. On balance, I say that these regulations represent a fair compromise between the two.
We must bear in mind the economic case. At present, throughout the country, in the remoter areas as well as in the heavily populated ones, farmers have a first-class service of the highest quality, with semen from the best bulls. I do not want that to be destroyed, and those who talk glibly about freedom should think carefully before they destroy a system that has been so good and has seen such great achievements in the past, built up by the Milk Marketing Board.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Why is it that the Friesian herd in this country, compared with the Friesian herds in Holland,

1707
Canada and other countries where there are no controls, is dropping behind? The improvement has been much greater where there is no control.
Mr. Mills: I do not accept that.
The other problem is that of monopoly. I can understand people being concerned about the monopoly situation, but we must be consistent. In the collection and sale of milk we are prepared to accept a monopoly situation that is of great benefit to the consumer and the producer. I believe that in view of the very real problem of disease we should accept the monopoly position of the Milk Marketing Board. In farming, we have a monopoly situation in the veterinary service. We cannot buy penicillin or terramycin freely; we have to accept a monopoly situation. What about the sale of sugar beet? That is a monopoly situation. A similar situation exists in respect of the inspection of meat and with the Wool Board. All these are for the benefit of the farming community as a whole, and I do not think that we shall be inconsistent.
As for the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and his Liberal attitude, I assure him that many small farmers in North and West Devon will be interested to hear about the Liberal position. It will be a great help in the extension of the Liberal cause.
The Milk Marketing Board is entirely controlled by farmers. It is composed of democratically-elected farmers. The regional committees set up with democratically-elected people. The way in which the Board is run is decided by the farmers. That is what they want. I can understand those who are keen to see the monopoly broken, but we must accept the position and realise what benefits have accrued.
Lastly, there is the problem of disease. I fear very much that if we had "cowboy" operators—and that is possible—anybody who was willing to take short cuts and to save money in this business might be tempted to do so. The dangers of VD in our cattle are very great. When I think of the record that we have had for many years—a record of disease-free herds—I for one as a farmer do not want to see the problem of VD in cattle grow and grow. I suggest that those who want
1708
complete freedom in this matter should carefully consider the problem of disease, and its possible effects. That possibility cannot be dismissed.
I believe that these matters should be examined frequently because the situation does not stand still. Therefore, I hope that we can have assurance that the Minister will re-examine the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was right to raise this important matter, and I agree that its importance should be stressed.
12.50 a.m.
Mr. Hector Monro: This has been a most unhappy affair and has arisen because of a lamentable failure of public relations on the part of the Ministry. I hope that in his reply the Minister will make amends by explaining that the regulations are not quite as restrictive as some hon. Members have come to believe.
The point has already been well made that we have had a successful AI system basically through the Milk Marketing Board, and it is a system that is available in remote areas. I have made use of the system, as have many of my farming friends on their farms, and it has undoubtedly been successful.
I hope that the service will continue wherever possible in Scotland and, where the MMB cannot compete effectively, through the DIY AI service, which I hope will be given a special licence to operate. On the one hand we have the Milk Marketing Board's excellent service, and on the other hand there are the activities of the independent associations who have made their points most effectively in letters to hon. Members. We must try to reach a balanced judgment, and the NFU in Scotland believes that on the whole it is better to support the regulations.
12.52 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I am glad that the House has this opportunity to debate the Artificial Insemination of Cattle Regulations. There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about the content and scope of these regulations. It is fair to say that throughout the industry much of that misunderstanding has been corrected, but, regretfully, some

1709
of it still exists among some hon. Members, and I shall seek to correct some of it.
I do not need to remind the House of the importance of artificial insemination to the livestock industry, especially to our dairy herds. About two-thirds of all inseminations in Britain are now carried out by AI. Equally, it is generally agreed that the control of AI, from both the genetic and the animal disease standpoint, has been necessary and continues to be so. Since AI first became a commercial proposition in the 1940s, we have seen it develop into the sophisticated techniques that now exist. The 1957 regulations, which have been revoked by these regulations, were made at the time when the present practice of using deep-frozen semen was in its infancy. Quite apart from the issue of DIY AI, new regulations were needed to reflect the technical progress made in the last 20 years.
Because time is limited in this debate, I shall address myself to three main points mentioned by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, and the points raised by the National Cattle Breeders Association and the NFU of England and Wales. First, I wish to deal with the subject of the genetic and veterinary quality controls applied to the use of bulls in AI. I must reiterate that the regulations will not alter these quality controls.
As the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) indicated, there was considerable misunderstanding at the outset—but that was not because of anything that I said in my answer in the House on 27th July. If the hon. Member reads Hansard of that day, he will find that I made clear that DIY AI had a real role to play, and I explained that role.
In response to the views expressed by the National Cattle Breeders Association, I said that we proposed to institute a comprehensive review of these standards in consultation with all the interested organisations. This review has already begun and the team of officials of my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, under the chairmanship of the Director-General of ADAS, has already had discussions with some interested organisations. This round of discussions is likely
1710
to be substantially completed by the end of the month, but it is quite likely that there will have to be further discussions before the results of the reviews can be put to Ministers, and we must think in terms of the results of the review being announced early in the new year rather than before Christmas.
This is a difficult and complicated subject, and I am sure that no one would wish us to reach over-hasty conclusions. The selection of bulls for use in AI, whether at Government level, breeder organisation level or the level of the individual farmer, is a matter of great significance for the future of the British livestock industry. The Government's aim, therefore, must be to ensure as far as possible that it makes the best contribution to the overall process of making, selection as efficient as possible.
I recognise that there is a balance to be drawn between the testing of as many bulls as possible and the fact that the resources available for progeny testing are limited. We must strike a balance between the maximum evaluation of new bulls on recorded females and at the same time ensure that we are not reducing the efficiency of the progeny-testing schemes and, furthermore, not reducing the average performance level of bulls used extensively through the whole industry and thus reducing the rate of progress. I assure the House that we are taking serious account of the views of individual breeders, of societies and of the National Cattle Breeders Association.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely the 1957 regulations could equally have allowed increased progeny testing. There is no improvement in these regulations.
Mr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that under existing regulations private DIY AI breeders are not able to use semen from bulls—some are very good bulls—held at AI centres. That, among other things, is what we are talking about when we refer to the loophole. Clearly, those who drafted the 1957 regulations had not anticipated DIY AI, or they would not have framed them in such a way.
This is a new restriction, ensuring that the semen must be distributed in future through a national network and not just through the Milk Marketing Boards. However, we are providing some additional freedom to DIY AI. Farmers will

1711
be able to use the best and privately-owned bulls at the AI centres.
I want to refer to the number of straws that an individual farmer can hold in his farm storage unit. It must be accepted that by permitting the storage of semen on individual farms we are running a risk which is effectively absent with the inseminator service. This risk arises out of the possibility that that some of the semen may be passed on to other farmers for use on their cows. That in itself could, in certain circumstances, result in some spread of disease, and that hazard would be magnified if no records, or inadequate records, were kept of the use of this semen.
In view of these considerations, it has seemed to the Government that we should seek to minimise the risk by ensuring that farmers who have their own flasks are not holding more semen in them than they require for the proper running of their own business.
The question has been, where should we fix the limit? In England and Wales the regulations provide for the limit to be the equivalent of twice the number of breeding cows and heifers on the farm. In Scotland, where the general picture is perhaps of more difficult geographical conditions and rather more remote farms, the limit is fixed at three times the number of breeding cows and heifers. It has been strongly represented to me—by the National Farmers Union, the National Cattle Breeders Association and by the right hon. Member for Yeovil—that the limit for England and Wales should be raised to three times the number of breeding cows and heifers, as it is in Scotland.
I have accordingly consulted the other interested organisations about this proposal. The majority view favours an increase to three times the number of cows and heifers, and after considering the matter I have decided it would be right to amend the regulations in this sense. In reaching this decision I am aware that two of the organisations consulted, the Associated AI Centres and the British Veterinary Association, are not in favour of this change and consider that the regulations should not be altered on this point. I believe, however, that an increase to three times would not create an unacceptable risk of abuse and is
1712
justified in the light of the majority opinion expressed.
I turn to the third point concerning the review of the regulations. We spend a great deal of time endeavouring to get the balance right on these regulations, but I am glad to give the right hon. Member for Yeovil the assurance that we shall have a look at these regulations and watch them closely, including how they cope with the situation. Certainly we do not claim infallibility, and we shall be prepared to bring forward amendments, in consultation with the existing organisations, to seek to correct difficulties which come to light as all concerned get practical experience of the regulations as they work. The change we have made tonight is an indication of this flexibility.
Let me come to the heart of the matter. I welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), because at least he stated the position clearly. He is against the milk boards—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
Motion made,
That the Standing Order of 22nd November 1974 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration be amended, by leaving out Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke and inserting Mr. Ian Gow.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Hon. Members: Object.

NON-CONTRIBUTORY INVALIDITY PENSION SCHEME
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
1.2 a.m.
Mr. Michael Mates: I am glad to have the opportunity at this late hour to raise on the Adjournment a matter which has led to items appearing in the Press recently which have caused a great deal of national interest. It is a good thing that we should have a chance of airing the matter in the House.
Before I come to my criticisms of the way in which the scheme for invalidity benefit for disabled housewives is

1713
being operated, I wish to say how much I approve of the way in which it has been introduced.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing a whole new benefit to an area where there was none before. He has broken new ground and has given money to people who need it more badly than almost anyone else. I am referring to disabled housewives who have never been able to work, have never been able to contribute to a pension and have even been unable to cope with the day-to-day work in their homes.
Having said that, it is amazing how, the moment one of these new benefits is introduced, it seems that a vast army of bureaucrats begins to decide who cannot benefit. It is amazing how the rules can be made to exclude as many as possible. That in itself is not a crime, because we all have a responsibility to be careful about what is done with public money, but when introducing benefits for the disabled I believe that the other criterion should apply. Surely bureaucracy should try to include as many as possible.
A constituent of mine, a Mrs. Palliser, found that she was in every way qualified to receive the benefit. She is in an advanced state of multiple sclerosis and is confined to her house. The only way that she can get out is in her wheelchair and invalid car. But for once she was given a break from the routine. She was given the holiday of a lifetime by her son. She saw her family in Canada for the first and doubtless the only time in her life. When she returned, she found that because she had been absent from the United Kingdom on holiday for two weeks she did not meet the residence qualification that would allow her to draw the benefit. As matters stand, she will suffer to the extent of about £80 or £90 because she does not qualify to draw the benefit until January or February next year.
I have raised only one case, but enough publicity has been given to the matter to cause a number of other cases to come to the fore. Another lady in my constituency has applied for the allowance. She has been disabled since the onset of polio 25 years ago. She can walk only with difficulty. She can do so only with sticks. She spent a week in Bel
1714
gium in August. She took her wheelchair. She does not qualify.
Another lady has written to me from Belfast. She went to Lourdes to take a faith cure on the instruction of her doctor. She was out of the country for 14 days in July. She does not qualify. It has been reported to me that there are about 60 other cases.
When I wrote to the Department of Health and Social Security at Portsmouth I could not believe that the regulation was being correctly applied. The reply from Portsmouth was to the effect that it was being correctly applied and that the office had received approximately 60 claims that appeared to be due for disallowance. To be fair to the Portsmouth office, those claims have not yet been disallowed. The lady in Northern Ireland however, has had information disallowing, the allowance.
Something must be done about this. I appreciate that anomalies will arise on the introduction of a new allowance, but the allowance in question is only an extension of the non-contributory invalidity pension, which was started some time ago and was payable to all except disabled housewives.
It is all wrong, but leaflet NI214 of June 1977 is all too clear. It states that the person concerned must have been
"in the United Kingdom … or the Isle of Man for the whole of the 28 weeks' qualifying period: periods of incapacity abroad do not count."
That is the ground on which the allowance is being disallowed.
In the non-contributory invalidity pension leaflet of June 1975, leaflet NI210, the situation appears to be quite different. Under the title "If you go abroad", the leaflet states:
"Generally you will be disqualified from receiving NCIP for any period of absence from the United Kingdom. In certain circumstances, however, it may be possible for you to continue to receive the benefit during a temporary overseas visit."
Why is there one rule for the NCIP and another for the housewife's NCIP? All that we have is an extension of the benefit that is payable to disabled housewives. The difference seems to be totally illogical, and I ask the Minister to provide an explanation.
I know that there is a case on this issue before the courts. That has happened because the national insurance

1715
commissioner has decided that the withholding of payment in a particular case was wrong. Why has the Department not accepted this?
In that case an independent commissioner, who has examined the matter, has come to the conclusion that although the officer concerned thought that he was acting within the regulations, in fact he was not. The commissioner has ordered that a payment which has been denied to a person who would have been in receipt of the non-contributory invalidity pension shall be paid. The Department, for reasons that I just do not understand, is appealing against this decision. At the root of this must be very heartless thinking. Surely the Department could with the best grace in the world, accept the decision of the independent commissioner and pay the allowance.
We are not talking about large sums. What we are talking about is bringing forward a date when people who are otherwise totally qualified to receive this benefit can do so but for the fact that they have spent a very short period abroad.
Once again, I do not want to oversimplify the matter. It must be complex. There must be repercussions of these decisions. However, it surely goes without saying that the first thing we need to provide, once a decision has been taken to give benefit, particularly to disabled people, is certainty to those concerned that they will get the benefit.
In this case the benefit should have been paid from a date last week—17th November, I believe. A large number of disabled housewives do not know whether they are to receive the benefit and, if they are to receive it, when they will get it. This uncertainty must be removed. Although this may be a complicated matter, although the Minister no doubt needs to look into the matter, and assuming that the legal challenge to which I have referred must proceed, in the meantime this very small number of disabled housewives should be told that they can receive the benefit.
The Minister may want to attach strings. He may want to say "without prejudice to the fact that I may have to withdraw part or all of the money afterwards."However, these people must not
1716
be left in this state—that is, not in receipt of the benefit to which they were told they would be entitled—and they must not be left in a state of uncertainty as to whether and when this benefit can be made available to them.
If the Minister is able to give me this assurance tonight I shall be very happy, as will be my constituent, and the Minister will be showing a positive attitude which officials, perhaps because of the constraints under which they must operate, have not been able to show.
Without wishing to implicate anybody, I wish to say that when I went to my local social security office to look into this question I went convinced that my constituent had the matter wrong. I was told that my constituent had the matter right. I have to say that all those who were involved in disallowing Mrs. Palliser's disability pension found the whole matter totally distasteful to them. They did not want to have to disallow the payment. They thought that it was quite contrary to the spirit in which the Act was drafted.
As it must be clear to us all that that was not intended, when we are trying to put in qualifications and caveats before we pay out public money, let us remember that it was never intended that a lady who went for a short, much-needed holiday abroad to get away from a very difficult home life should then be deprived of a benefit as a result. As this cannot have been in the minds of those who drafted the Social Security Act and the regulations concerned, surely the Minister has not only the power but the duty to see that it is put right quickly.
1.14 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) for providing this opportunity for the House to discuss our new non-contributory invalidity pension for married women, which is receivable for the first time this week.
There are inevitably, as with all new benefits, some points of criticism, but I believe that the House as a whole will accept that the introduction of this new benefit represents a further important step forward in helping severely disabled people. I am very grateful to the hon.

1717
Member for his generous comments in welcoming the new benefit.
New benefits bring new problems. They sometimes cause not only delight but also disappointment. As the hon. Member noted, they must of necessity exclude people as well as include people. This is one of the penalties of breaking new ground and introducing new benefits. But the difficulties we meet at the margin of entitlement should not discourage us from trying to provide new help for those in special need.
I have here a letter which may be of special interest to the House. It is from a very severely disabled lady, Ann Armstrong, who is known to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House as an editor of Responaut. Ann says in her letter to me:
"It is over 15 years since I first wrote on the 14th March 1962 iN The Guardian, 'Surely if we are to be kept alive through the dangerous period of having polio, then we must be eligible for a disability pension from the State to enable us to lead as near a normal life as possible.' Thanks to the HNCIP, from now on my life should be much nearer normal and I am most grateful to all concerned."
That is a very encouraging message. Ann is among the 46,000 claimants so far. Her letter should remind us that the new benefit has brought a great deal of delight as well as some disappointment.
The hon. Member raised in particular the case of his constituent Mrs Palliser, who has made a claim for the new benefit. I very much appreciate the hon. Member's concern about this case, and I am glad to say at the very outset that I will both urgently and sympathetically review the relevant provision as it relates to such cases as that of Mrs. Palliser so as to try to ensure that the specific difficulties which have been identified do not arise again.
Meanwhile, I shall be as helpful and constructive as I can in explaining to the House the regulations as they affect such cases as that of Mrs. Palliser. In so doing, I must very strongly emphasise that this is not a matter of red tape, as was suggested by one local newspaper last Friday. The issue is a complex one, involving both a legal problem and an issue of principle.
I think that it might be of help to hon. Members if I start by briefly reminding
1718
the House of the qualifying conditions for the benefit concerned. In order to qualify for the new benefit, a married woman must be of working age and must have been incapable both of her normal house hold duties and of paid work for a continuous period of 28 weeks. It is this latter condition, where the period of 28 weeks includes an absence abroad, which is the concern of the hon. Member. I must, therefore, explain the legal problem relating to this particular qualifying condition.
Mrs. Palliser's case and some other cases are affected by Regulation 4(2) of the Social Security (Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension) Regulations 1975. This regulation affects both men and single women who have claimed NCIP as well as those who have claimed its extension to married women. The effect of the regulation is that, in deciding whether a person has been incapable of work for 28 consecutive weeks, any day on which the person was absent from the United Kingdom breaks that continuous period.
In a similar case to Mrs. Palliser's, the national insurance commissioner has held that Regulation 4(2) is ultra vires. The insurance officer concerned—acting as a completely independent authority—sought legal advice in that case. I understand that the advice given to him was that the commissioner's decision was wrong in law.
In order to put the matter beyond doubt, leave to apply for an order of certiorari has been granted to the insurance officer by the High Court. I understand that the matter is likely to be considered by the court sometime in January. To that extent the matter is sub judice. This being so, I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that until insurance officers are clear as to the interpretation of the law it is impossible for them to decide claims for periods when persons have been absent from the United Kingdom during the qualifying period.
I must stress again to the House that insurance officers are independent adjudicating authorities, and neither the Secretary of State nor I can intervene in their decisions. It is, however, my clear understanding that, in cases such as that of Mrs. Palliser, an insurance officer is likely to be able to make an award, providing her with this new maintenance

1719
benefit in her own right 28 weeks after the return of the claimant to the United Kingdom, if the qualifying conditions are satisfied during that period.
I repeat that it is an insurance officer who is seeking the order of certiorari from the courts. Again, it is an insurance officer who will decide whether any particular person, including Mrs. Palliser, is entitled to this new benefit. No Minister has any power to intervene in the actions of an insurance officer.
The hon. Gentleman asked me why my Department had not accepted the ruling of an independent commissioner. It is the insurance officer who has not accepted the ruling. It is the insurance officer who is seeking the order of certiorari from the courts.
Mr. Mates: Is this without the advice or consent of the Minister's Department?
Mr. Morris: Under the law the insurance officer is an independent adjudicating officer. He has the power to appeal. He is exercising his power in the case to which I referred.
Mr. Mates: Yes, but the Minister has not answered my question. Has the insurance officer taken this action with or without the advice and consent of the Department?
Mr. Morris: No Minister has any power to intervene in the actions of an insurance officer. The reply, therefore, is that we have no power to stop the insurance officer taking this course. If the hon. Gentleman would like to ask me any further question, I shall endeavour to deal with it.
Mr. Mates: Is the insurance officer doing this against or with the wishes of the Minister? An insurance officer who is a member of the Minister's Department may say that the commissioner has decided against him and that he is minded to appeal or otherwise. The Minister has a battery of legal advice available to him.
Mr. Morris: This is a very important point. I have emphasised on more than one occasion in my speech that the insurance officer is an independent adjudicating authority. I have said again that no Minister has any power to intervene in the actions of an insurance officer. It is not, therefore, for us to take the
1720
kind of action suggested in the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman. He asked why my Department had not accepted the ruling of an independent commissioner. I have explained the situation as fully as I possibly can. As I have said, it will be the insurance officer who will decide whether any particular person, including Mrs. Palliser, is entitled to this new benefit.
I promised earlier to deal also with the issue of principle involved in this qualifying condition, and I turn to that now. As the House knows, before anyone can be entitled to contributory invalidity benefit he must have paid the appropriate contributions and previously have been entitled to sickness benefit for 28 weeks. That "buys him in", as it were. For non-contributory invalidity pension, which is financed from general taxation rather than contributions, the parallel tests are residence and presence in the United Kingdom—instead of actual contributions paid—and continuous incapacity of 28 weeks' duration. Many would argue that it would be entirely unacceptable to have easier rules for the non-contributory invalidity pension than for the contributory invalidity benefit.
The House will hardly need reminding that NCIP for married women is, of course, an extension of the ordinary non-contributory invalidity pension, which, in turn is the counterpart of the contributory invalidity benefit. This is one difficulty in making—as the hon. Member clearly wants us to make—a special case of NCIP for married women and allowing a different qualifying period to be served from that which recipients of the other benefits have to serve.
Mr. Mates: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman of my earlier question. Why are the two pamphlets different? This is roughtly the same pension. One pamphlet contains one set of rules, and the other contains different rules. It is easier for the housewife who is not disabled, because she is not subject to the business of the short absence abroad.
Mr. Morris: I have to proceed as quickly as I can because there are other matters with which I want to deal, but on the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman I think that the difference is more apparent than real. The point is that once

1721
a benefit has been obtained there is the possibility of discretion about continuing the payment if the beneficiary is abroad for a period of time. In Mrs. Palliser's case—and in others, too—we are talking about qualifying for the first time. This is a complicated matter, and I am prepared to contact the hon. Gentleman further on this aspect of it.
To have no restrictions as to absence abroad during the 28-week period would lay us open to the further charge that we are opening the door to fraud and abuse. In many countries acceptable evidence of incapacity may be obtainable, but we would have to concede that in other countries, with different social systems from our own, very little weight could properly be given to some of the medical evidence produced. I entirely appreciate the importance of striking the right balance between humanity and common sense in dealing with cases of this kind, but until we have a ruling from the courts on the effect of the law as it stands at present it would be imprudent to go further than that at this stage. As I have already assured the House, when the law is clearer I shall both urgently and sympathetically review the relevant provisions to try to ensure that the specific difficulties which have been identified do not arise again. I shall do that with all that the hon. Gentleman has said very much in mind.
There is still need, however, for a further cautionary note. All of us must accept that any new scheme on this scale—and it will cover tens of thousands of new beneficiaries—must operate within broad general rules. This is necessary not only so that the public can understand the scheme but because a scheme that is too complicated has less chance of being properly operated by the often very hard-pressed staff in our social security offices. I noted with pleasure the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to those who work in the Portsmouth office. As I said at the outset, it must also be accepted that, when any new benefit is introduced, the clearly defined qualifying conditions which must be drawn inevitably exclude some people who feel that they have a valid entitlement but do not satisfy the qualifying conditions.
Having explained to the House as fully as I can the general problem, I should
1722
like to return to the case that prompted this debate. Naturally, I have much sympathy with Mrs. Palliser's claim. I understand that she suffers from multiple sclerosis and made a claim for the new benefit in September of this year. I understand further that Mrs. Palliser was in Canada during part of the 28-week run-up period before NCIP for married women was introduced on 17th November.
The hon. Member for Petersfield has been advised that no decision can be made on Mrs. Palliser's case from 17th November 1977 to 9th January 1978, when the 28-week qualifying period will have been completed. Thereafter, Mrs. Palliser is likely to be entitled to the benefit from 10th January 1978. As to the intervening period, the decision of the insurance officer must, of course, await the outcome of the certiorari application.
I should like now to set the introduction of the non-contributory invalidity pension for married women in the context of all the improvements we have made in social security provision for disabled people and their families.
In September 1974, we presented our report to this House on our review of social security provision for chronically sick and disabled people. It was published as House of Commons Paper 276. The report argued that there were substantial gaps in the social security provision for disabled people but that the situation could not be wholly remedied by any single and immediate set of measures. It also recognised that it takes time to identify the groups who should qualify for new benefits and that it was important to set out priorities against the background of the very difficult economic situation we faced.
One of the shortcomings highlighted in the report was the position of those who, through no fault of their own, had not paid the necessary national insurance contributions to qualify them for sickness benefit and thus could not qualify for contributory invalidity benefit. We decided that this had to be remedied.
In setting out our immediate proposals for social security changes, we were guided by the following principles:
"First, better provision for the severely disabled must come before further provision for the less severely disabled.

1723
Second, benefits for those who cannot work should take priority over further provision for those who can, as the loss of the ability to earn is stark, overwhelming and readily identifiable.
Third, those of working age who would be at work but for long-standing incapacity should have the right to a benefit without test of means.
Fourth, those who relieve the social services and sacrifice work opportunities to look after people at home who are severely disabled should be provided with a benefit as of right."
Those four principles had then to be translated into specific benefits. The first such benefit, which we introduced in November 1975, was the non-contributory invalidity pension for men and single women who were incapable of work. This was in fact the non-contributory counter
1724
part, although of different amount, of the contributory invalidity benefit. In 1976, we introduced the invalid care allowance for those who were regularly and substantially engaged, for at least 35 hours a week, in providing care for a severely disabled relative receiving attendance allowance. This year, we completed the concrete proposals—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef
  Beef
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  LORD ADVOCATE (APPOINTMENTS)
  LORD ADVOCATE (APPOINTMENTS)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (RESPONSIBILITIES)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (RESPONSIBILITIES)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Political Parties (Financial Aid)
  Political Parties (Financial Aid)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Overseas Visits
  Overseas Visits
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Caravans
  Caravans
INDUSTRY
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Business Statistics Office
  Business Statistics Office
TRADE
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Retail Trading (Inquiry)
  Retail Trading (Inquiry)
EMPLOYMENT
  Pottery
  Pottery
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Ananda Marga Sect and Job Creation
  Ananda Marga Sect and Job Creation
  Thanet
  Thanet
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Women's Training
  Women's Training
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Child Custody
  Child Custody
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.
  Departmental Abbreviations
  Departmental Abbreviations
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Construction Industry (Tax Exemption Certificates)
  Construction Industry (Tax Exemption Certificates)
  Tax Yield
  Tax Yield
  Treasury Staff (Pay)
  Treasury Staff (Pay)
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
SCOTLAND
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Westray Pier
  Westray Pier
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Alimony Payments
  Alimony Payments
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Children and Young Persons Act 1963
  Children and Young Persons Act 1963
  Departmental Abbreviations
  Departmental Abbreviations
  Ormskirk Hospital (Waiting List)
  Ormskirk Hospital (Waiting List)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Suicide and Attempted Suicide Cases
  Suicide and Attempted Suicide Cases
  Unemployment Benefit (Seasonal Workers)
  Unemployment Benefit (Seasonal Workers)
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Population Census
  Population Census
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Indonesia (Detainees)
  Indonesia (Detainees)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Southern Africa
  Southern Africa
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Secretary of State (Photographs)
  Secretary of State (Photographs)
  Egyptian Compensation Order
  Egyptian Compensation Order
  Gan
  Gan
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Finance)
  Universities (Finance)
  Departmental Abbreviations
  Departmental Abbreviations
  Truancy
  Truancy
ENERGY
  Oil and Gas (Continental Shelf)
  Oil and Gas (Continental Shelf)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Supplies
  Supplies
  Oil Production Licences
  Oil Production Licences
  Gas Flaring (Brent Field)
  Gas Flaring (Brent Field)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Centre for Overseas Pest Research
  Centre for Overseas Pest Research
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  British Voluntary Agencies (Grants)
  British Voluntary Agencies (Grants)
  Plunkett Foundation for Co-operative Studies
  Plunkett Foundation for Co-operative Studies
  Tourism
  Tourism
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Housing
  Housing
TRANSPORT
  Epping (Traffic)
  Epping (Traffic)
  Motor Vehicle Drivers (Medical Certificates)
  Motor Vehicle Drivers (Medical Certificates)
  A419/A345 (Groundwell Corner)
  A419/A345 (Groundwell Corner)
  Road Building and Maintenance
  Road Building and Maintenance
  Railways (Personnel)
  Railways (Personnel)
  Steel Coil
  Steel Coil
  Driving Speeds
  Driving Speeds
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
ENVIRONMENT
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council
  Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council
  Local Government Finance (Consultative Council)
  Local Government Finance (Consultative Council)
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Industrial Premises
  Industrial Premises
  Electricity (Central Heating)
  Electricity (Central Heating)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  New Towns (Transfer of Assets)
  New Towns (Transfer of Assets)
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Floods
  Floods
  Development Commission
  Development Commission
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Tenants' Charter
  Tenants' Charter
  Rates (Arrears)
  Rates (Arrears)
  Dogs (Working Party's Report)
  Dogs (Working Party's Report)
  Parish Boundaries
  Parish Boundaries
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Housing Consultative Council
  Housing Consultative Council
  Residential Development (Planning Appeals)
  Residential Development (Planning Appeals)
  Housing (Lancashire)
  Housing (Lancashire)
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Housing Policy
  Housing Policy
  Brent
  Brent
  House Building Programme
  House Building Programme
  Housing Schemes (Density Levels)
  Housing Schemes (Density Levels)
  Partnership Agreements
  Partnership Agreements
  Pollution (Control)
  Pollution (Control)
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Housing (Manchester)
  Housing (Manchester)
  Birmingham (Employment)
  Birmingham (Employment)
  New Towns (Tenants' House Purchase)
  New Towns (Tenants' House Purchase)
  Solar Panels
  Solar Panels
  Local Authorities (Accounts)
  Local Authorities (Accounts)
  Sandwell
  Sandwell
  Whitstable (Sea Defences)
  Whitstable (Sea Defences)
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Broad Sanctuary (Site)
  Broad Sanctuary (Site)
  Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission
  Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission
  Planning (Staffs)
  Planning (Staffs)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Skateboarding
  Skateboarding
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Rents
  Rents
  Sports (Sponsorship)
  Sports (Sponsorship)
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Local Authority Lands
  Local Authority Lands
  Leaseholds
  Leaseholds
  Sewerage Charges
  Sewerage Charges
  Whitehall
  Whitehall
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Ports and Rivers (Dredging)
  Ports and Rivers (Dredging)
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
DEFENCE
  Coastguarder and Nimrod Aircraft
  Coastguarder and Nimrod Aircraft
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Pensions (Commonwealth Service)
  Pensions (Commonwealth Service)
  Fire Brigades (Substitution)
  Fire Brigades (Substitution)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO
Graham Douglas, Lord Bishop of Truro—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.41 p.m.
Lord MACLEAN: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

IRANIAN NAVY: NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 it is true that the object of the visit of the nuclear-powered submarine "Dreadnought" to Iran is to co-operate in the incorporation of nuclear-powered submarines in the Iranian navy and whether a Royal Navy hydrographic team has been surveying the Gulf for this purpose.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: The answer is, No, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the defence correspondent of The Times made these
848
statements in some detail? Is it not therefore necessary for Her Majesty's Government to deny the statement with more than the one word which the Minister has used?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My noble friend obviously believes what he reads in newspapers. I do not think there is anything more absolute than the word, "No".

INDIAN OCEAN: JOINT MARITIME EXERCISES
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether vessels of the Royal Navy are to participate in a joint maritime exercise in the Indian Ocean and, if so, what other navies are participating.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, ships of a Royal Navy Task Group have just taken part in a joint maritime exercise in the Indian Ocean with our CENTO allies. As well as the Royal Navy, the navies of the United States, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan were involved. The Task Group is shortly due to conduct exercises with the United States and Australian navies as it crosses the Indian Ocean en route for the Far East and Australia.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not this action rather provocative? In view of the statement made by the President of the United States of America that he is in favour of the demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean and is prepared to undertake substantial withdrawals from Diego Garcia, would it not be better for Her Majesty's Government to be supporting those proposals?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am simply not here to answer for the President of the United States of America; I can only answer for Her Majesty's Government.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Australia has now supported the demilitarisation of the

849
Indian Ocean, and that every nation surrounding the Indian Ocean is now supporting that proposal?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, so far as I understand the position, the Australian Government are anxious to exercise with the Royal Navy.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord give us the figures for the growth of the USSR navy in the Indian Ocean in the recent decade? Has there been any suggestion on their part that they should start withdrawing ships after they have built up this very considerable strength?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another, but relevant, question.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that so long as the Russians are making themselves felt in the Indian Ocean it would be silly for us to withdraw?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Lord also aware that the charge against the Soviet Union's strength was that they had a base in Somaliland? In view of the fact that the Russians have now been excluded from Somaliland, does that charge not disappear?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is not within my brief, but they have other bases.

LAW OF COPYRIGHT
2.47 p.m.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: 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 progress has been made following the undertaking by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 12th November 1975 that consideration would be given to proposing an amendment to the law of copyright with particular reference to the publication of plans in connection with planning applications.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Whitford was set up in 1974 to examine the law of copyright and reported earlier this year to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade. He is now undertaking consultations on the report with a view to making proposals for amendment to the law.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that it is quite unacceptable for the Press to be denied the right to publish photographs of designs of proposed new buildings for which planning application is being made, as, for example, the proposed new building in Piccadilly Circus; and does this not make complete nonsense of the whole principle of public participation in planning which has been so strongly supported by successive Governments?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Department of the Environment would have preferred a clearer recommendation which allows all the documents and plans relating to planning applications and appeals to be copied not only when a local inquiry is held but also in the exercise by the local authority or by the Secretary of State of their functions under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. But the Whitford Report, which is the property of the Department of Trade, contains some 200 pages of very close print and there is only one paragraph in that report which refers to this particular aspect. We have made our comments to the Department of Trade, and we now have to await the Minister's findings on the report as a whole, once he has completed all his consultations.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, though I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, since the Minister has—as previously stated in my Question—specifically drawn attention to the necessity to amend the law in this particular respect, may we not ask that the law should be amended without waiting for the complete overhaul of all the complicated procedures of copyright?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my understanding is that we must wait for consultations on the Whitford Report by

851
the Department of Trade. The Department of the Environment has made its representations to the Department of Trade and we hope that before long the latter will have issued its findings on the report.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, my question was whether this particular and rather simple aspect of the whole problem of copyright might not perhaps be dealt with separately.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my understanding is that it is not quite so simple as that and that we have to deal with the whole thing in one go and not piecemeal.

HARE COURSING
2.49 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: 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 when they propose to reintroduce the Hare Coursing Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: At a suitable opportunity, my Lords.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I discern a note of reassurance in that reply, and does he think that the suitable opportunity might be brought forward a little if a Bill were introduced by a Private Member in either House?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech because the Queen's Speech included only items for which the Government felt they could find time. But I ought to say that the Government are committed to legislation on this matter, and I think I can say that there is a Bill available if any Member of your Lordships' House or another place cares to use it as a Private Member's Bill.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION BILLS
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Jacques, L.

Keith of Kinkel, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lyell, L.

Meston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Nathan, L.

Russell of Killowen, L.

Selkirk, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CPRS "REVIEW OF OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION"
2.51 p.m.
Lord BALLANTRAE Lord BALLANTRAE rose to call attention to the Central Policy Review Staff's Review of Overseas Representation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to call attention to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and to move for Papers. The Central Policy Review Staff's Review of Overseas Representation, better known as the Berrill Report, took a very long time to gestate; and no gestation in my experience has ever been accompanied by more speculation as to the likelihood of the eventual progeny turning out to be a monster. I incline to the view that that is what it has done. I do not remember how many heads the classical many-headed monster Hydra

853
had, but the Berrill Report has 21 chapters, 19 annexes, 442 pages and some very odd ideas.
It is impossible to deal with such a vast document in one debate, let alone in one speech. There are really three bodies under review: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (with which is bracketed the Diplomatic Service), the BBC Special External Services, and the British Council. I propose to speak primarily about the British Council, of which I had the honour, privilege and happiness to be chairman for four years up until 11 months ago, and to leave other noble Lords to deal with the other matters contained in the Review. But I would first make a few remarks about the Review in general. No body, certainly not the FCO, and certainly not the BBC, and certainly not the British Council, should have anything to fear or to hide from a responsible review of its aims, its structure, or its activities; in fact they should welcome it with its possibility of new and helpful and constructive ideas; so long as it is not a case, to use a familiar simile, of continually pulling up the plant to see how the thing is growing. There is no harm at all in carrying out, so far as you can, the impossible advice of the Irish drill sergeant who said, "Take a step out of the ranks and have a look at yourself". But I am sorry to say that this report, which I have studied with care and at great length, seems to me to have so many blemishes as to detract almost fatally from its value.
The worst feature of all is the miserably minor key in which it is set, the defeatist motif which runs through the whole thing. As early as in paragraph 4 of the summary it says:
"Inevitably the United Kingdom's ability to influence events in the world has declined, and there is very little that diplomatic activity and international relations can do to disguise the fact".
Fair enough. It is very much in line with the probably apocryphal Chinese advice that if you are being raped you should relax and enjoy it. That statement—I do not mean the Chinese advice but the statement which led me to quote it—is printed on page ix of the Review, at the beginning of the document, long before we even get to the 442 pages of the document proper. Most of the rest of the
854
Review reads like a prescription for succumbing to this dismal diagnosis.
I do assure your Lordships, from my own recent experience, of my conviction that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Diplomatic Service are nothing like so black as they are painted in this Review, or so grimy as their buildings have been described lately in the august correspondence columns of The Times. I have had dealings with the Diplomatic Service for more than 40 years, originally on the periphery but later nearer to the centre. I will concede that among the paladins of the past there may have been some whose patrician presence might seem inappropriate today, and who might perhaps confer a slight smell of mothballs; but for the most part they did us wonderfully well in their time. There is no virtue whatever in iconoclasm for iconoclasm's sake.
During my four years as chairman of the British Council I visited 36 countries, of which 30 were already familiar to me from previous incarnations; and I would respectfully testify—it sounds an awful cheek, but I would respectfully testify—that our diplomatic representation at all levels, as I saw it, is on the whole marvellously up to date. Such stuffiness as may in the past have existed occasionally—and only occasionally—has disappeared without trace. Our diplomacy has adjusted itself to the new conditions of our day and kept up with the march of time. Better still, it is continually focussing on the years that lie ahead, without loss of dignity, without loss of prestige, and, above all, without that spirit of defeatism which seems to me to run through this whole Review.
I turn to the British Council. Here we have a body which started in 1934 with a modest budget of £5,000 a year, and with a tiny nucleus of staff which was then admittedly only feeling its way. Now it has a budget of close on £60 million, of which about half is money which it administers on behalf of the Ministry of Overseas Development; it has a permanent staff (excluding people such as teachers and other experts who are on contract, and the many indigenous people recruited overseas) of about 2,000—and I am including in that figure of 2,000 people like drivers, typists, receptionists and so on. It is a very modest staff. It has 43 years of unrivalled experience in close

855
on 80 countries. Its actual earnings next year alone for its services, will be just on £17 million, as opposed to £3 million a couple of years ago. It handles over 5,000 foreign trainees in this country every year, coming from all over the world.
It runs over 130 libraries of British books overseas and is closely concerned with 40 others. From those libraries last year alone 6½ million books were borrowed, mostly by teachers, students, scientists and technologists of all kinds. In India, in Nigeria, in South America, in the Persian Gulf, I have seen crowds of people queueing up outside these libraries before opening time, like people queueing up outside pubs in Glasgow at opening time, and I have seen eager students all over the world queueing up in just the same way at the various language laboratories. Last year 25,000 visitors came to this country under the auspices of the British Council, ranging from Cabinet Ministers coming for a week to professors or administrators or students coming for longer periods. And there is a constant stream of expert visitors going overseas at the request of foreign countries, for lecture tours or for longer; surgeons, physicians, experts in tropical diseases, experts in irrigation, vets, administrators, engineers, educationists, technologists of all sorts. That is quite apart from the volume of teachers, at all levels, and in all subjects, recruited by the Council for terms of service, long or short, in countries comfortable and uncomfortable, hot and cold, safe and dangerous and in varying stages of development.
The richer countries pay willingly for these services, thus subsidising the developing countries which cannot, as yet, afford to pay their own way. I do not believe that, in any of the many countries that I visited, there was a single one in which I was not asked for more. Before my appointment I had seen the work of the Council only from outside. The more I saw of it, the more I was staggered by its range, and the more I admired it. I continued to be astonished by its mammoth prestige overseas—and, let me add in all modesty, the prestige which rubbed off on to me personally purely because I was its chairman. I was almost always received by the Foreign Minister as well as the Education Minister, and usually
856
by the Prime Minister and the Head of State as well.
By contrast, the ignorance in Britain concerning the British Council was a continual source of bafflement to me. If the Review has done nothing else, it has drawn more attention in Britain to the Council and its work than it has had for many a long day; and elicited many tributes to that work from distinguished people with knowledge and experience of the Council whose status and reputation nobody could possibly gainsay. However, make no mistake about it, the Review has done harm as well, in three respects at least. It has undermined morale in all the three Services about which it has pronounced. It has not quite dried up, but it has enormously discouraged, recruiting. Moreover to the astonishment of our friends and our enemies, it has trumpeted abroad that defeatism which I have already mentioned.
Let us return to the bright side. It used to be said that "Trade follows the Flag". I could make out quite a good case nowadays for saying that "Trade follows the British Council". Let us take a few examples. It has just helped to establish a College of Nautical Studies in Iran, a contract which was worth £640,000, and which will almost certainly be followed by extensive orders for further construction and equipment; and training programmes in Britain for hospital administrators from Kuwait, civil servants from Oman and Merchant Navy cadets from Iran. Added together, the contracts to date will tot up to just under £250,000. Four contracts, three of them educational, and two of them already signed, have been under discussion with Egypt these past few months, worth over £1 million. Contracts worth £3 million are running in Saudi Arabia, and others under discussion concern £2 million. The alphabetical list which I saw the other day began with Afghanistan and ended with Venezuela.
These operations are really just priming the pump. It stands to reason that if you have had your technical or any other education in Britain or under British auspices, you tend to follow it up. You place your future orders with Britain, you send your future students to Britain; unless, of course, you are dissatisfied with what you yourself have received from Britain. If the "expertise"—that foul

857
word—is good, and if you make friends, you stand by what you yourself enjoyed and benefited from. The "spin-off"—another foul, but useful term—can be almost without limit.
I would not build my case primarily on these sordid financial considerations, although I rejoice in them in so far as they refute the innuendo that the British Council's activities in this area are really no more than a flamboyant spending spree. Much more important is the goodwill which they will build up among the peoples of those countries. I recall with delight the innumerable people I have met abroad all over the world—politicians, professors and so on—who reminisce nostalgically about their time in Britain, or ask tenderly after Professor this or that, of whom I have never heard, and after friends they made Such links and contacts are far more important; but the fact remains that the monies which the Council earns are, as I have said before, ploughed back to the benefit of those countries which cannot, as yet, afford to pay their own way.
I should like to focus on one or two of the points made in the Review which seem to me to be especially fallacious. In Chapter 15, paragraph 36, we are told that in political work overseas—and by implication I take it that this applies to Council work also:
"Intellectual ability is not very important … what matters more is general political awareness".
It also says:
"Previous experience is not important. Expertise is acquired on the job".
I shall not bother to comment on those two extracts: I think that they speak for themselves.
The second point I wish to focus on is that it says:
"It is clear that the French in particular, and also the Germans, attach high priority to this work [i.e., educational and cultural work overseas], and probably devote a higher proportion of overseas representation expenditure to it than the UK does".
A little research would have revealed that in fact the French spend three times as much on it as we do, and the Germans four times. More than one-third of the West German External Affairs budget is allocated to it. The Review goes on to
858
say—noble Lords will not believe it unless they have waded through it as I have—
"the advocates of cultural diplomacy argue that a country's interests can be served by making other countries aware of its values in general, and more specifically of its literature, music, painting, scientific, medical and technological research, and its contribution to the humanities and the social sciences. We are sceptical of this argument".
They are sceptical of this argument! Your Lordships will remember the Pobble who has no toes and who wants as many as we have. When they said: "One day you will lose them all", he replied, "Fish-fiddle-de-dee!" But he did lose them all, very shortly afterwards, entirely because he was sceptical of argument.
The Review puts forward two options for the future of the British Council. Option A, which it prefers, recommends its total abolition. It would set up "a new recruitment and placement agency", establish an overseas capability in the Department of Education and Science, transfer the small amount of remaining cultural work to the Arts Council, transfer all responsibility for educational aid administration to the Overseas Development Ministry, and perform that work through diplomatic posts with residential educational experts seconded "from the ODM and DES as appropriate". Option B would retain a purely recruiting agency in the United Kingdom, and the incorporation of Council representations overseas into diplomatic posts.
I cannot see any advantage whatever in either form of dismemberment: in setting up new agencies; in transferring this, and transforming that and seconding people hither and yon. I see no advantage in carving up a good-going show, manned by men and women with long experience and a sense of vocation, and already a tradition; or in dismantling a service with a career structure, carefully planned and administered from the moment of recruiting to the point of retirement. The Review seems to me to favour as an alternative some sort of make-shift, jigsaw, ad hoc system of cross-posting, which to me is reminiscent of the current advertising slogan "Super-Jobs for Temps".
One of the secrets of the success of the British Council has been its total independence from, and close co-operation with, our diplomatic posts overseas.

859
Sometimes the Council, for one reason or another—for security reasons, reasons of economy or political reasons—has had to be housed under the same roof as the embassy. I am one of the many people who deplore this when it has to happen and would fight to the last ditch any suggestion that it should become normal practice. It is important that the Council should never be mistaken for what it most certainly is not—a sort of propaganda wing of the Diplomatic Service. More than once the British Council has been able to carry on with its work in countries with which Britain has had to break off diplomatic relations. The embassy has had to pack its bags and depart and the British Council placidly and constructively goes on with its work.
The Review urges the abolition of all offices within Britain outside London. There seems no realisation of the amount of back-up work necessary, nor of the work involved in looking after our visitors and foreign students. There has already been a skelloch of protest from the Scottish Advisory Panel and I expect an equally banshee howl from the Welsh one at any moment. In fact, it suggests that all activities in those two countries should be abolished.
I do not have time to touch on what are called, for want of a better phrase—it is a ghastly phrase—" cultural manifestations", or many other aspects of the Council's work. I do not even have time to deal with what seems to be the absurd suggestion that the work, if it is to continue at all, should be accorded only low priority, except within the Soviet bloc. The same sort of suggestion has been applied to the BBC External Services, but I am jolly sure that some other noble Lord will deal with that. I express the hope that nobody will take the line that because we have had this expensive report, involving visits to 27 countries, plus much time, money and effort, a high proportion of its recommendations must therefore be implemented. That would indeed be to throw good money after had for a bad reason.
I submit that what the three bodies under review have been doing, and successfully doing, is precisely what the compilers of the Review suggest they should be doing—namely, adjusting themselves,
860
not by fits and starts but regularly, sensibly and imaginatively, to the new role and position of Britain in the world today and helping her to play a useful and constructive part in it. In fact, the Council has already made a careful study of the Review's 27 recommendations about its future. One dealt only with the assumption that it should be abolished altogether, so that falls to the ground. Of the other 26, nine are already Council policy, five the Council is taking another look at, and 12 are wholly rejected by the Council's Board on the grounds that they are:
"totally inconsistent with the best interests of Britain".
I would repudiate from my own knowledge any suggestion that the Council is stick-in-the-mud and not receptive of new ideas. It bubbles with new ideas and is always in the market for new ones.
I finish, no doubt to noble Lords' great relief, with three quotations which I have selected from many others. The first is from a leading article published in The Times on 8th August last, commenting on the volume of letters which had reached it concerning the Review:
"The number of letters to this newspaper has been remarkable and we have been able to print only a small proportion of those received. Even more remarkable is that such a large correspondence has been wholly unanimous. Scarcely a single letter has come to the defence of the Think Tank report … You cannot stop doing something you are good at without impoverishing yourself as well as others. Fortunately the Think Tank seems almost alone in failing to see this".
The second is from a letter which appeared in The Times on 4th November, three weeks ago, signed by five distinguished Germans, one of them the son of Chancellor Adenauer:
"We, as friends of your country, would find it deplorable if the long-term benefits flowing from lively cultural and educational relations were to be sacrificed for the sake of short-term political assessments, arrived at from a standpoint of current self-belittlement".
The third and last is from a French friend of mine, a former ambassador in Addis Ababa, Brazil and Greece, who wrote:
"As an alien I cannot take part in a debate on the Foreign Office, but as a member of the European Community I sincerely hope that the BBC will still rule the wave-lengths, and that the British Council will, like the Greek Phoenix, acquire a new life thanks to a report advocating its sudden death".

861
Then I suppose such was his emotion that he broke into French and finished by saying:
"J'espère que les Communes réagiront, et que les Lords rugiront! "
which translated means:
"I hope that the Commons will react, and that the Lords will roar!"
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Ballantrae, has given our debate a splendid and robust start. He put the experience of his chairmanship of the British Council, where he was so popular and effective, at the service of the House, and we thank him for that. He must be encouraged by the number of speakers on the list. We are particularly looking forward to the two maiden speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Saint Brides and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, both of whom know a great deal about this subject.
I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, said about the British Council. I have always been a supporter in and out of Government. Recently I visited their offices in Mexico, Poland and France—three very different countries. In each the impressive demand for the Council's services showed every sign of increasing. Its work was immensely popular and it was achieving striking results on what I thought was a very reasonable budget. We know that the "Tankers" did not have time to measure and evaluate the Council's services; nor did they realise that the demand for the expansion of those services is hoped for not least in the developed countries where, if the Council closes down, its place would immediately be taken by the well-subsidised activities of countries whose culture is not based on our literature and art or on our language.
It is very odd that in a report which lays such emphasis on exports so little is made of English as an asset in our overseas trade—not any kind of English, but our English. In country after country they tell us that they want to learn "English English", and that request raises the question of whether we are doing enough to preserve the forms of our speech.
862
Would your Lordships be happy if English broke down into a dozen dialects, as Latin broke down into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French? That could very easily happen, and it has been happening, in parts of Asia and Africa.
The one way in which to arrest that process is to make our English and our literature—because the two go together—accessible to those whose job it is to teach millions and millions of children in all five continents. The British Council and the BBC do just this. We could not hand it over to private enterprise. We must have some continuing body that cares for our language. It is in the national interest that these two bodies should have not less but more funds and then, as the in work expanded, they would be able to sell more Paid English Services.
The "Tankers" say nothing about this. Their ignorance of foreign educational systems, of cultural exchanges and of overseas broadcasting is such that Ministers would be well advised to repudiate here and now their recommendations for chopping the British Council and reducing overseas broadcasting. There would be a great advantage in taking early decisions on these two matters. Men and women whose good work was not, by any stretch of the imagination, properly examined would be relieved of their anxiety, and all of us would then be able to discuss the rest of the report, which is better informed and contains a lot of interesting information, in a less exasperated atmosphere.
The "Tankers" deserve thanks for the mass of information they provide on all the other major and minor functions of our overseas representation, but I have to say that all these chapters would read better if they had not been flavoured with so much egalitarian garlic. Even in their evident passion for this pungent stuff the "Tankers" are not consistent. In one paragraph, in true Marxist fashion, they deplore the middle-class manners of the diplomats, and in another they recommend all diplomats to become export salesmen. I ask your Lordships, do you know any group of men who enjoy larger expense accounts and display more middle class manners than salesmen? As I go along I am going to signal to your Lordships places where the injection of this garlic spoils the report and taints with a nasty smell what might have been a sweet and reasonable discussion.

863
Before we can redesign our Overseas Services we should try to agree upon Britain's role in tomorrow's world. The "Tankers" are far too pessimistic about this. They believe the British people have retreated so far that in the next decade or two we have nowhere further to go except to aim at an increase in the production and sale of exports. Accordingly, they advise Ministers to reorganise the Overseas Civil Service with only this aim in mind. Can a civilised country, any more than a civilised person, live for economic gain alone? Surely we want, as the noble Lord said, foreign countries to be our friends, and friendship is not measured by trade alone.
Great Britain has much to contribute to the search for a better way of ordering human affairs within our own country and in the world at large. We are expected, it is our duty, to put ideas as well as money into the pool from which will emerge a form of society beyond and better than both capitalism and Socialism. The "Tankers" will not have any of that. However grandly they set out the objectives of foreign policy in the opening paragraphs, in the report itself they ask us to take a selfish one-way view of our international activities. Every structure, every act, must be directly, or indirectly, cost effective in terms of the balance of payments. I cannot believe that so narrow an objective is fair to ourselves, fair to our past and our future, or fair to the world outside which needs our help as we need theirs.
Supposing we accept the "Tankers'" narrow view of our future, it then follows that the picture of Britain now represented to foreigners by the Diplomatic Service is a fraud. British ambassadors are accustomed to behave as the representatives of a great country, whereas according to the "Tankers" they should be telling the world that we have relegated ourselves to the second division without any hope of promotion, and therefore their style of life should be drastically pruned. In all this part of the report the garlic stinks.
I should like to give your Lordships just one example which is buried in the report, of the "Tankers'" treatment of Britain's image. Constitutionally every embassy is Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy. Every ambassador is the Queen's personal representative. But only once
864
in the report of 440 folio pages do the "Tankers" bring themselves to mention this fact. Why do they keep so mum about the constitutional position of ambassadors? Your Lordships will find part of the answer in paragraph 6 of Annex O. There they unfeignedly welcome the decision—I think it was taken in the autumn of 1975—to scrap the Queen's Birthday Party, which for so long had given indescribable pleasure to the British community and to the foreign guests invited to the embassy to drink Her Majesty's health. The "Tankers" leave us in no doubt that in a celebration like this, to which people from all walks of life—humble people, old people—are invited, the duty of representing Her Majesty is not cost effective. I put it to you that Britain has no more cost effective export than the regard in which the Monarchy is held by foreigners, and the lift which their loyalty to the Crown gives to the Queen's subjects abroad. The "Tankers" do not understand that. I imagine that sometimes they sing the National Anthem. When they come to the line, "Happy and glorious" they must find it incomprehensible. "Glory" is not a word in their vocabulary.
I want to raise a further doubt about the posture which the "Tankers" wish us to adopt in a period when our economy is weak and our debts are large. They are desperately anxious to see us cut our coat according to our cloth—and to them that means dressing down to our reduced circumstances: dinner jackets out; jeans in—and to remove advantages enjoyed by the Diplomatic Service and not enjoyed by the Home Civil Service.
On the first point, I am reminded of an incident which I witnessed during the war when I was serving in His Majesty's embassy in Lisbon. One day when I was waiting to see the Governor of the Bank of Portugal there emerged from his room a Portuguese nobleman. He was exquisitely dressed with an orchid in his buttonhole, gold-topped cane and gloves. I was very curious to know about this splendid gentleman and the Governor said to me, "For some time he has been deeply in debt and of course he has to keep up appearances for fear his creditors may take action". The other half of my story is that, when going down to the front hall after that interview, I passed

865
half a dozen members of the bank's staff ushering in a shabby figure in a long overcoat. Against the light, he looked as though he might have been asleep on a bench in the park. Nevertheless, there they were making a tremendous fuss of him, bowing and scraping. In fact, he was Mr. Calouste Gulbenkian. If we were as rich as Saudi Arabia, I do not know that it would matter very much how many parties our embassies gave, but the "Tankers" cannot get the hang of that story; human nature is not their strong suit. But if your Lordships, who know how men behave, believe that, with a bit of luck, common sense and a change of Government, we are going to get through our difficulties, then in the meantime we, too, should keep up appearances.
I do not wish to delay the House too long and I shall therefore abandon what I was going to say about export promotion, save to refer to an extraordinary omission: in the long section on exports there is not a word about invisible exports; it is the garlic again. Sir Kenneth Berrill and his youngsters know very well about the City, but banking and insurance are upper middle class and therefore unmentionable.
The remainder of my remarks will be concerned with the organisation of our Overseas Services. This raises one of the central and most difficult problems in modern government. The specialisation of knowledge has bred a vast number of experts in all the branches of government and industry. How are these experts to be persuaded to work as a team? Their careers are made on the staffs of different, sometimes mutually jealous, Ministries; the different Departments are responsible to their Ministers and those Ministers, even on their own ground, often cannot understand what the experts are talking about.
How much harder must it be for one Minister to understand and control a large group of experts drawn, say, from Defence, Agriculture, the Treasury, Trade, Industry and Education, all with their coats off ready to fight for their corner in the making of international policy? Yet we cannot do without these highly sophisticated experts; we must have more of them, knowing full well that by nature and education they are
866
likely to find it difficult to see international situations in the round. As a result, every Minister and every ambassador is up against the administrative consequences of the fragmentation of knowledge, and the "Tankers" are right to draw our attention to the difficulty of using the expertise to the full and yet retaining control of the overall policy.
In these circumstances, what do they propose? They would like the experts to be co-ordinated in Whitehall by a committee presided over by a member of the Cabinet Office; your Lordships will remember that they themselves are members of the Cabinet Office. The Diplomatic Service would then be merged with the Home Civil Service and all Departments would start on a level in deciding the policy in respect of each overseas country and each international organisation. The role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be confined to servicing these committees and providing an analysis of the political and social conditions in the country concerned.
These arrangements would have to be reflected in the organisation and behaviour of the missions abroad. The "Tankers" are logical on this point. They want most of the experts from the home Departments to communicate direct—by telephone, Telex or flying visits—with their opposite numbers in the Government Department of the overseas country, thus more or less by-passing the British Embassy. When experts are attached to the staff of embassies, the "Tankers" made the strong point that they must be paid, as are the Service attaché by their home Departments. That would give them a status more or less independent of the diplomats. Obviously, if all that happened, the head of mission's power to guide and control those experts, whether they are home-based or on his staff, would be much reduced.
That is the "Tankers" main recommendation and I do not think your Lordships should dismiss it out of hand; it is very serious and it deserves a great deal of thought. What I am going to say about it is my personal opinion. The British Government are organised on a sectoral basis and, at the same time, more and more problems concern more than one Department. But that does not remove the necessity to place the power somewhere; somebody's decision must be final.

867
I do not believe in happy teams of experts playing together like Leeds United but without a captain on the field and without a manager in the box. This, at bottom, is what the "Tankers" want. They are themselves experts, they work in the Cabinet Office and they cannot stomach the idea that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be in a superior position. Nor do they give the slightest indication that Parliament, representing the people and mindful of the constitutional position of the embassy or any other body, or the man in the street might have something to say about our representation abroad. In the "Tankers'" view, there is no one above the experts who should not be pulled down and no one below them who is worth consulting, and therefore I quote Dr. Johnson's well-known remark because it fits these people to a tee:
"Sir, your levellers wish to level down as far as themselves, but they cannot bear levelling up to themselves".
That is the pith of the garlic in the whole of this report.
In conclusion, I again express gratitude for all the valuable information in the report. That makes the report worth reading. But that said, the assumptions on which the "Tankers" base their conclusions are wrong. Britain has more to do in the world than defend her economic interests. The deep substance of this country has not been eroded to the point where we cannot reverse the decline in British power and influence. We shall persuade the world that this is no old man's dream if we are represented by the best experts that we can get from the home Departments, and by ambassadors who are charged to put across the policy of the Government of the day, to coordinate the experts operating in the country to which they are accredited and to express the confidence of the British people in our Constitution and in our future.
If your Lordships agree with this view, then there is no doubt where the leadership must be placed: in the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at home, and in the ambassador overseas. That decision on leadership has to be taken before it is useful to think seriously about such subjects as recruitment to the Diplomatic
868
Service, and the extent to which members of that service should gain experience in other Departments, and vice versa.
The danger is that the Secretary of State will think that he has to do something about such an enormous report, and he will settle for a compromise whereby the ambassador appears still to be in charge, but armed only with a Mini Minor and a glass of beer his authority will be whittled away, leaving the bits and pieces to be fought for by the experts. My Lords, put your money on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Give it fresh strength, and redefine its powers to act as manager at home and captain in the field. In my judgment, this is the only practical answer to the great question raised by the Berrill Report.
3.43 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. I am quite sure that he could develop a very useful activity lecturing on Berlin overseas. He would be able to sell tickets for it because it would be so entertaining. There are many noble Lords, like my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who have served as Ministers in the Foreign Office. I had a short spell of attachment there. I was even an ambassador once, for a week. It is a complicated story which I will not go into. I was also once, years ago, an Empire talks producer, and I got a little free travel out of the British Council.
I feel that somehow I have taken part in this debate before. It was ten years ago that I had to deal with the Duncan Report from the Dispatch Box from where my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be speaking. I had an easier task than he has today. It is worth noting that the framework in which the modern Foreign Service and Foreign and Commonwealth Office now operate, as well as all the other Departments overseas, derives from the Plowden Report and the Duncan Report. The Duncan Report had its defects, but it was considerably better than the Review we are now debating.
I will try to be constructive if I can, but I am sorry to say that when I have read, as I have, the whole of the Review of

869
Overseas Representation, I come to the conclusion that I have read only one worse report; that was the Bullock Report. I am very sorry to have to say this, because I know that there were some people of very high calibre who worked extremely hard on this, yet they have failed to produce for us the kind of examination we need. I know very few people who support the report—except a few Foreign Office wives who think how wonderful it would be if they did not have to do so much entertaining.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, have talked on the issues of the British rôle in the world. I believe that the report is right in a general way in saying that the United Kingdom cannot undertake major political or economic initiative on its own. But to talk about the United Kingdom recovering, or not being able to recover, to a position where it can do so represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the rôle and significance of the United Kingdom. We are not one of the world's super-Powers, and we are never likely to be. The more we can operate within our alliances, and particularly within the European Community, the greater will be our contribution; and within that framework I have no doubt that we shall be able to exercise many of the skills and worldwide experience that the British have uniquely acquired. This is not nostalgia; I hope that it is a realistic recognition.
I want to speak mainly along the lines of the Motion which I carefully put down after the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, because I thought that he would be a marvellous person to introduce this subject. I put down a rather similar Motion, but calling attention to the report and its implications for our export trade and overseas investments, and it is in this area that I want to speak.
Perhaps I ought to declare an interest as a member of the British Overseas Trade Board—unpaid—but, like all noble Lords, I speak only for myself, and I do not seek to represent the views of that board. But I have no doubt that my views are shared by my industrial and business colleagues, not only on the British Overseas Trade Board, but throughout the greater part of industry. If there is one
870
message that they should like to get across—and I should like to state it categorically—it is: Please do not damage the excellent service we get from our posts overseas. I should also like to reemphasise—I think that the report has missed this—the value of the excellence in so much of our overseas representation. I am chairman of the East European Trade Council, and any noble Lords who have dealings with the countries of the Eastern bloc, where it is important that we do trade, will know how dependent we are on the lengths of helpfulness and co-operation to which our embassies, our ambassadors, and their staff go to assist businessmen.
Of course there are cases where people have failed to give that help. There are people who perhaps think that they are too shy. There is the allegation that some people would have liked to go near the British Embassy. I do not know whether it is the middle-class salesmen whom the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was talking about being unwilling to go to the middle-class diplomats. There has been very little criticism in the Press of the service.
The most important point of disagreement on my part with the Berrill Report is on the question of political advice. The first requirement of the industrialist, of the sales manager, of the overseas investor, is sound political advice. There is not a country in the world in which either investment or trading does not depend crucially on a judgment of the political elements in the country, its future progress, its stability, its trading environment, and an understanding of its leading politicians; even an attempt to guess the result of an election. On this one needs really detailed advice in depth and the ability to talk frankly.
When one comes to that much-quoted and totally erroneous statement by a distinguished politician—I think it was a Conservative Prime Minister, but I respect him so much I will leave it to your Lordships to guess who it was—who said that "Exporting is fun", this could be altered to, "Exporting would be absolute hell were it not for those who represent our interests overseas". This is a central point with which I believe the majority of businessmen would agree. We are living in an unstable world, and difficult business

871
judgments must depend greatly on the help and advice we receive.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to some of the particular recommendations. The maddest of all is the suggestion that the Home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service should be integrated. I am afraid that the investigators—and I am told that some of them were very charming when they visited overseas posts—really fail to understand the difference between the Foreign Service and the Home Civil Service. The diplomat, the man who joins the Foreign Office, the man who joins the Foreign Service, joins because he expects, indeed may want and is certainly prepared, to spend much of his life in foreign parts. In my experience, he tends to be a different kind of animal from the home civil servant.
Like all broad generalisations, this is only partly true but it helps to illustrate the point I am wanting to make. The diplomat accepts obligations of a different kind. He may have to operate more on his own. He will need a different kind of self-confidence. Indeed, he probably needs to be a little more extrovert. But, above all, he has to be ready and willing to go to any place in the world and there function, sometimes under conditions of great danger. In the past you judged the bravery of a general by how many horses he had had shot down under him: now we can judge an ambassador by how many embassies have been burnt down under him—and I am sorry my noble friend Lord Trevelyan is not here. But the diplomat may be in a relatively small and, in any normal political terms, unimportant country with responsibilities for the life and death of British citizens which do not confront the average home civil servant. I do not wish in any way to reflect on the home civil servant, for whom I have a great admiration, but I wonder how many of them at the moment would in fact wish to volunteer to serve in Uganda or in some other of these countries.
My Lords, I do not want to comment at too great length on the organisation, but I would say that the effect of the proposal to unify the disparate parts of the different public services which are involved in the Overseas Service would be to create an even bigger bureaucracy; and I
872
happen to believe that it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of good management. I do not think we need waste much more time on this proposition, for I cannot believe it is even a starter; but there are aspects of this study which I find worrying, because here is this highly intelligent group of people, centred right in the heart of Whitehall, in the Cabinet Office, and yet to my mind they do not seem to have understood how Whitehall works. There is a confusion, too, on the qualities for which they look. There are contradictions here. We are back—and I see my noble friend Lord Fulton is here—where at one point we have an argument for "preference for relevance" and at another point in the report they say historians would be good. I happen to think that historians are always good for this sort of thing, classical scholars even more so.
Then they propose that there should be a Cabinet Office Official Committee on Bilateral Relations with Overseas Countries; but there is no proper analysis of the existing communication within Whitehall—the system of committees, the Private Office net, the Permanent Secretary net and all these matters. This, I am afraid, would in fact produce a more bureaucratic solution. On the other hand, I strongly support and endorse the recommendation for greater interchange between Departments, and I should like to quote two examples. Our ambassador in Venezuela recently served in a home Government Department very relevant to some of the economic and social responsibilities that he will have. Then, a Treasury official who spent two or three years in South-East Asia getting to know officials in Malaysia and Australia, has recently had to go out again to Australia as the Permanent Secretary of a home Department. This should happen; and there is a confusion here, that if only you can put people under the same organisation it will work better. It may not work better. We have seen this with the gigantic Departments. What may be more important is that they should be in adjoining offices, and that there should be the right sort of location. The report is right in emphasising that it is difficult to get this type of interchange, and I know this as a former Minister responsible for the Civil Service. None the less, this should be a

873
major part of the career of diplomats and of home civil servants, that they should, if possible, have a period serving overseas.
This brings me to another, I think, very bad part of the report, and that is this. I find it difficult to interpret, but to me it can have only this meaning, that the trade and export side should, so to speak, be separated off. If we go down that path we revert to the old concept of the Trade Commissioner as a separate and perhaps lesser-grade creature. This was the pattern in the past. It is distressing, the way we go in circles in this matter. What is needed is the total involvement of the whole embassy, from the ambassador down; and I could quote examples of ambassadors giving direct assistance, not just to senior businessmen, not just to leaders of industry, but to ordinary people confronted with difficult situations. The businessman needs not just commercial information; he needs introduction. Above all—and we may as well recognise this—he needs the status and special position that the ambassador and others are able to bring about in the country to which they are accredited; and not least of the advantages of the present situation is that during their career so many members of the Foreign Service will have been engaged on the commercial side against the day when they become ambassadors and are able to help the businessman.
It is this integration within the embassy which is so valuable, because apart from the ambassador there will be the commercial counsellor, there will be the political counsellor (it depends on the size), there may be particular experts, there will be members of the staff who specialise in certain areas and there will be a locally-engaged commercial officer. Then, if that does not meet all the circumstances, they can go to the branch office, where the Consul General may have even more knowledge; but they are all part of this organisation. The Think Tank understands very well why this sort of work cannot be done in watertight compartments, that the great value is the cross-fire from all parts; and it would be a real tragedy to go back to the days when the ambassador said, There is a chap who looks after businessmen down the road; you might care to see him".
Furthermore, my Lords, all diplomats, or most of them, are likely to want to have a really good career. They hope to be
874
ambassadors; they hope, even, to have the highest post in the Foreign Service. But to be an ambassador their success will depend at least as much on their ability in the commercial and trade fields as on their ability in the traditional diplomatic negotiating skills. Unfortunately, I do not know how many members of the study team have themselves taken part in a diplomatic, political, trade union or industrial negotiation and know what this involves. With the sort of team you have, of course you will have people from the home Department to help and be integrated into the team; but, none the less, there is the skill of the man who knows what that particular course, what that particular football field on which they are going to play, looks like. Of course, if they are first-class people then one day they will hope to end up in Michael Palliser's office as head of the Foreign Service.
My Lords, there are many other points I could make, but your Lordships will be happy to hear I am not going to make them. There is this quite astonishing failure, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred, to mention our invisible earnings. It really is quite extraordinary that there is no reference to them. Whether these invisible earnings are achieved through insurance, through returns on overseas investments, from big contracts, from shipping or what have you, here, again, it is worth noting that the United Kingdom is the world's second largest investor, with overseas assets of well over £10 billion. If it had not been for these invisible exports, where should we have been during recent years?
However, this, cannot be separated from the export promotion side because there are obvious parallels. Again, one needs political judgment and skills. I would only say that the theory that one can have full-time businessmen seconded to bodies like the British Overseas Trade Board is just not on. I do not think that they get paid enough, anyway. In any case, the report fails to recognise—and the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, will be able to confirm this—the real progress which the British Overseas Trade Board has made under the chairmanship of Sir Fred Catherwood.
The report fails to make any reference to the very great efforts which industrialists, trade unions and others have made on a

875
national basis, giving up time, holding export conferences and carrying out the recent and successful Export Year. There is no acknowledgment of the voluntary work by the many such people serving on these bodies, on BOTAC, on the area advisory groups and so on. It is marvellous to see how much voluntary effort is given.
I am trying to cut my speech; but I should like to say one thing about the BBC and about the importance of the dissemination of British culture by bodies like the British Council and the BBC. These recommendations are, I think, the most extraordinary of all. Before I came here, I happened to talk to a very intelligent Frenchman who knows this country well. He said, "I hope that you are going to stop all that nonsense." I cannot quite copy his French accent, but he was saying this about the BBC. He added, "I regard the British News"—and this is a very patriotic Frenchman—" as the only news which is really objective, in the only language universally understood; and isolated people abroad, not only in the Soviet Union but in other places, for instance, in Southern Africa, are dependent on it for their information."He concluded," I think it would be suicidal if you do that".
May I say how much I regret having to be so critical of the very devoted work that has gone into the study. There are a large number of points which are worth pursuing—points about guarantees and about details of support for industry overseas. I am sorry to repeat this, but when in Brazil I heard some reference to the charm of the visitors: a high intellect however, no substitute for some practical experience in this field. I am depressed that we should have had such a bad report. I shall only take up a point which, I think, was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I do not want to see the Foreign Service merged with the Home Civil Service. I want a separate Foreign Service, and I want a head of the Foreign Service.
Some of us remember the consequences when, before the war, the head of the Treasury dominated our foreign policy and we followed, at grave risk to ourselves, policies which were against the advice of many people in the Foreign Office. If I may say so—and I do not
876
wish to introduce too many Party issues—I think that, in more recent times, the voice of the Foreign Office might have come through more strongly at the time of Suez. I want to preserve the high quality of the Foreign and Commonwealth Service and I hope that, in dealing with this report, we shall not throw away this great national advantage.
4.5 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I propose to restrict my remarks to the Foreign Service part of the Berrill Report, so opportunely brought before us by the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, leaving my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley to give our views on the British Council proposals and my noble friend Lord Tanlaw on other important aspects including export promotion. I shall, however, trespass on the sphere of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley to a slight extent in so far as I propose to refer to the British Council's work covering overseas students, with whose cause I have long been identified as chairman of the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Students' Affairs.
Might I, before going into detail, say that I personally would agree with almost everything that has been said so far in the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and the two speeches which followed his. Even as regards the Foreign Service, I shall only volunteer a few general observations since I left the Service no fewer than 17 years ago and may well, therefore, he out of date. Many noble Lords who have had much more recent experience of the Service will be giving their view on the report this afternoon and I should not want to appear to contradict in advance what they may say.
Having said that, I should like to start by expressing some reluctant admiration of the courage of Sir Kenneth, notably in respect of the area covered by his immense report and for the pains evidently taken to bring the whole problem as he sees it into some sort of new perspective. It is true, as the report suggests, that the position of the United Kingdom in the world has substantially declined in the last 10 years or so and, consequently, it may be that reductions are now necessary in expenditure abroad or, at any rate, that some of them should be contemplated. That I

877
would not dispute. But the general philosophy of the report seems to me to be open to question in that the analysis is based chiefly upon function.
Admittedly, this is an effective way of achieving clarity; but whether logic can be pushed beyond a certain point is very doubtful. I do not really believe that you can make a sharp definition between "Economic, Social and Environmental Work", "Foreign Policy Work" and "Political Work". Surely, it is impracticable, if your Lordships consider it for a moment, to separate these various threads in such a categorical way. For instance, the European Community. There, much of the subject matter of Community business is, of course, "Economic, Social and Environmental", but the effects of that work are fundamentally important to "Foreign Policy", both in the treatment of the relations between individual Members of the Community and in terms of the Community's relations with the outside world.
Nearly every element in that "Economic, Social and Environmental" work requires, I should have thought, a contribution from the "Political Work" standpoint. Take the "Spy in the Cab", the tachograph. That issue, I suppose, can be said to be an economic problem; but it certainly can only be understood if its political implications are properly appreciated. Then take commodity policy, the only other example that I shall give. By definition, this is "economic". The price of raw materials is vital to our balance of payments and has had an important effect, of course, on inflation and, indeed, on unemployment. But it is also a foreign political issue which cannot be separated from North-South issues, North-South relations, generally.
Thus, political relations with developing countries must, surely, be handled, primarily, on a political basis which means, in its turn, we must have good relations with the rulers of such States. This can, as often as not, be arrived at by social, even cultural, contacts. That surely goes to show that foreign relations are all part of a whole and cannot be divided up into segments, as the report tries to do, from a logical point of view.
As regards the specific recommendations which affect the Foreign Service as such,
878
I think that the report dwells too much on the relatively small question of entertainment by our representatives abroad. It is possible that in some cases such entertainment may be exaggerated, but it surely cannot be substantially diminished without unfavourable results. If there is any tendency on the part of diplomats, other than perhaps the head of mission, to entertain people who are of no particular importance, or if they tend to entertain or he entertained by, for the most part, foreign colleagues—which I agree from my limited experience is sometimes an abuse—then surely it is for the head of the mission to correct such abuses. I have a constructive proposal: the head of mission ought to be shown at the end of the year a list of the people who have been entertained by his subordinates, and be at liberty to comment on them if he so desires.
On the other hand, I would not, again from my present limited knowledge, dispute the fact that there may still be certain missions abroad which are largely redundant and could, without any serious damage to the national cause, be abolished in the sense that they could be covered by our representative in some neighbouring country. And why not have occasionally what might be called a Community embassy, one member of the EEC looking after the interests of all the rest? I believe that some progress has been made in this direction in the past three years; I hope that it can be speeded up. The report does not indicate which foreign missions might be abolished or suppressed, but I understand it has given a list of them to the Foreign Office.
Generally speaking, I dare say that the report is also right in holding that there may be too much letter writing between missions and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and even in the FCO itself. It always seemed to me, when I was a member of the Service, that far too many telegrams and despatches were sent which never really got beyond what was called the Third Room in the Foreign Office; even if they got as far as the Under-Secretary concerned, I rather doubted whether the progress of events would have been materially affected. How exactly such proliferation of correspondence can be checked, I would not profess to know. The Foreign Office ought to take this into

879
serious account when considering the Berrill Report as a whole.
Of the three major options regarding the reorganisation of the entire Foreign Service which are suggested, the report makes it clear that none will be chosen unless Ministers accept the report's conclusions about specialisation and inter-changeability. If I was in Government I do not think, partly for the reasons I have already given, I would accept these conclusions in a general way. But if they should be accepted by the Government, I should imagine option "A"—that is, more interchange between the Home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service—would be preferable to options at "B" or "C".
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made a considerable point about the difficulty of a head of mission attempting to co-ordinate the views of all kinds of experts in various spheres in which he would not have specialised knowledge. That reminds me of a story which may have a little bearing on this issue. When I was concerned with the affairs of the SOE at the beginning of the war, we had difficulty in getting our agents through the barrage to be dropped in France. We therefore resolved to consult the head of the anti-aircraft command in Uxbridge to ask his advice. He was a very bright soldier called Sir Frederick Pile. In private life he was Master of the Galway Blazers. He was a great fox hunter. In the course of lunch, I said to him: "General, you have great specialists and scientists on your staff and quite often I imagine they give you contradictory, even perhaps incomprehensible, advice. What do you do?" He replied, "My dear chap, that is quite easy. I tell them by their cry"! In other words, he knew instinctively what person to trust, one expert compared with another. I do not suggest that our diplomats would be exactly the same as Sir Frederick Pile, the Master of the Galway Blazers, but I do think that what is wanted is somebody with a great deal of personality and common sense. I hope that in the future our heads of missions abroad will consist of people of that calibre.
I have two further thoughts. Years ago in the thirties, when I was Second Secretary, there were in the embassy in
880
Rome and in Paris two absolutely indispensable Press attaches: William McClure and Charles Mendle. They had been there for years and were not, I think, formally members of the service. Anyhow, there was no question of transferring them anywhere else. Being practically permanent residents of the capital, they had acquired a profound knowledge of the "goings-on" in both political and social circles which I can assure you, my Lords, was of the utmost value to any ambassador. Today, as I see it, although I might be wrong, the Press attache or his equivalent in any capital is normally transferred after two or three years—that is, just when he has mastered his job—to some totally different job thousands of miles away. I cannot see why we should not revert to the previous and far preferable system of having permanent or semi-permanent Press officers—they need not be called that—in at least the more important capitals.
My second thought is perhaps a more contentious one. A good deal of existing criticism of the Foreign Service is based on the belief that members are largely recruited from an upper-middle class section of our society, and disproportionately from Oxbridge. The point is that, as diplomats, they are still regarded as privileged persons who get on largely by their undue possession of social graces or even by having means of their own. I do not say the belief that such people form the majority of the Foreign Service is statistically justified, but I am sure it is widely held. This is quite unfair because the efficiency of a diplomatist, which after all serves the whole country well when it is a question of getting our national point of view across to foreigners who may not be inclined to love us, depends very largely on what used to be called a good education and agreeable manners, to say nothing of a natural ability to pick up the local language. So the rougher and tougher members of our society should not object to our diplomats being drawn, as often as not, from a certain section of our society which will no doubt disappear over the years as our education becomes more and more comprehensive. After all, this fact—if it is a fact—does not mean that the nation as a whole suffers thereby. On the contrary, it is a gainer.

881
I turn, in conclusion, to overseas students. The report criticises the British Council in the care and attention it lavishes on what it calls a "small proportion" of overseas students—presumably officially sponsored students. However, if this, on the face of it, very productive work were handed over, as is suggested, to the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Department of Education and Science or some new official body, still worse, if they were handed over to nobody, the future of these students would be pretty dim. I believe I am right in saying that the last circular of the Department of Education and Science on welfare for overseas students was issued in 1963. To hand them over to voluntary agencies such as my own United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs could be a solution, but obviously it would be impossible to do that without a very considerable and comparable injection of finance and adequate staff. In any case, the British Council's recent efforts to co-operate with voluntary agencies would, in the nature of things, be difficult to sustain if the British Council were replaced by regular civil servants.
Abroad, the future of overseas students would be even dimmer if the recommendations of the report were adopted. It must be remembered that a British Council overseas office is at present the only place where overseas students can inquire about the possibilities of study in the United Kingdom. For those who do, the British Council produces a unique—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, would agree here—and admirable handbook called Higher Education in the United Kingdom, which is a kind of bible for the student, though of course it requires careful and expert interpretation which only the Council can provide. Besides, students are normally tested by the Council for proficiency in English. It is interesting to note that the British Council is now issuing a new test and is prepared to apply that test to any student referred to it by a teaching institution in the United Kingdom. It will also help with inquiries, which it was previously prepared to do only in respect of sponsored students. If the British Council were abolished, it would take years to build up any equivalent machine inside British embassies, and when, and if, it was established, it would
882
almost certainly be less effective and popular because of its more official approach. Students simply do not want to get mixed up in any official apparatus if they can help it. There is also the ever-present danger that if the British Council is unable to act as a buffer, as it were, nepotism and political wangling will get the upper hand. In other words, it would seem to be counter-productive, to say the least, to penalise overseas students in the way that is apparently suggested.
A final word, my Lords. The same applies to many para-statal organisations. I need only instance TETOC, the little group which provides technical education and training in overseas countries and which is at present happily ensconced in the Ministry of Overseas Development, though it is itself largely autonomous. TETOC, which operates on a small budget of £600,000 a year, has an almost indispensable function in placing people from the developing countries for training in this country, whether in industry, in agriculture or in teacher training colleges. The necessary funds come out of the Aid Budget of the Ministry of Overseas Development. Incidentally, that is one of the best possible ways of administering aid that can possibly he imagined. What would be the point in breaking it up or, still worse, abolishing it, I really cannot imagine. I can only suppose that this particular proposal will be disregarded on the grounds of its inherent absurdity.
I have said why I believe that, generally speaking, a good many of the recommendations of the Berrill Report are quite misguided; and, from what I have read so far in the way of criticism in the Press, I imagine that this view will, broadly speaking, be reflected in the speeches of your Lordships tonight. At the same time, I feel that there are certain "nuggets", if I may call them that, which might profitably be extracted from it and no doubt the Government will eventually tell us what, in their opinion, those nuggets are.
4.24 p.m.
Lord SAINT BRIDES: My Lords, as a maiden speaker on these controversial matters, I shall try to be non-controversial

883
within reason. As we all know, this is the third major inquiry into the operation of the Diplomatic Service that has been set on foot within 13 years. That is a fairly high degree of frequency for such fundamental reviews, as they have all been. But the Think Tank Report is the first review ever staged whose task it has been to look at all aspects, taken together, of British overseas official representation, and not just of the Diplomatic Service. In itself, that must clearly be right and welcome.
It follows that the authors of the report were to a considerable extent charting fresh territory. They have produced a remarkably detailed and comprehensive survey. In the course of their analysis they have certainly hit some nails on the head. For example, it is emphatically true that a major effort ought to be made to provide better facilities and better Government briefing for overseas journalists in London, whose reporting so often determines the image which the media in their home countries present of the United Kingdom. No single step could give our overseas missions—in their task of presenting a balanced picture of Britain—more help than this one would.
There are other details which the report has got wrong. For example—to take a rather homely one—we all know that to eat out is considerably more expensive than entertaining at home. This is no less true in foreign countries than it is in Britain. In a good many capital cities the cost of eating in restaurants is fabulous. The much reduced funds recommended by the Think Tank for expenditure on diplomatic entertainment in future would very soon he absorbed, and in a much less cost-effective way, if, as is suggested, most of the diplomatic entertainment which is now done "at home" were switched to restaurants.
The report also stresses what it evidently sees as the undue burden which is placed on British diplomatic wives by "home entertaining". But the FCO wives who feel like this are, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, indeed very few. In my experience, most of them welcome the close contact which home diplomatic entertaining gives them with their husband's work, and the opportunity which within reason it also gives them of playing a part as an acknowledged member of a two-person, husband-and-wife team in the
884
general diplomatic work of the mission. That is so even though our wives receive no monetary reward, as they probably should, and perhaps one day will.
There are many other specific matters in the report on which I could comment, but instead I would prefer to offer a few brief general remarks about the recommendations made in the report, and about the philosophy which evidently lies behind them. Certain recommendations strike me as sensible; I have mentioned one already. Others—and here I agree with the criticisms made by several previous speakers—seem to me to be unrealistic, unjustified and certainly not flowing from the analysis which the report contains. Furthermore, it seems to me that some of the major ones are based on an underlying pessimism which was fashionable a year or so ago, but which, thank goodness! seems to me already beginning to fade and to be replaced by a more hopeful and realistic approach.
Like 18th century doctors, the "Think Tankers", as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, called them, are great believers in bleeding, and bleeding heavily. But even 18th century doctors took into account before they bled a patient how much blood he had already lost. As a former head of mission in three countries of importance to Britain—Pakistan, India and Australia—I know how firmly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have for years past set their faces against that all-too-tempting trend which besets all human enterprises, namely, the trend towards a steady and remorseless proliferation of staff. Your Lordships know what is meant by Parkinson's Law; but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is that almost unique body, an anti-Parkinsonian Department. It has managed not merely to contain the size of the Diplomatic Service, which includes the bulk of its own staff, but to reduce it by 14 per cent., or nearly one-seventh, in the last 12 years. That is a solid and commendable achievement. It has been brought about thanks to the apparatus of self-criticism which the Department has set up: the FCO Inspectorate. This special section of the Office keeps the whole expense, both in money and manpower, of the Diplomatic Service and of the FCO under continuous and critical review. It has done a shrewd and pertinacious job over the years, as I know from personal

885
experience. In its field I believe it to be second to none for judicious and selective efficiency, whether in Britain or in any other country.
You can quantify, as I have just done, such useful departmental attributes as sustained and successful vigilance in regard to the use of man- and woman-power. But what is, in the nature of things, impossible to quantify is the usefulness to Britain of the high degree of international esteem which has been earned by those three institutions, the Diplomatic Service, the British Council and the External Services of the BBC, which the CPRS propose to transform, to truncate or to abolish. As noble Lords who have already spoken in the debate have all stressed, these three agencies, taken together, represent a valuable and effective instrument which is the envy of many other countries and Governments, and which it would be most unwise of us to dismantle, unless we were quite sure that what we were putting in its place would work better. The Think Tank report has left me totally unconvinced that the alternatives which its authors propound would work better.
As the report recognises, the efficacy and success of all three of these agencies as they stand is undoubted. But the report says, in effect, that it is a success, an efficacy, which Britain no longer needs because we have become, and are bound to remain, too poor to play the international rôle which we used to play. But what if the reverse were true? To my mind, a country which can no longer achieve all its ends by sheer weight of military and economic power needs to put more, not less, effort into the protection of its interests by other means. Britain's position in the international community has certainly changed since 1945. But the means of maintaining and developing influence in the world have changed, too. They have become less palpable. They require more intellectual and imaginative effort, and less brute force. In the new, much more open, situation which has resulted, we can more than hold our own if we wish, and provided that we continue to manifest a will to excellence and the desire to compete, and if possible to lead, which goes with it.
Given the wealth of human talent and originality that exists in this country, we
886
have much still to do in the world, and it is not least with the help of such proven instruments of communication and dissemination as the BBC, the British Council and the Diplomatic Service, as they now stand, that we can do it, provided that as a country we have the vision and good sense to use them as we could, and to give them the backing which they need. In my submission, it is not less excellence that we need in our contacts with other countries, but more and better ideas of where we want to go as a nation and how to get there. I am certain that the opportunities are there for us to grasp, if we can grasp them. To do so naturally requires imagination and will power.
Ultimately, the question raised by this report seems to me to be this. Should we take counsel of our fears for the future, and scale down our efforts overseas and representation overseas proportionately, or should we rather keep in being the excellence which we have built up, but use it even more purposefully and imaginatively; or, in other words, take counsel of our hopes? My Lords, I believe that to take counsel of our hopes will on this occasion, as on others in our long history, prove to be much the sounder course.
4.34 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, during myyears in this House, I have often had the opportunity to follow a noble Lord who has made his speech in this place for the first time, but it is a very particular pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides. For many years, he and I were partners in the old Commonwealth Relations Office, and then in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although I am bound to say that his job has been less subject to arbitrary interruption than mine. Nevertheless, I and my noble friend Lord Carrington have seen Lord Saint Brides in action as High Commissioner in India and as High Commissioner in Australia, and we have seen him in the Office at home. Everywhere he has carried out his task with rare distinction, and has always been recognised as the right man in the right place at the right time. His interventions in our debates will always be timely.
I do not like to speak in a debate if I cannot be present at the finish, and I must immediately apologise to the noble Lord,

887
Lord Goronwy-Roberts—I hope he will forgive me—but I have an engagement tonight which I cannot break. But I felt that I must say one or two very short words in this debate and, in deference to your Lordships who will sit through the night, I should like to make the points as briefly as I can.
Let me say at once that this voluminous report gives a coldly brilliant analysis of the mechanics of the Oveseas Services and the statistics of the expense account. It is, for those reasons alone, well worth reading. But, in this case, I cannot see how the conclusions follow from the analaysis which the authors have made. Of course, there are some good things in this report. There is too much paper in Whitehall, and too much paper in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I remember that, the last time I went to that Office, I directed that the number of telegrams should be cut, and in two years we managed to cut the telegrams to and from the Office by 14 per cent. There is more to be done in that direction. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as to the benefits of the interchange of personnel between the different Departments. But there is too much in this report that is right off beam, and I should like to make four criticisms.
The Overseas Service of the BBC is accepted far and wide as the most objective presentation of world events that is available. It is heard widely. It is heard in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East and, as the noble Lord said, in Africa. It is a British asset which should not be put at risk by paring and pinching. Indeed, an increase in its budget would be a good investment.
Secondly, there is the English language, a subject touched on by my noble friend Lord Eccles. The English language is already the language of science and technology and it can remain so, but only if it is taught to people overseas. If, as my noble friend said, the young generation overseas can speak it and read it and think in it, then a high dividend will be returned to this country. The British Council is more acceptable overseas than any British agency more directly associated with the British Government, and I can endorse from first-hand experience everything that my noble friend Lord
888
Ballantrae has said, and the conclusions which he drew.
Thirdly, it is impossible to lay down an arbitrary pattern of first-, second- and third-class embassies which will hold over the years. The only sensible way, so often do the situations of various countries change, is to maintain a continuing review and adapt the foreign representation according to the needs.
Again, may I stress the function of an ambassador and of his staff in relation to the economic policy of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, must be right. Industrialists do not want to be told their own business because they know it already; they want political information about the country in which they are going to operate, and my experience is that ambassadors and their staff provide that information faithfully.
Fourthly, to ask or compel ambassadors to offer hospitality below the standard offered by their diplomatic neighbours is a false economy. If we act as a poor relation, we shall be treated as one. In their search for efficiency, the authors of the Policy Review seem to have forgotten that hospitality is not always something which people like but that half the good relations and mutual confidence aroused nevertheless comes from the entertainment which is given at home and "out of school". And long may it be so.
Finally, may I turn to the amalgamation of the Home and the Foreign Services. When young men consider their careers in the Civil Service I believe that they divide themselves into two kinds: those who see themselves, for a multitude of domestic and other reasons, suited to life in this country and who wish to make their career in Britain, and those (the smaller number) who feel the call, despite all its inconveniences for home life, to serve overseas, for the main part of their lives if necessary, and to accept all the attendant risks. For them it is a kind of vocation. They are, as one of your Lordships said just now, a different kind of animal. I believe that we should lose a great deal if we compelled those who choose a home career and those who choose a foreign career to amalgamate into one Service. So let us keep a Foreign Service which is highly trained and efficient. We cannot then go far wrong.
This document—and, like other speakers, I regret the criticism, though I am

889
bound to say that the authors have asked for it—is a charter for pessimism and defeatism. I trust that the Foreign Secretary will not accept the recommendations which it contains and which have received so much just criticism this afternoon. The report is introspective, which is the last thing, in our present situation, that this country ought to be. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and his successors in that office, will have confidence in himself and in his ambassadors. That was the advice given by my noble friend Lord Eccles, and I trust that it will be taken by the Government.
4.43 p.m.
Lord FULTON: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, about the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was in a much better position than I to pay tribute to the career which has been pursued by the noble Lord who has made his maiden speech today. I have been subjected to the rather more solemn thought that I was a don at the college at which he was an undergraduate at the time when he was an undergraduate, and it is a sobering moment for that don when the former pupil enters the House of Lords on retirement from his career. Like all good undergraduates, he was not an easy undergraduate and, again like all good undergraduates, he had a mind of his own. The quality of that mind was demonstrated by the career which he followed, and I am sure that it will decorate our future debates. I hope that we shall hear a great deal from the noble Lord.
I wish that the fortune of the draw had allowed me to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, because we are all expecting a great deal from him, not only in the light of his wide political experience but also because of his unique qualification to speak to us as an ex-Commissioner of the EEC. I have to confess that it would have been a very happy coincidence if I had been able to congratulate him on his maiden speech, because when he joined your Lordships' House he took his territorial title from the village in Angus in which I was born.
890
My reason for seeking briefly to address your Lordships in today's debate is that for many years I have been closely associated with the work of the Inter-University Council for Higher Education Overseas—and was for a period its chairman. I wish that my predecessor in the chairmanship, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, who is sitting behind me on these Benches, were speaking instead of me. He was involved from the start of the IUC just after the war and led it with great distinction and flair through its most creative and adventurous times. Notably, he made sure, as chairman, because of the respect he enjoyed from a number of kindred spirits in the United States—in the influential circles of the great foundations as well as among the universities—that the universities of the United Kingdom and of North America would bring aid to African higher education, not in damaging rivalry but in constructive partnership.
The Inter-University Council occupies only a small part of the Report by the Central Policy Review Staff, but the authors of the report—which was, as I understand the position, drawn up without seeking a submission of the views of the officers of the Inter-University Council—make proposals about the Council's future which would, if implemented, have wide and, I believe, damaging effects upon the established habits of co-operation between the universities of this country and those in the developing world.
These are the universities in the former colonial territories which have been founded since the war with a large infusion of capital from the United Kingdom Exchequer. They teach through the medium of English. They were staffed, particularly at the start, largely by teachers from our universities. Out of the association there have grown special relationships between their universities and ours, providing for the recruitment, through the IUC, of United Kingdom expatriate staff. I may say that the latest estimate of which I have knowledge is that approaching 10,000 have been so appointed. That figure would not be far out, and it should be said that in the English-speaking world this contribution dwarfs what has been done by any other country. Apart from staff recruitment, there have been departmental and subject-alliances in research and teaching and

891
arrangements for training postgraduates and technicians to man the laboratories of the emerging universities.
None of these activities involved mere routine, formal run-of-the-mill arrangements. In recruitment, there have been interviewing boards to be set up. The choice of members has to be based on an intimate knowledge of the subject and of the resources of the United Kingdom universities—and, in many cases, skilful exploration of our own home resources of scholarship and teaching to make sure that candidates came forward with the qualities necessary for service in the universities overseas.
After the end of the war, the Government of the day decided to accept the findings of the Asquith Commission and to set up university colleges in United Kingdom colonial territories in Africa, South-East Asia and the Caribbean, thereby to give what has been called "the best possible present" to a country about to become independent. It was not by accident or in absence of mind that the Government also asked the home universities to set up a representative body to undertake the responsibility of recruitment and generally to act as godparents who could be relied upon to merge that relationship into the kind of equality which subsists between mature universities.
There are now 45 such universities in 24 countries of the developing world. They differ widely not only in age but also in the style of their individual development: so much so that it can hardly justly be said that they have not freedom to go their own ways as they have responded to the multiplicity of demands pressed upon them for teaching the young people needed for the professional and other services of their countries, for research, for knowledge and expertise and information; for raising above existing horizons the cultural and intellectual sights of their fellow citizens.
Of course, what has been achieved could not have been possible without the provision by the Government of the United Kingdom of finance in the form of overseas aid; but the universities have also made substantial contributions from their own resources—for example, the seconding of staff from this country, research links, involvement in training schemes for indigenous junior staff and technicians.
892
It is right to mention also that over the years a large contribution has come from the voluntary services of members of university staffs who, without remuneration, have foregone vacations and sabbatical leave to help in establishing and building up departments in the overseas universities.
All this has not escaped the eyes of the critics and no doubt, like much of human history, a great deal would be done differently if it were to be done over again. Yet there remains a uniquely successful relationship between our own universities in their rich diversity and those in English-speaking Africa, South-East Asia and the Caribbean. Above all, the fact that it works outside the direct control of our Government has given confidence to the overseas universities and Governments as well as evoking the admiration and envy of other university systems not so well placed in this respect as our own.
It is proposed in the report that we are debating today that the Inter-University Council should either be absorbed in the Government Department dealing with overseas aid or that it should become part of the British Council. It has to be said that both proposals meet with the strongest opposition from our own universities and from the overseas universities and, so far as this has been publicly expressed, from the overseas Governments concerned. To side with that opposition, as I do, is not to deny the great and enduring advantages that have followed the establishment of a Ministry which has fought for and co-ordinated the amount and distribution of our overseas aid, or the lasting achievements of the British Council (of which I was also, like the noble Lord to whom we are indebted for opening this debate, once the chairman) in projecting our cultural heritage, in the teaching of English all over the world as a second language and in the special and most valuable relationship it has built up with the Indian sub-continent. But the fact remains that the Inter-University Council is a different animal from either: their purpose, their authority, their organisation and their scale derive from a different mould and those fundamental differences cannot be ignored.
In reading the report, I find myself somewhat at a loss to discover what picture it wishes us to have of the future. I

893
hope we would agree that we should not allow the picture to be determined alone by what appears to be administrative convenience: such as, for example, the absorption of the smaller by the larger unit, whatever the difference in function. When the United Kingdom Government decided that universities were to be founded in the Colonial territories to prepare for the coming of independence it was by implication committing this country to the expenditure of a lot of money, even by the standards of 30 years ago. And it turned deliberately to the United Kingdom universities to seek their help and advice. Our universities were not possessed of great wealth: in co-operation with the Governments of this country over a long period, they had devised means of determining priorities and enjoyed a good reputation for making resources go a long way in both their roles of teaching and of research.
So it was natural that their knowledge, experience and judgment, were drawn from a great variety of experience: there was Oxbridge, the medieval universities of Scotland, the metropolitan University of London, the national University of Wales, the great civic universities of the North, the regional universities of this country and the technological recruits of the post-war period. All that experience was ready to be invoked and it is both reassuring and gratifying that after three decades overseas countries and overseas universities should still want, now that it is largely their own money that is to be spent, to turn to the United Kingdom universities for counsel and for help. I can say that that is so from fairly recent experience.
In the last month I have had the privilege of spending two weeks in Nigeria at the invitation of one university to give foundation lectures upon its establishment; and I was also invited by the National Universities Commission to spend some time in Lagos with those who are planning the whole university sector of Nigerian education. There I met the most senior political leadership as well as those who are organising higher education. By coincidence I followed that with a visit to a conference at The Hague last week and there the two most outstanding speeches were made by the vice-chancellor
894
of the University of Guyana and an ex-vice-chancellor—now a Minister—in the Sudan who claimed that they would always feel that it was to this country they would turn for advice and help in the development of their own universities.
These overseas universities, particulary in countries like Nigeria, have programmes which are ambitious and, at the same time, daunting. Although they will welcome help from other sources, it is most probably to our universities that they will continue to turn, and perhaps their judgment is not altogether different from that of the United Kingdom Government in 1947. They will have to make their money go as far as possible, for the claims on it are many and insistent. In that respect, in their search for co-operation and advice they have a sound instinct, for what I have said of them can well be said of this country, too. But I think it is clear beyond doubt that they want their advice and consultation to come straight and direct from the universities to them from its source, not mediated through the administration or the arrangements of other bodies with different objectives and purposes from the universities themselves.
In conclusion, it seems to me important to emphasise this point: the lot of the English-speaking universities in Africa, in South-East Asia and in the Caribbean is the common one; they are not in the position of the wealthy Middle East countries who will be able to pay for what they want on a much more lavish scale and who will be able to turn to the most convenient though expensive consultancy services to get it. Theirs is the exceptional case, as I see it. For the Third World as a whole, and certainly for the English-speaking part of it, the United Kingdom universities are now, and are likely to remain, a chief source of advice and help. Our universities remain available through the IUC, as it is at present organised, to give help efficiently, both in terms of cost and of the rich diversity of educational experience and ideas which they have to offer, and the IUC should, therefore, be encouraged to continue as the channel for that advice and help.
I believe, in conclusion, that many members of our universities at different stages in their lives will continue to undertake service of some kind overseas and thus to help forward the progress of universities in the developing countries; and I am

895
sure that they will return to share, in our universities and throughout our society, the insights they have gained by that means into the forces that will do much to shape the coming century.
5.2 p.m.
Lord THOMSON of MONIFIETH: My Lords, I claim the customary indulgence of the House towards a maiden speaker. I suppose it may be wondered whether someone who has spent 20 years of his life in another place and four years in Brussels has any maidenly qualities left, but I assure your Lordships that I feel all the necessary maidenly tremors at addressing your Lordships' House for the first time. I am, however, reassured by the occasion of it, because I started my electoral political career pursing the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, round an election campaign in Galloway in 1945, heckling him, apparently so agreeably that he eventually gave me a lift from one meeting to another! I am therefore particularly pleased that on the first occasion that I have the privilege of addressing this House it should be in support of the noble Lord.
I rise briefly to make three points. First of all, having listened to the course of the debate, my instinctive sympathy for the underdog is beginning to be aroused and I feel inclined to begin with a modest appeal for the establishment of a society for the prevention of cruelty to the Think Tank. Certainly I should like to issue a note of warning about the danger of overreacting to the ideas that have been put out in the Berrill Report. Secondly, and more importantly, I want to dissent from the central recommendation of the report about the marrying of the Home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service. Thirdly, I want finally to complain that the report is not radical enough, in my view, about some of the reforms that are needed in terms of our diplomatic arrangements now that we are members of the European Economic Community.
On the first point, I found during my period as a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, where I went through a number of public expenditure reviews and also the process of the Duncan Report, that there was a certain temptation, a certain instinctive reaction, to feel that such estimable institutions as the Diplomatic
896
Service, the BBC External Services and the British Council were too sacrosanct to be interfered with by laymen from outside. And this time I think there is a feeling that above all for a laywoman from the London School of Economics to start doing this is very close to lêse majesté. I think myself that the Berrill Report should be regarded as a useful piece of shock therapy, compelling those who are engaged in our overseas effort to see themselves as some at least of the post-Imperial generation in this country see them. Britain's rôle is changing in a world which is changing, and in a world where public opinion is changing about many established institutions. Clearly our overseas representation must find the most effective means of adjusting to these changes.
I personally, as I will explain, think that the central recommendations of the Berrill Report are mistaken, but I do not think that that should obscure that there are in the report some sensible proposals of detail. I personally think that the proposal to cut down on the size of the defence establishment in Washington is overdue, as indeed are some of the changes suggested for defence attachés. I would also support the recommendation for reducing the consular services to British citizens in difficulties in Western Europe, though I warn my noble friend the Minister that if that recommendation is to be accepted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must be ready to be robust about Parliamentary Questions. I have noticed that some of those who are keenest about cutting back on our overseas services are those who are loudest in asking the embassy to drop everything else when one of their constituents gets into trouble.
Finally, on the report's comments on the BBC, I thought that was a classic example of what the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides (whom I am so glad to follow with a maiden speech) described as an analysis that was followed by utterly wrong conclusions. As I understood the analysis, the report is pointing out what I have often complained of, that the BBC External Services have been suffering increasingly from inaudibility. It really is a major problem if you have an excellent broadcasting service that cannot be heard. The conclusion I would have drawn from this is that the Think Tank should have been urging Parliament and Government

897
and public opinion to produce the necessary sums of money to enable the broadcasting services to be properly heard throughout the world.
It is the report's central thesis I wish to challenge. Perhaps I may quote from page 359 of the report itself:
"The crucial judgments are the ones about specialisation and about the need for interchange between staff working in the UK and staff working overseas. They underlie many of the recommendations elsewhere in this report.
"If Ministers do not accept these judgments, there is no case for major institutional change. All that will be needed will be to adjust the size of the Diplomatic Service to take account of such of the recommendations in this report as are accepted and to get its structure right".
I think it must be said of Sir Kenneth Berrill and his colleagues that the issue could not have been put more clearly or fairly. I personally do not believe that the Ministers should accept these judgments, and, therefore, I think Ministers should in fact follow the advice given in the second part of the paragraph I have just quoted.
I say this because I believe that both the concept of specialisation and also the concept of interchange between the Home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service on the scale proposed and in the way proposed are impracticable for the wide range of diplomatic posts outside Brussels and Washington. I perhaps ought to put in a qualifying sentence that I am of course strongly in favour of an appropriate interchange between the Home Civil Service and the Foreign Service, but I think what is proposed here is quite unrealistic.
This was brought home vividly to me during a visit I paid recently to a score of Commonwealth capitals in connection with the preparations for the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting. It came to me there that the real specialisation that is needed for those representing us overseas is the ability to get on with foreigners, the ability to understand with imaginative sympathy the country that they are assigned to, and to adapt themselves with patience and imagination to the many problems of living there. That is a professional specialisation as much as any other, and a very important one.
I do not think that the review team really faced up to the necessity for a real sense of commitment, what the noble
898
Lord, Lord Home, called a sense of vocation, for the kind of work that is involved in overseas representation as a professional career. We live in a world of kidnappings of diplomats; diplomacy is as dangerous now as it was a couple of centuries ago. As I went around I went from one post to another that had been the scene of riots and problems over recent years. I had an agreeable lunch in one of our embassies where, on the last occasion I was there, there was a howling mob outside, and a gentleman who had an intriguing placard saying, "We will disembowel Thomson and hang him by his intestines". To devote one's life to surroundings and difficulties of that kind, because the politician goes in and out, requires a real sense of dedication. It requires also, in that category, of embassy a closely-knit team sharing the same background of common service and ready to do each other's job—the very reverse of the kind of specialisation talked about in the report.
I simply do not believe that the kind of specialisation mentioned in the report would work. Nor would a merger of the Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service in a Foreign Service Group work. During the years that I was in Brussels I found it extremely difficult to persuade able home civil servants to make the enormously long journey from London to Brussels, uprooting themselves from the departments at home, facing problems about career prospects and the education of their children. I must add in this connection that my experience, both as a Minister from time to time in the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices and more lately as a Commissioner in the European Community, has been such as to give me immense respect for the generalists inside the Diplomatic Service. Again and again I have seen those people in the Diplomatic Service mastering difficult economic briefs and emerging from their period of duty as experts in that particular subject. I have seen them turn themselves into first-rate trade promotion people and first-rate information specialists.
I come to my third point. I am rather disappointed at the lack of comprehensive reappraisal about the diplomatic arrangements in Community Europe now that we are Members. The report clearly recognises right at the beginning that our membership of the European Community

899
is central now to British foreign policy, and that indeed our best prospect of influencing world events is through the European Community. However, the report does not, in my view, seem to follow through that thought. In some of its recommendations it would actually reduce Britain's contribution to making the European Community an effective vehicle of influence in the world.
I was much struck, from my period in Brussels, that Britain's most important embassy is that new unconventional mission—the United Kingdom representation to the Communities. It affects our daily lives here in this country and the future of our children in a way that is quite different from even the greatest of the conventional embassies, such as Washington.
Over in Brussels we have a mini-Whitehall. It is a good team and here, of course, the role of the Home Civil Service is vital. In my view their role in Brussels would not be helped by making those people part of the kind of Foreign Service Group that the Berrill Report proposes. Their importance lies in the fact that they remain part of their home departments.
I do not agree with what the report says on page 51, namely, that there should be room for reducing numbers in the United Kingdom delegation to the European Community. It is argued that it should be possible to bring the numbers of that mission down to broadly the size of Bonn or Paris. Despite London's nearness to Brussels, there is no substitute for resident experts getting to know intimately their opposite numbers. The implications of the statement that the representation in the Community should not be bigger than that of Bonn or Paris reveal a disturbing misapprehension about the new sort of situation that we are in as regards our diplomatic effort within the European Community.
What has decreased—and I think that it will go on decreasing—with the growth of our Community involvement is the importance of the role of the historic embassies in the national capitals of the Community. Their trade and promotion work remain important and they do it extremely well. However, the traditional bilateral diplomacy is changing and
900
increasingly what is done in the national capitals seems to me to be an aspect of the United Kingdom's overall Community strategy with which it must be continually integrated. I should have liked to see the ideas of the Review team on that aspect. I think that there is a case for gradually adapting and reducing—it would need to be done with the agreement of our partners in the Community—the traditional pattern of representation at national level in some of the Community capitals. I should like to see some of these great and famous embassies used not as the final glittering prize for someone at the end of a distinguished diplomatic career, but for some of the flyers in mid-diplomatic career now that we are part of the European Community.
The other point I should like to make in this respect is that I think the report's proposals about the British Council and the BBC in respect of Community Europe are inconsistent with the view that that is now the centrepiece of our possibility of influencing world events. There is a deep need to seek to convert the European Community from being a Community of Ministers, officials, business leaders and trade union leaders into a citizens' Community with a real sense of being European as well as being British, French or German. If we are to bring that about over the longer term nothing is more important than the kind of work that I saw the British Council do in Brussels, or the kind of imaginative proposal that the BBC has been making and taking the lead in for a Euro-radio programme. It is a pity that almost the one thing where we appear, as a country, to be ready to take a lead in Europe is the one thing that the Berrill Report appears to want to strangle before it is even born.
To sum up. I think that the Review Group is right in seeking to establish the substantial structural changes necessary to adapt to a changing world. However, I believe, along with other noble Lords who have spoken, that they have made a fundamental mistake by over-identifying power with influence. As power passes influence lingers. Our relative power has certainly diminished, but our influence remains significant and worthwhile in many parts of the world. if we have the wisdom and self-confidence to make the most of it.

901
We have heard about the omission from the report of our invisible earnings. One of our audible assets, as the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, is the English language. That is a great asset in terms of future British influence in the world.
When historical trends have relegated a country to the second league internationally, that is the very time when there is need for our overseas representations to remain determined to stay in the first league, of professional diplomacy. I do not mean this in terms of money—I think that money is the least of the problems here; we are talking about expenditure that is half of 1 per cent. of the public expenditure of this country—but in terms of effectiveness and professional excellence. To believe that is not to display illusions of grandeur. As the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, said, that is in fact, the realistic view of making the best of Britain's resources in the modern world. Britain has still great influence to bring to bear through the European Community, with the United States and with the Third World. I think that our influence through the Commonwealth relationship remains extremely important. Therefore, I hope that when Her Majesty's Government come to take their decisions on these matters they will recognise that this is the realistic way to make the most of Britain's role in the decades that lie ahead of us.
5.19 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, it is a matter of great satisfaction to me that a wild rush across the South of England has enabled me to arrive in time to hear most of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I congratulate him on what was obviously a masterly speech and I would regard it as all the more masterly if there was not a word he said with which I did not agree. We should regard ourselves as exceptionally fortunate to have acquired as a Member of this House someone of his distinction. It would be wrong if the first speaker after he sat down did not express his own appreciation of the noble Lord's efforts and immense contribution to our entry into the Common Market. That is something for which we can all be profoundly grateful.
902
May I say that I did not dash across England in the egotistical belief that I had something of such profound interest to utter that it was necessary for me to risk my life doing so. Nor do I wish to inflict upon noble Lords, as they are confronted with a considerable number of speeches, any observations that I can avoid making. However, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, who initiated this debate, to speak and there are one or two things which it would be remiss of me not to say, particularly as I am the deputy chairman of the British Council and thus have an interest which I must at once disclose.
First, I must say how indebted we must be to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, for having made this debate possible, and how indebted those of us who have been on the Council for some years, as I have, are to him for his discharge of the duties of chairmanship. He brought a quality of élan, vigour and initiative to it that could have been brought only by an Army scholar of his character. I do not know anyone of the same type. It is rare to find generals who write poetry; it is rare to find poets who become generals. In himself he combines those two attributes which were of enormous value to the Council, and he has left his mark on the Council in a fashion which I think will survive for years. I do not wish to embarrass him—I will desist now as I see him turning round—but it is exceptionally fortunate that the Council has been able to procure as his successor a man of very remarkable distinction who can proceed along the lines that he has set with a sure foot and in the certainty that he will discharge those duties to everyone's total satisfaction.
Having said that, perhaps I might be permitted to add this. I do not join with those who have poured a torrent of abuse, scorn and sarcasm on this report. That is wrong. The British Council's approach to this report has, I believe, been a wholly responsible one. It has not engaged in invective or denunciation. As noble Lords will observe, the report offers it two alternatives. One is total abolition and the other is a degree of retrenchment which I think would render the Council pretty useless.
I am greatly minded of a story I am fond of telling—and one noble Lord

903
present heard me tell it only in the last week—which concerns a question of choice to which this appropriately relates. It refers to the composer Rossini who was asked to listen to two pieces by a young composer who told him that he had to play one at a concert in the very near future, and he would be most obliged if Rossini would tell him which was the best. Being a kindly man, Rossini listened to the first piece and said, "Do not bother to play the second, I prefer it". I believe that that little anecdote applies admirably to the choices with which we are presented. If it is a question of abolition or continued survival in a state of inanition, then one prefers to continue to survive, although in my view the suggestions made in the report are inappropriate and perhaps arise from something which we should investigate—namely, the circumstances in which a report of this kind arises.
The gentleman who has prepared this report, with the assistance of some very bright fledglings—by the side of one of whom (the prettiest) I found myself sitting at dinner one night and I was almost but not quite won over to her point of view on that account—is an economist. One of the disagreeable features of the report—not disagreeable because of any misbehaviour or moral inadequacy on the part of the authors—is the anti-humanistic bias with which it is totally informed. That, of course, explains the appearance in the report of what is now a notorious sentence:
"The authors of this report are sceptical about the value of cultural influences in international relations".
That could have been put in several ways—in very different ways. It could have been put in less positive ways. I do not believe that it would have been put that way by anyone who had a more general concern for the matters under review and did not bring a highly specialist approach to it.
It was unfair to the authors of this report not to give them more precise terms of reference. To set them loose on a matter as vast as this, involving so many implications and such a wealth of knowledge and experience, was totally unfair. Sir Kenneth is a distinguished economist. The discharge of his duties in the University Grants Committee has
904
earned him the highest praise. It would be quite wrong for one to say anything disparaging of him, but it is equally quite wrong not to recognise the limitations of the qualifications that he must bring to a matter of this sort.
I know very little about the requirements of the Diplomatic Service. From time to time, sometimes when engaged on public duty, I have enjoyed the assistance and the hospitality of ambassadors in various parts of the world. Except for one or two embassies, only one of which I visited, it would be a great nonsense to say that they are equipped and conducted with great luxury or extravagance. I recollect on one occasion being received by an embassy when I was travelling to Rhodesia and I was to be conducted from Johannesburg to Rhodesia in a motor car. I had to issue a warning the second time I went that in no circumstances would I travel in that motor car again. Equally, there was no skilled driver available and during the journey I had delicately to point out to the First Secretary, who was taking me, that we were proceeding in a southerly direction from Johannesburg and that to my rudimentary knowledge Rhodesia was in a northerly direction! Happily, he was not a man of an argumentative or obstinate disposition and he turned round and we went on our way.
What is missing from this report—the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, touched on this—is any recognition of those qualities that one needs to find in an embassy regardless of the economic conditions prevailing. One needs to find grace, elegance and wit; they need to be centres of excellence. One needs to find places where people can have conversations on the highest level, where it is recognised that well-educated, urbane human beings are conducting the nation's affairs. Nowhere in this report do I find the slightest recognition of that at all.
One point that needs to be made about the British Council—I am sure this point has already been made, but I do not think it can be made too often—is the extraordinarily rare and good quality of the people it employs. That is something that needs to be said. The British Council employs those who, on the whole, have decided that they do not find the rat race, the battle for commercial

905
advancement or material success, very attractive. They are people who have withdrawn into a job which they regard as a job capable of conferring benefits on humanity, capable of achieving public value, but where they themselves are obviously committed to a career where the material acquisitions of life are few and far between and not very lavish. That is the quality of those who work in the British Council. I have seen them in many parts of the world. They have a saneness about them in this respect which is wholly engaging.
I remember that in one country I visited the representative of the British Council had just completed an extremely erudite little book establishing that almost all the works of Holbein were not painted by Holbein. I do not think that would have made him very popular among the owners of Holbeins, but the fact remains that it is people of that type who are employed by the British Council. That a report should be published which leaves them with an uneasiness and a concern about their future, about whether their jobs are to be retained, and whether their careers are secure, is unfortunate. That is not a reason for not producing such a report. But it is a reason for considering fairly carefully the circumstances of its publication and with what statements of Government intention its publication should be associated. The fact that at present the Council has been left in total ignorance of the Government's intention is probably unavoidable, but it is—and I say this as I see the Minister present—extremely unfortunate. The sooner reassurance is given to those worthy people, the better.
As to the matters in the report to which I take particular exception, I venture to think that where a question of public support for the arts and the dissemination of culture arises, my own qualifications in this respect are not notably inferior to those of Sir Kenneth Berrill and those who have written the report. In the report I find one or two passages which pack into them such an amount of egregious nonsense that it is difficut to see how they could have been published by those who had given serious consideration to the matter and who had reflected and acquired knowledge about them.
906
One of the matters to which the authors refer is what they call—and it is not a very attractive phrase—"cultural manifestations". They say that over £2 million is expended on cultural manifestations. By that, they mean the dispatch of theatrical and operatic companies, orchestras and all the other things that we send out to persuade people that this is a civilised country—because that is what it boils down to—and to persuade people that intercourse with this country is desirable and can be valuable on every score, not least the commercial one. They make the recommendation that that £2 million should be cut by half. This a wholly unscientific recommendation. If the amount involved had been £4 million they would still have said: "Cut it by half". If it had been £1 million they would still have said: "Cut it by half", because it is the simplest thing to say and the simplest thing to recommend.
When you look at some of the recommendations it is difficult to believe that in respect of these matters (because there are many parts of the report that are extremely well informed and extremely persuasive) they have given the slightest thought. There is a suggestion that English libraries—one of the most important features of the British Council's activities—in every developed country except, I think, Russia, should be closed down. There is a recommendation that the facilities of the Council in every developed country except Russia should be closed down. Now what will the Russians think if the only country to whom we were addressing our propaganda was Russia? Could the authors have given any serious thought to this proposal? If anything would start a world war, it is the discovery by the Russians that we are concentrating all our propaganda effort on them. A lot of thought could have been given to this.
Another thing they recommend is that the libraries should be conducted and taken over by local agencies who will carry them on, replenish them, frequent them, make them available, at local expense. There is no suggestion that they have inquired in any single country which such agency is available, or whether any Government is prepared to undertake this task and provide the money. There is not a shred of evidence to show that this recommendation is supported by any valid inquiry as to the probability that it could

907
in fact be achieved. I venture to think that it would be a total impossibility. No country would undertake such a task.
I have not come to make a long speech. I have come to tell you that having been a deputy chairman—there ought to be two, but it may be that after my appointment they thought that one would suffice—of the British Council, I rate the institution highly. It is a council that has, for many years, given the most careful scrutiny to its activities. If ever there is a body that is self-critical it is that body. I would deeply deplore changes in the Council which reduced its efficiency.
I do not think there is any function of the Council that could be handed over to some other organisation with an equal degree of efficiency and without equivalent or greater cost. It is my absolute, certain conviction that the jobs that it is suggested should be passed on to other organisations, including the creation of a brand new organisation, would not reduce but would considerably increase the cost. May I invite your Lordships to give careful consideration to a careful report, but to reflect on the circumstances in which it came about, to reflect on the background of those people who prepared it, and to advise Her Majesty's Government to be extremely sceptical about the recommendations in it.
5.33 p.m.
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, I should also like to offer my congratulations to the two noble Lords who have addressed us for the first time today. In the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I feel I have a proprietary interest. Some years ago a company of which I was and still am, a director invited the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to join our board. Just as he started to make his weight felt he was unfortunately whisked away to Brussels, to our loss but to the greater gain of our interests in Brussels. Now he has left Brussels and has come to join us again, I am sure to our greater gain here.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, struggled hard to find something nice to say about the report but even he had his difficulties, as I have too. I will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and cut my speech in half—that is probably also the reason why he is only one of two
908
deputy chairmen at the British Council as well. I will concentrate on Chapter 6, which is concerned with the export services. My credentials, such as they may be, are that I have spent the last 20 years almost entirely in the export market, both in invisibles and in visibles, and of those 20 years for four years I was chairman of the American Committee of the British National Export Council. During those 20 years I have seen a great improvement in the whole of our export services, both here in Whitehall and in the posts abroad. I think they are now of a very high standard.
The report rather condescendingly talks about the need for some of the older members of the Service to be more willing to entertain a new idea. We all know people who entertain a new idea like a man entertaining his mother-in-law, but this is not, so far as I ever found, a common failing in the Foreign Service. I have found always from personal experience that they are extremely responsive to new ideas.
The point I should like to make is to find where still more help can be given by the posts and by Whitehall to firms seeking advice. It is noticeable that when you find a really good young man abroad he has inevitably done some period of service with a big company here; has served on attachment. You cannot always find commercial men who have actually sold in the market. That is a bit too difficult. But I hope that more and more firms will make it possible for our younger commercial men in the posts to come and do an attachment in their firms. It is not easy to slot them in, to find the time, but it is very worth while.
The same goes for the media. The more that young men abroad have seen how a commercial or technical newspaper deals with its day-to-day problems, the better. I would say the same, if I may with respect to noble Lords opposite, about the TUC. The more of our commercial men who know what makes a trade unionist tick—or, more often, stop ticking—the better it would be for the common interest.
There is one intriguing remark in the report which caught my eye, and that was a recommendation that there should be a Minister of State for exports. This is

909
only reviving an old idea. There was, in the twenties, a Department of Overseas Trade. This was an odd organisation because the Minister for Overseas Trade was also, at the same time, Under-Secretary of State to the Foreign Office, and a Parliamentary Secretary of State at the Board of Trade. He served three masters, which must have been a difficult thing to do. One Minister for Overseas Trade speaking later in this House made this remark:
"It was interesting to observe the astonishment of some of our Whitehall salesmen when a brilliant piece of commercial strategy has collapsed because a customer has not behaved in a way Whitehall thinks he ought to".
That remark is particularly agreeable to me because the former Minister who made it was my own father.
There is another side to this export coin which I should now like to consider. I should like to give one or two examples where exporters can help the posts abroad and help Whitehall to make better use of the export services. A lot of exporters, of course, do. Some of them however still charge into a new theatre having made no full reconnaissance, not having told the appropriate Whitehall Department what they are up to and seeing whether Whitehall can give them some help—as invariably they can. Nor have they told the posts what they are trying to do. The posts are not able to help them until something goes wrong. We all know that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. I remember in Japan some years ago apologising to our ambassador for having plagued him with so many stupid questions. He looked at me kindly and said, "Stupid questions are much easier to handle than stupid mistakes".
The other thing I should like to suggest is that firms going out into new theatres must not just send the office boy. You will probably have to go three or four times, and send three or four different grades of people. But foreigners want eventually to see the head, they want to see the boss, they want to see the chairman. If you have a chairman who does not fancy himself as a salesman there is a perfectly good solution—get another chairman. Even if you do not want the help of the embassy, the consul-general, the consul, the trade posts, or whatever it may be, it is still a good thing to go and call there.
910
It is a good thing first—and the posts like it—because it is courteous to go and tip your hat to the Queen's representative, particularly in some far distant place. It is courteous also because the posts like to be brought up to date. They think it is polite for you to come and tell them what is the news of the market place here.
I remember Bishop John Ward, who died recently and who we were all so fond of in this House, telling us once of an old lady in church who always bowed when the devil's name was mentioned. He asked her afterwards why. She said, "Bishop, politeness costs nothing, and you never know when it might come in useful". So it is, I believe, that there is a need to go and call on Her Majesty's ambassador. It does something else which the ambassador will possibly mention. It raises the standing of the post in the eyes of the foreigners with whom they live if they think that that post attracts influential and important businessmen who bring the latest news from the market place. It may even raise the standing of the ambassador himself.
Three things however, must not happen. I agree that the ambassador must be commercially up to date and knowledgeable, but he must not be just a super-salesman. I also agree with noble Lords who have argued that primarily he must be a politician, assessing the political background and translating it into commercial terms. By all means let him be commercially minded, but he must not be just a super-salesman. Nor must you ever try to persuade anybody in a post to do your job for you. By all means let them prepare the way for you, find out the markets and tell you what the pitfalls are, but you yourself must do the job of selling. Nor, incidentally, must you ever ask the ambassador to act as your interpreter. We know that we English are so fond of our language that we never bother to learn anybody else's. The best way for any businessman to deal with a foreign language that he cannot speak is to speak English loudly and slowly and, when in difficulties, threaten to write a letter to The Times. But whatever happens learn to use a professional interpreter and not the ambassador.
I am worried by the implication in the report that we should cease activities in places where we are already on friendly

911
terms. I disagree with that. It is often where you are on the most friendly terms—where you have as many friends as possible who have been there a long time and who know the market well—that the worst mistakes can occur. I am certain that the trouble we have had over Concorde in America occurred largely because we were over-confident and did not take enough trouble in the early stages to foresee the difficulties.
I hope that some of the very silly proposals in this report will not detract from some of its few excellent ones. It is always the quality of the ambassador's dinner or size of his Rolls-Royce that gets the headlines, but they really are not very important matters. Anyhow, I believe that a great deal of good business is done over the dinner table; one cannot of course quantify or prove it. Noble Lords may have seen in the newspapers that Mr Paolo Contarini of the Savoy Hotel died yesterday. He was a much respected banqueting manager there for a long time and I recall that at the time of the Duncan Report, for which I gave some evidence, somebody asked Mr Contarini his views on this subject—did he really think business was actually done over the luncheon or dinner table?—and he replied, rather coldly (Sir Val Duncan told me this himself), that it was no part of the functions of the staff of the Savoy Hotel to eavesdrop on their guests at luncheon or dinner.
If you go to any of our posts overseas you will of course find something wrong somewhere. However, from the experience I have had, I have found that they give excellent service, provided that you, the merchant, help them to help you, which is a point the report might have emphasised more strongly. It is comforting to think that if you ask another diplomat at any cocktail party in your own embassy which he thinks is the best post in that particular city or country he will naturally say his own, but the number of diplomats who will frequently admit that the British post is the second best are paying us an unrealised but well deserved compliment.
5.44 p.m.
Lord WEIDENFELD: My Lords, I, too, wish to begin by paying tribute to
912
the two maiden speakers. Lord Saint Brides succeeded in being fair, balanced and uplifting and his speech was set in a major key. I enjoyed his hospitality when he was High Commissioner in New Delhi, which was generous, distinguished and by no means extravagant in some of the terms of the report. The maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was brilliant and forthright and I feel privileged to add being a colleague in this House to other shared endeavours; I refer to my work with him in the British European Movement, which he so ably directs.
Two Ph.D. students, one at Berkeley, California, and the other at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, both grappling coincidentally with a thesis on the British Foreign Office and public opinion in the last 25 years must surely be very puzzled. Why, at a time when so much else in our administrative superstructure is or appears to be ready for overhaul, should our foreign Establishment, renowned throughout the world for its tradition and skill and which at this very moment is being studied by at least one West European country as a model for its own structural reform—which even in the eyes of its sternest critics is basically efficient, manned by dedicated public servants and comparatively inexpensive—have been the subject of four extensive reports totalling 876 pages and more than half a million words; Drogheda, Plowden, Duncan and now Sir Kenneth Berrill's Review of Overseas Representation?
I have asked myself this question, having browsed extensively in Drogheda, Plowden and Duncan and having read Berrill from cover to cover, and I can only deduce that, so far as this last, most comprehensive and certainly most critical of all reports is concerned, the answer is to be found not so much in its letter as in its spirit. It reflects, in my opinion, an intellectual attitude, an atmosphere of prejudice, a sort of fashionable—dare I say it?—trendy attitude which cannot help obtruding into an otherwise austere text unadorned by any flights of style or fancy.
At the very roots of the Berrill Report there seem to be two sets of major assumptions which are inextricably linked. First, Britain, because she has shrunk politically as a Power with global interests and declined economically and is continuing

913
to decline, must radically rethink her external services, their structure, modes and manners. Moreover, her membership of the European Community should simplify this process, since so many decisions are made and implemented over a wide area by others on her behalf.
Secondly, the Berrill Report implies the concept of diplomacy having radically changed throughout the world. The archetypal diplomat is an anachronism, often a pilaster of decoration rather than a pillar of support of his country's intrinsic interests; there is a revulsion throughout the world against ritualism, pomp and circumstance, forced conviviality and against élitism, hence recruitment, social provenance, must be further broadened, the workload reorganised whereby the traditional central activities of diplomacy termed by Berrill "political and foreign policy work" must yield precedence to a host of specialised functions better carried out by the Home Civil Service.
Hence, also, the need for great structural fundamental changes; the streamlining or even excising of whole services, culminating in the radical reduction of the Diplomatic Service proper to a hard core within a new Foreign Service group of inter-Departmental composition. According to Berrill, the quest for perfectionism must be halted. Phrases such as "unjustifiably high standard" are applied to the Diplomatic Service. Its members "tend to err on the side of perfection", they "move in a group apart" or "in the highest circles of local society". If you accept these assumptions, then many, indeed perhaps most, of the recommendations may make sense. But what if you do not? And I, for one, question them most fundamentally.
Although Britain's worldwide interests have shrunk, her complex relationships with the Commonwealth, international organisations, her great Atlantic ally, the United States, the Third World, require a far-flung high quality Foreign Service. Whether the accent is on politics, trade or aid she needs a cadre of men and women who are flexible, sensitive and well-trained generalists. The world today is one vast buyer's market, so far as Britain is concerned, and that needs adaptation to the needs and tastes of others. It needs a nimble, subtle approach; a thorough understanding of those we wish to influence either economically or politically.
914
The idea that, for instance, in our missions abroad we should adopt a style of Philistine frugality and priggish informality is both unrealistic and rather arrogant. Paradoxically, only a super-Power could afford this kind of disregard for conviviality and manners on grounds of self-assurance or eccentricity. But in practice there are no greater sticklers for protocol and fans of old-world formality than, for example, the Soviet and Communist missions abroad.
As to the central argument which has been debated in some detail earlier today; namely, the substitution of the Diplomatic Service by a foreign service group in which the hard core old style Diplomatic Service, though greatly reduced, would, if I understand correctly, still supply a large number of senior posts and heads of missions—if that is not élitism, what is? How would the other promotions and appointments to senior office be made? By a constant ongoing power struggle between Departments of State? Will Washington, for instance, be a satrapy of Trade and Industry, Paris one of Environment, Oslo an outpost of Energy?
It is true that the report counsels flexibility and the need to monitor changing circumstances, but it is quite clear that once dismantled, a closely knit service with a great tradition could not be put together ever again. The implicit references to class seem unfair to the Foreign Office hierarchy, who have already greatly broadened the base of recruitment. When the report censoriously labels, as it does in one place, Foreign Service officers as being imbued with a "middle-class mentality", I am at a loss to understand what this means; surely, in the context it must be a term of opprobium. But is it a patrician slap from above, or a plebeian kick from below?
I do not think for a moment that membership of the European Community necessarily simplifies and standardises the type of work and the type of staff required. Here it is not only a question of machinery and structure but it is, and certainly should be, more and more one of evolving a specific British contribution and identity. Britain's voice must be heard in Brussels. Her stamp must somehow be seen and felt, not only economically but politically, and, yes, morally.

915
May I be forgiven if I cannot hide my disappointment at last week's regrettable failure of the Nine to range themselves spontaneously alongside the United States and send the good wishes of Europe to President Sadat on his courageous journey to Jerusalem? Surely these and other recent lapses must not harden and congeal into a kind of Gresham's law of faintheartedness, where the most timorous decides the speed, and the most callous sets the tone in the Community.
I should like to deal very briefly with the two largely cultural services earmarked by the report for drastic change. The decimating, or indeed the dismantling, of the British Council would be a very foolish move. The noble Lords, Lord Ballantrae, and Lord Goodman, have given us some powerful arguments from the vantage point of people who have directed it so ably. I would just add my own professional experiences as a publisher, and say that at both ends of the scale the British Council gives invaluable service to our profession, which increasingly depends on, and contributes to, the export trade. To the small publisher it gives that muscle entailed in co-operative action: trade fairs, up-to-date information, live contacts, which he himself could scarcely afford. But even to the larger and largest units of publishing the British Council, through its far-flung offices and services, renders invaluable aid. It is not really true to say that in the advanced and developed countries, and especially in Western Europe, the teaching and diffusion of the English language and literature should be done by private enterprise. Of course it can, and is, done in part, but the overview, through full-time involvement with cultural institutions and wide personal contact which British Council officers and offices can provide, is quite inestimable.
In Italy, France, Holland, and Sweden for instance, I have, over the past 20 years, come across men and women working for the British Council who have established well-nigh legendary reputations in their host countries; who have done more for cultural exchange than can be expressed even in the longest speech. I have in mind names like Enid Macleod, Roger Hinks, Ian Greenlees, and many others, who have projected British culture abroad and brought the best of European
916
artistic endeavour to our notice. Streamlining here and there—yes. Perhaps more dovetailing with embassy work. But there is no justification for destroying a service which brings us so much material and cultural revenue. Nor is the Department of Education and Science the right home for a truncated British Council. It is, after all, the particular merit of our country to give the arts that autonomy which in other countries they do not have.
When speaking of the BBC's External Services, I must declare my interest. I spent seven—I should almost say my seven formative years—as a member of the BBC Overseas Services, and I have tried to keep in touch ever since. Even today, though other countries may spend much more money on programmes and personnel, ours is the best world service of information and enlightenment. It is a modestly financed and frugally run service, and even by the stern criteria of the report one could justify expansion rather than contraction.
There are several countries, for instance, with which Britain has a growing volume of trade, and that would justify a new vernacular service from London. Once again I disagree with the assertion that in the United States, or in Western Europe, the BBC Services are not required. Evidence from listeners' reports will overwhelmingly belie this statement of fact. The British information services in the United States, as I know from long and detailed experience, are doing an outstanding job and are not adequately manned. They use the BBC to good purpose. The BBC has about a million listeners in France. Throughout Western Europe it enjoys the highest reputation for integrity and objectivity. We should also back the BBC's plan for a new Euro-service, which I believe could be made cost-effective.
If the main body of the report, both in its assumptions and conclusions, was to be ultimately rejected, as I hope it will be, there still lurks that all too human danger of "tokenism", a feeling that Government may think that too much effort and work has been spent, and so tends to adopt a conclusion here, a passage there, to amortise manhours and taxpayers' money. But I submit that the Berrill Report represents a cohesive, closely argued case, a philosophy, governed by convictions

917
which must be either accepted or rejected. The British Foreign Office has proved in the last quarter of a century that it is capable of self-analysis, that it is able to correct, and constantly review, its functioning. Extensive machinery for inspection and control, and continual self-appraisal exists. Could not the Foreign Secretary and his associates, both within the Department, and in inter-Departmental conclave, make such adjustments as they feel are needed, and could not the Government, and both Houses, reassure all those who spend their working lives as dedicated members of the Foreign Service, by giving them a vote of genuine confidence which they so badly need, and which they so undoubtedly deserve, and let them get on with the job?
5.57 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we have been privileged today to hear some remarkable speeches during the course of this debate, instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. I have heard this afternoon what have been perhaps the two most powerful maiden speeches that I have listened to since I have been in this House. There is no need to say anything about them; they spoke for themselves. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, would mind if I said that, perhaps unintentionally, he possibly broke the tradition by being controversial. His was the only speech I have heard so far which spoke for the review, and I am sure that that was not his intention when he prepared for the debate.
I am not qualified to criticise the Diplomatic Service, nor indeed its internal workings, but I can speak as someone who has lived and worked abroad in a commercial capacity in developing countries for over six years. It is in this capacity that I should like to make my comments on the report. By commercial standards it is a bad report for about three main reasons. First, despite its size and detail, and indeed its very weight, there are some vital omissions. These have already been mentioned by noble Lords, and there are others which I shall come to later.
Secondly, for its disloyality I would suspect its conclusions. Thirdly, the attitudes and opinions that run throughout
918
the report, to my mind question its content and its conclusions. I think that this is a pity because this attitude, which I should like to call the "Sevenoaks syndrome", is one that is not really confined to civil servants, but affects almost anybody who goes abroad with this attitude. I mean no disrespect to the residents of that fine town. I am not implying that it is a hornets' nest for middle-class left-wing intellectuals. What I am saying is that certain Englishmen, when they go abroad in whatever capacity, see, judge, compare, and assess a foreign country and its people in the terms of the environment of their own home town, perhaps (and usually it is) in the South of England.
This criticism, if it is such, can be made against the authors of the report. There is, for instance, their attitude towards the English language. A number of noble Lords have already mentioned this point. They assume that nearly all the world can read, write and speak English, and that the rest do not want to. Therefore, why bother to encourage them through a continuation of the good work of the British Council, or the British Overseas Broadcasting Services?
No one who has spent even a short time overseas, and certainly in a developing country, can go along with this point of view. Today, these countries, because of national policy, make English, not the second alternative language but sometimes the third or even the fourth language for children to grow up to learn and understand. In a growing number of countries this makes it impossible for children to learn English through any of the national schools of the country in which they were born. Therefore, services like the British Council and the BBC are the only ways in which such a boy or girl can find an opportunity to learn a language that is called, as it was in India, "a window to the world". I therefore hope that the remarks made by other noble Lords and myself will be taken into consideration.
At this stage I should like to ask two technical questions which I think arise from some lack of knowledge of the technical developments that have occurred in the fields of communication. One concerns overseas broadcasting, which is dealt with in Chapter 13. The long-term prospects of the BBC's overseas broadcasting is dependent upon increasing the

919
power of the transmitters. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, when he discussed the audibility of the BBC services. I do not see any reference in this report to satellite transmissions. I should like an answer from the Minister, or some guidance, as to whether the BBC have discounted the use of satellites for future broadcasts, or whether they are going to pin their hopes on larger and stronger transmitters.
There is another question, again of rather a technical nature, which I should like to dispose of, and that is this. From the section on communications, Chapter 16, it would seem that the authors of this Review put their faith in the Telex communication as being the be-all and end-all of communications between posts overseas and London. They should have mentioned (or perhaps they did not know; I am not sure which) that all Telex communication is monitored, or can be monitored, by the host country, whether it is a closed or an open circuit, and that any country has a right to monitor such communications. I feel that this should at least have been put into the report, because there is no way in which you can get security on a link of this kind.
Then the report goes on to worry about how communications can be made and, at the same time, costs reduced. I have seen one machine already on the market which makes it quite possible to transmit a communication through a telephone line, and to have a record of it either end, from an ordinary telephone extension with a small attachment. This is in fact a portable machine which can be carried around or can be used from a desk top. The system uses pulses through the telephone line which activate a typewriter the other end. This is quite a simple and not very expensive process, but, again, I am concerned that this was not touched on or even considered as a form of communication. First, it is extremely secure and very economical, the time taken being very short because of the speed of the pulses; and, secondly, there is a record of the message at either end.
My Lords, I am also worried about their enthusiasm for the telephone line. In some developing countries, first, it is almost impossible to get a line, and secondly, we have this audibility problem
920
again. The authors of this report happily discuss the question of nuances being transmitted through the use of the telephone. In my experience, if that is the main reason why the telephone should be used more often by the Civil Service, they will discover—if may perhaps even be a surprise to them—that in the end the telephone calls become all nuances and no facts. Again, I think this is something which show s that there is a lack of experience in the use of telephones in calls to large parts of the world.
Now I want to come on to the final point, and perhaps the main point, of my short intervention. It concerns the subject of export promotion and, more precisely, fairs and promotions. One will get a variety and a variance in the quality of such promotions from post to post, depending upon the man who is actually on the spot. Some diplomats are able to understand businessmen and communicate with them extremely well. Others find this more difficult; but I can assure your Lordships that all are trying at the moment. In these situations, a lot depends entirely on the local attaché, who is able to speak the language and who knows the contacts which are of most use to businessmen. The only criticism I have of this is that in some areas the local attaché is so local—for instance, he has never been to Britain—that, when confronted with a businessman from Birmingham, he is not too sure whether Birmingham is on the South Coast or on the North Coast of Britain. I am exaggerating this, but I think it is unfortunate because, if the local contact is not aware of what British industry and Britain itself is all about, he immediately loses the confidence of the visiting businessman.
Now I want to make a suggestion, which I hope the noble Minister will consider, concerning fairs and promotions, at the same time covering the general business of entertainment, and so on, about which the report goes on and on. Perhaps the authors of this report, if they had looked at other people's trade commissions or embassies, would have seen that attached to them—certainly, I think, in the case of the French, and perhaps the Germans—is a hall or assembly room which is used, not only for entertainment but to display various equipment and to hold film

921
shows, as well as being used by exporters as a base for displaying their wares or putting across an idea or a system, which usually cannot be transported there, for demonstration purposes.
There are places in this report—and the authors have touched on it in another section, concerning the ambassador or the resident overseas and entertainment—where they suggest that perhaps one room of the residence be put aside for entertainment. I think they should extend this thinking much further and should consider, as export promotion is so important at this present time and will be even more important in the future, not putting aside a room but building a designed hall (for want of a better word) similar in aspect, perhaps, to the Building Centre or Design Centre which has multi-uses—for entertainment, for cinema shows and as a meeting point. Such a hall could be managed and run by the British missions overseas and could vary in size from mission to mission depending on the value of the exports or the needs required. This would act as a major focal point for a visiting businessman. He would have somewhere to show his wares, and he would have somewhere to meet the local contacts or potential purchasers who, hopefully, the local attaché will have lined up for him to meet. Indeed, such businessmen would be prepared to pay a rent or charge to cover the overheads for such facilities, because often in these countries no such facilities exist anywhere—except, perhaps, in rival embassies.
My Lords, I would say only one final word. There is mention of a greater use of civil servants flying out on short visits, and so on. The thought of a sort of airborne team of civil servants flying from point to point with pamphlets and statistics in every pocket appals me. Exports are not about pamphlets, statistics or flying civil servants. It is a straightforward buying and selling job—nothing whatever to do with the Civil Service. The Civil Service is providing and should provide a back-up to exporters, but let the selling man do the selling. You cannot be all things to all men, and I would say to civil servants, whatever their training or background in commerce, please use this to understand how to communicate with businessmen, but for goodness sake do not try to sell anything on behalf of businessmen, because I think that could be quite disastrous.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, this has been an extraordinarily unanimous debate. I have listened to all the speeches and I have not disagreed with any of them—whether from the Government side or from the Opposition side. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, can be in no doubt about the opinions which your Lordships hold on the Berrill Report. We have had some very interesting speeches, indeed, and noble Lords who made maiden speeches were quite excellent. I very much enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Eccles, speaking, as he was, with great experience and knowledge of the value of the arts and the methods of interesting people in our civilisation and in our way of life. Nobody could have put the matter more clearly. It was extremely interesting to hear him speak.
I am going to speak for only a short time. I do so because when I got hold of this report when it was first published—I think, in June or July—I was so irritated by its contents that I said to myself that if I got an opportunity of saying something about it I should not resist it. The opportunity has been given me today and I am afraid that I cannot resist saying what I think about the Berrill Report. I object strongly to the defeatist point of view which runs through the whole report. This country still has a tremendous contribution to make to international affairs and to everything that is vital in the world today. The idea that these people, the "Tankers", as my noble friend Lord Eccles said, should put forward this defeatist point of view at this time seems to be totally wrong and quite unjustified.
My Lords, there is one point about the report which has not been mentioned and to which I strongly object. The report is extremely difficult to read. Every paragraph contains—I do not know how many—initial letters instead of writing out what the letters represent. If one wants to read the report one must refer to page 371 at least at every other paragraph one reads. There are three pages of what are called acronyms. I discovered—and your Lordships will all discover, for we are all in the same boat—that we here are all "BPHs", which means, "British passport holders". Why must all these

923
words be put into initials? It is most irritating and I do not see that it adds to the ease or to the importance of trying to read this report. And why are so many paragraphs omitted, according to the report, "for reasons of security or foreign relations"? I thought that when people made reports, they made reports that everybody can read. At least a dozen paragraphs have been omitted. I should like to know why. It seems to me to be not at all a satisfactory way of writing a report.
My Lords, I dislike the whole approach of the report to the Foreign Service. It seems to me that it is wrong. There are many ex-ambassadors in your Lordships' House and it is difficult for them to speak for themselves. I can speak up for them, having never had any personal interest in the Foreign Office or in the British Council, except as a traveller, as somebody who has benefited tremendously from the excellence of our Foreign Service and British Council, and as somebody who was for three years a delegate to the United Nations where I learned how greatly superior were our services to many of those of other nations at New York. The personal leadership that our ambassadors and their staffs give in foreign countries is invaluable to the influence of the United Kingdom in foreign affairs. Any idea that that should be cut down or changed, as is suggested in the report, is, I think, absolutely wrong.
There is also a recommendation made which other speakers have mentioned and which seemed to me at the time of reading it extremely short-sighted; that is that in the highly-civilised countries in Europe and the USA and many others of that type we should immediately cut down on the services which we provide and that we should, in fact, concentrate far more on the underdeveloped countries. I think that is completely wrong. It seems to me that it is in the highly-civilised countries which are very influential in the world that you want to be quite sure that your influence, that what you can contribute, is put in the best possible way, because it is in those countries that you want to influence people as much as possible.
All of us in this House have lived through wars and through very difficult times. They have not been started in underdeveloped
924
countries but in the highly-developed countries. It is in the civilised areas where many of the dangers that you and I have lived through have started. I think it is most important that we should not in any circumstances step back, as it were, from working in the very areas about which the Berrill Report is so critical.
Various people have mentioned the great importance of teaching English. I realised this very quickly, indeed when I was at the United Nations. When one gets to the United Nations with its hundreds of nations-150 nations, I think—one suddenly realises the enormous advantage in the international world of the fact that English is the lingua franca of the world. If you cannot speak the language of other nations, they can nearly always speak English. The great American continent is English-speaking; nearly all the European countries' representatives speak English—as is the case with India and with Pakistan. The advantage of English as a lingua franca cannot be exaggerated. One of the great things that the British Council has done has been to encourage the teaching of English, the exchange of teachers and everything to do with the study of the English language. I think it is the greatest possible mistake to suggest that we should cut down on this because in the highly-developed countries they can learn English elsewhere; and it is on the other countries that we should concentrate. I think it is extremely important that we should develop in every way we can the teaching of English.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, or the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who referred to the importance of our cultural exchanges. The Berrill Report plays down the idea of cultural exchanges, of our great orchestras and ballet companies going all over the world. But that is one of the things that leads to great interest and goodwill. Those are contributions that we can make, contributions which many countries cannot make. I would maintain, for instance, that some of our composers in this century have been the greatest composers in the world. We can point to many of our cultural developments which are as good as or better than any others in the world.
It would be nothing short of suicide to cut down on all that which creates goodwill and great interest—not only in

925
music and the arts but in science and technology and in the other things at which we are also very good. All these things make for interest and give us the kind of leadership in Europe of which, it is true, we have had more in the past; but there is no reason why we should not have more in the future. Certainly, we shall not have more in the future if we are to cut down on these things. The whole aspect of the Berrill Report is wrong. They are trying all the time to make us believe that nothing we do can be any good unless it is purely economic. Of course economics are very important. We have had some very interesting contributions about economics; for instance, Lord Tanlaw's speech. There is a lot more in the world than economics. It would be tragic if we were to concentrate only on that type of foreign business and foreign affairs.
Regarding Chapter 13, on overseas broadcasts, while paragraph 13.9 pays tribute to the broadcasting services of the BBC, it does not say enough. There is no doubt at all that our Overseas Service of the BBC is the best broadcasting on radio—and I think television too, but particularly radio—of any country of the world. Other countries are jealous of our Overseas Service. Abroad many times people say: "I must not miss the London broadcast". It is absolutely first-rate. To cut down on that would be foolish and short-sighted. My mind goes back—perhaps too far back to refer to it now—to the war when the one service we were able to broadcast into Europe was the European Service of the BBC. I know that because my husband was continually speaking on the European Service of the BBC. By some miracle a great many of these talks got through behind the Nazis and the war barriers.
After the war was over I can remember at conferences in Paris and in Germany people said to him "We heard you on the BBC during the war. You do not know what an inspiration it was to be able to hear voices coming through from the Free World". It is a long time ago of course and the same conditions do not now exist; but there are areas where free speech is denied; there are areas where it is very difficult for people to hear the kind of broadcasting that we produce through our BBC Overseas Service. It is extremely unfortunate to consider reducing that.
926
A criticism the report makes is that there is an objection to conveying information about Britain and its culture. Who could have written anything so utterly wrong? Our contribution in the past has been great; in the future it could well be very great because we have the ways and means of developing things culturally, musically, scientifically, and so on, which can make a great contribution to the world. To suggest that that is something on which we should cut down seems utterly and absolutely wrong. My Lords, I hope that this report will receive from Her Majesty's Government the reception that it deserves: to be put into a pigeonhole and forgotten.
6.24 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that this was a unanimous debate and up to now that has been so. I do not think it should be a unanimous debate. Here we have an earnest endeavour of qualified people in trying to sort out the terms of reference which were perhaps too broad, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said; but still they have performed a valuable task. I shall comment on certain aspects of it, but first I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and I have often differed; but I always respect the sincerity with which he holds his views, and that was well testified in today's debate. I also congratulate him on not bowing to the funny little traditional obstacles and making a thoroughly controversial speech. I hope to hear him again very often and I wish him well.
I am of course well aware of the risk that I am taking in dissenting from the most numerous vested interests in this House. We have about three-quarters of a dozen ex-Permanent Secretaries and any number of ex-ambassadors. There is also a numerous auxiliary brigade headed by that martial figure the mover of this Motion for Papers, whose speech resembled not so much a speech "to move", but a cavalry charge—only, it was not the Light Brigade; it was the heavy. I observe in passing that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, wants to use the Diplomatic Service as a cover to borrow more—I do not want to say a "con-trick" because I am sure that he never thought of it that

927
way. I must confess that what he said would be more appropriate to the impoverished Hungarian gentry than to the British Government. We could not mislead the IMF for two seconds.
The record we have in foreign affairs is not altogether good. With the new team which we have I am sure that we shall do better. Our failures stretch from Palestine to the German plains. We spent millions—indeed thousands of millions—and the only achievement was retreat. We have not succeeded in getting adequate reparations from Germany, nor have we obtained an adequate contribution to the costs of stationing troops; indeed, we have been, and are, subsidising their bloated foreign balances. A better insight could have secured the well-merited help to our exhausted economy. We could have easily safeguarded our interests in both directions had the economics of our situation been appreciated. In our negotiations with our French allies, their superior skill usually got the better of us.
A number of other more recent instances can be quoted. I will not weary your Lordships with them and, anyway, I would be precluded from doing so. I do not believe that the analysis of the particular aspect of the weakness of our Government structure with which this report had to deal with can be faulted. I must warn noble Lords that even the discovery of oil, which was a Godsend, will not save us if we go on as we are: we will drink the oil just as we have blown the gas.
We are over the whole field of policy still suffering from a lack of expertise, and I do not believe that with the present organisation of the FCO we will get it. I do not believe that administrative reorganisation can help without a change in doctrine and attitude. But some reforms are in order. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, rightly said that ambassadors are there to give political advice. I totally agree with him. But, how many cases were there in the post-war history of Britain where the political expertise of ambassadors did not prove very high because biased in favour of the status quo? Much the most important reform in my opinion is the reorganisation of the so-called Functional Department of the FCO and, in conjunction with it, the out-posting of
928
personnel dealing with specialist questions.
One noble Lord has said—I think he meant it—that an important qualification for a diplomat is that he should be able to get on with foreigners. With great respect, I submit that he might get on with them too well. It is not conducive to the public interest that generalist diplomats should deal with questions where expertise is needed. The Foreign Office has a legitimate interest in these, but not an overriding one. And it must not happen, as it has happened very often, that we get into a Bismarckian situation—when he appointed an ambassador, whom he afterwards rather disliked, he said:
"I thought we had an ambassador in Paris: what has happened is that Thiers has a representative in the Foreign Office".
That is a very important point and I would earnestly beg the House to heed it.
The economic division, for instance, even now is not, and should be, headed by an economist. I am very glad to see that the present Foreign Secretary has secured the services of an outstanding expert in applied economics, but the manning of the division is still unsatisfactory. The Treasury indeed has its own man in the most important centres, and other Departments have direct representation, especially in Brussels. But I feel that a great service to the State could be performed if the recommendations of the report—21.69–73—were accepted and as a result this country, like France, would become more specialist. As I said, there has been a movement in this direction and I am sure that the economic advice has very much improved. But further progress is absolutely essential.
I have concentrated on the handling of foreign economic policy because as a civil servant, a Minister and an adviser of many countries negotiating with the British Government, I have had ample opportunity to observe the problem and gauge the needs. Much the same could be said even more emphatically about trade promotion, which takes place at a lower echelon and is therefore even less well endowed.
As to the British Council and the BBC foreign broadcasts, I wish I could be as positive as other noble Lords about the excellence of the service. I must congratulate

929
the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on his speech; it would have swayed me if I was not so stubborn, because it swayed, I am sure, the whole House. No doubt there are very many of the idealist type going out to spread the gospel—but, mind you, if the gospel is spread by somebody who is a mendicant, this is not so good. I must say, therefore, that if moral principles are to be spread more we ought to have more economic cannonballs to fire.
I simply do not understand the attitude of some noble Lords who spoke about the BBC Foreign Service. So far as I can make out, this report recommends that a very sharp increase in audibility should be achieved within a framework of limited financial resources. Can anybody contradict that? There is no question that the BBC is "heard" all over the world. In fact, the BBC is heard hardly anywhere in the world. I have been lately in France, Yugoslavia and Malta, and have had the greatest difficulty in catching the BBC, while the German wavelength, the Deusche Welle, overwhelmed us at every point. Also, I do not know whether "Lilli-bolero Bullen alla" should be our theme signal, given the Irish Question. I think a more tactful introduction, say Mozart or Beethoven, might be more appropriate. To disregard this problem, to disregard the problem of the chasm between script, production and audibility is to waste money and annihilate our endeavour. This is a problem which ought to be solved by deeds, not by words.
I hope that conventional prejudice will not tarnish what in my opinion is one of the most important Government documents, a report which has the courage of candour, which so many of the other official investigations that have been received with "Hallelujah", lack. We must be able to accept bold pictures rather than whitewash if we are to survive in a gloomy and hostile world.
6.36 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I must apologise for not being able to congratulate the maiden speakers on their speeches. Much to my loss, I had to attend at that moment a Western European Union briefing, but I hope it will be my good fortune to hear them in
930
the near future. There is only one point on the general document that I want to make: it concerns the background, the philosophy which pervades it. In the discussion as to whether we are a sinking nation which will not be able to reverse the course of events and have more influence or whether we can say, "Nonsense: we are going to rise triumphant again from the waves", I must say that I agree with the first point of view. I think we have expended so much of ourselves in many ways that it is unlikely that we can become again a first-class nation. But I thought the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was particularly wise when he said that in fact we ought to be thinking of this in terms of working through other organisations and that the great strength Britain has to offer—I think it has enormous strength—should be used in that way, and particularly through Europe.
I think that a great opportunity was missed when this team was asked to do the report in not asking them to say more about what should be done in the framework of Europe, given certain eventualities. I am speaking as a convinced European Federalist in a House which is dominated by two Parties which are not federalist. Nevertheless, I think that as Europe gradually grows together, in whatever form it takes, the question of its representation and how our Foreign Service will work will change dramatically. I think the fact that the terms of reference were not widened to encourage this to happen, and possibly a lack of European commitment on the part of some of those who, one understands, compiled the report, may have made a difference in this regard. But I think it is a mistake that we have not been able to discuss really clearly the way forward as a united Europe and what the foreign policy of that united Europe should be.
From that, I turn to the British Council. I am a member of the Executive Committee, along with other noble Lords who have spoken. It is not just because of that but because I know a certain amount about its work that I reject both alternatives which are put before us. First, I think the team's report has underrated the extent to which the British Council pays for itself. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has already spoken about the

931
commercial value of some of our publishing and cultural work. If there was ever any way of estimating the commercial value, in all its repercussions, I should be very surprised indeed if we did not find that the British Council at least paid for itself.
The second point I want to make has been touched on a little gingerly by certain noble Lords, but I do not think it has been tackled head on; that is, the whole terms of reference of this investigation. This was an investigation into the representation of our interests abroad. That is possibly fair enough, so far as the diplomatic corps and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office go. But I do not think it is nearly good enough so far as the British Council and even the BBC go, because they are in a different game altogether.
I am old-fashioned enough—I am not often considered to be old-fashioned in this House—to think that they are in the business of purveying truth and goodness and art, and I should have no hesitation in saying that these things will bring repercussions and be seen to be good for Britain. But that is not what they are about. Do not let us be ashamed to be a little Gladstonian from time to time and say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said, that there are other things than economics and political power. When we have some of the most foremost artists in the world in every kind of field, when we have people like Britten, Moore and Bacon, when we have theatre and opera and ballet companies, surely we should be letting as many people as possible see these. Surely, when we manage to have a whole broadcasting set-up which is renowned throughout the world for its truth and its objectivity, we should be doing this. Is not this one of the most important things that we can be doing for the world?
So that, in a way, the Think Tank, in this report, has been far too limited in its approach. I cannot think of anything more idiotic by the standards of human values—I will not even say civilised values—than doing away with, or even cutting down, the work of the British Council and the BBC. As for the idea that we should integrate the British Council in any way with the Foreign Service, I would say
932
that it is because the British Council is seen to be separate, it is because other countries know that it is not infiltrated by our secret service, it is because they know that they do not have to go through the embassy gates in order to get a cultural value but can go somewhere completely different—it is because they know all these things that the British Council is able to do the good work that it does, and, if those things were taken away from it, it would do far less good work.
There may be very many important things which the report has said. I was highly impressed by one or two of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, made about parts where he obviously has immense experience. But I beseech Her Majesty's Government and noble Lords and everyone who has direction of the affairs of this country, that we do not always strictly stick to what is seen to be to our own advantage. Nations and societies, as well as individuals, are dependent on each other for what good is done, and, if we are accused of being do-gooders, then I say that good is not really done except by people who are do-gooders. In our lifetimes, most of us have probably learned that no man is an island. It is possibly time we learned that no island is an island, either.
6.44 p.m.
Lord EVANS of HUNGERSHALL: My Lords, after a debate of such distinction which is only halfway through, it is a work of supererogation to make any contribution. I can mitigate that only by saying that my own contribution will be very brief. But however brief, one must spare a moment to express one's thanks for the two maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Seldom have we heard two maiden speeches of such authority and distinction in this House.
I do not intend to discuss the report as a whole or in detail. I would solely explore its origins and its treatment of the Foreign Service. What it states about economics and exports may be valuable, and there are those with great authority to speak on them. But in so far as this report deals with the Foreign Service and with the ally of the Foreign Service, the British Council, it should be buried beyond retrieval. I

933
say this with a single note of regret. The only name to appear in the report is that of Sir Kenneth Berrill whose services to the State in other directions had been so notable. In my view, he found himself in a quite impossible position when he inherited the Central Policy Review Staff, which we used to call familiarly the Think Tank. It was really an invention of that highly ingenious Member of our House, although seldom present, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild—a very distinguished banker, and even more distinguished scientist, as Cambridge and Shell were to discover, with a mind of infinite activity, and one of the cleverest things he ever did in his life, which has been a very clever life, was for over four years to disguise himself as a civil servant.
The Central Policy Review Staff was set up, as noble Lords will recall, in October 1970 under Mr. Heath's reorganisation of central Government. It was to be an integral part of the Cabinet Office, under the supervision of the Prime Minister and of Ministers collectively. I shall not quote the whole list—I have it here, but it occupies a whole page—of all the problems in which the Think Tank had been engaged. Noble Lords who are interested will find them in the Meditations on a Broomstick. But there was one thing in common; they were all under the direction of the Cabinet.
In contrast, may I examine how this report began? In the foreword, we are told that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Mr. Callaghan, requested the report. But on the first page of the report we discover that it was not Mr. Callaghan who requested the report. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, he had the Plowden Report of 1964 and the Duncan Report of 1969. It was the Review Staff itself that proposed to the Minister that the report should be made. One of the main tasks of the Review Staff, when Mr. Heath was Prime Minister, was to make a six-monthly report to the Government—a headmaster's report, as the noble Lord rather familiarly called it. When Sir Harold Wilson succeeded, the request for these reports ceased. Was it ever revived, or has the Review Staff increasingly to find self-appointed tasks? Anyway, Sir Kenneth and his six anonymous members set out on what was, if one reads the terms of reference—their own terms of reference—one of the most
934
extensive explorations that have been made for years.
I think that the names of the staff should be mentioned in the report. After all, their names were published in The Times, with a rather jolly picture attached. Before I knew that this debate was to take place, I wrote to Sir Kenneth and asked him for the names of his colleagues and these he readily gave me. When later I knew that this debate was to take place, I put down a Question for 'Written Answer and the information is in yesterday's Hansard. I am sure that they are all men and women of the highest intelligence but it must be said, and firmly said, that they have not the experience of working over-seas, they have not the stature or authority and they are inadequate to stand in judgment, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, may say, of the most distinguished Foreign Service that any country in the world possesses.
Let us recall the aims that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, had for his staff. The first was, and I quote:
"… sabotaging the over-smooth functioning of the machinery of Government"—
a delightful task! This may be why the staff in this report say that they are conducting a "radical review", although we know that the report was initiated by the Review Staff itself and that there was no such instruction. Then in the course of repetitive comment, they contrive to use the word "radical" five times in one brief paragraph—paragraph 1.10 on page 3. I have read beyond page 3 but this happens to come on page 3. This paragraph also enshrines one of the numerous verbal banalities which border on the unintelligible, and perhaps I may quote:
"On balance we think that the disadvantages of a powerful institutional ethos outweigh the advantages; this creates an additional general argument in favour of change".
One of their major complaints is that the Foreign Service has not adjusted its image adequately to a changing world and to the changing position of England in that world. The noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, spoke eloquently about this point in what was, as I have already said, a memorable speech. I would say that even the Monarchy has not adjusted itself more skilfully to the changing world than has the Foreign Service. Nowhere in this

935
report—I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, were here to listen just to this single paragraph—is there any recognition, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, drew our attention, that service overseas, even in the most agreeable conditions, is more difficult than service in Whitehall and the Cabinet Office. Nor in many parts of the world have the conditions been very agreeable.
We have only to recall that in 1967 our embassy in Peking was burned down; that in 1970 James Cross was held for two months by terrorists in Quebec; that in 1971 Sir Geoffrey Jackson, our Ambassador in Montevideo, was kidnapped; that in March 1973 Sir Richard Sharples, our Governor and Commander-in-Chief in Bermuda, was assassinated; and that in 1976, when the review staff were labouring at their report, Christopher Ewart-Biggs, our Ambassador in Dublin, was assassinated. Nor is the issue confined to these spectacular incidents. Consider, my Lords, the concluding period of the service of the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan. I shall get no praise from the noble Lord for choosing him as an example. However, from the day when the noble Lord heard on the embassy radio in Cairo of the Suez attack to the last perilous days in Aden, he conducted himself with discretion, judgment and fortitude, to the honour of his service and of his country.
Why is there no mention of these matters in this Whitehall document? A team such as Sir Kenneth had at his command cannot perhaps be expected to get things into perspective. After all, if the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, still prevails, they must all be under 35, which I believe would exclude even the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, from our deliberations. However, one would expect them to acquaint themselves with current problems as a whole instead of relying upon their theoretical formula of analogue countries, which is one of the strangest features of this strange document.
Let me take Brazil as an example. The Ambassador and his staff are faced with having to move to Brasilia, the new capital, while the greatest centres of commerce and economic power are elsewhere. Some members of the Review Staff visited Brasilia, although for how long we are not told or, indeed, whether
936
they had ever been there before. They visited Sao Paulo, which is a great economic centre where we have a subordinate post. But apparently nobody visited Rio or, if they did, it is not reported on page 374 of the report. Our Ambassador in Israel has to face a similar problem, although in size Israel is a postage stamp compared with Brazil. He has to reside in Tel Aviv and he also has to work with his staff in Jerusalem, which is the centre of government.
I will elaborate no further. The survey seems to me to be defeatist, as the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, said in his admirable opening speech, and it is the result of an experience and an inquiry most inadequate. At times the banality is painful. I will quote—I will inflict, rather—one brief example on noble Lords, even at this late hour:
"A person with a considerable amount of expertise is an expert and one with little a non-expert. When the successive jobs that a person does are concerned with the same subject (broadly or narrowly defined) he is said to be a (broad or narrow) specialist. Someone who has not specialised in this way is a generalist."
That is to be found in chapter 3.15 on page 16 and is preceded by chapter 3.14 which concludes:
"Technique expertise is knowledge of the techniques of the job (e.g. operating the Whitehall machine, working with foreigners)."
It is no wonder that a Review Staff, capable of writing a paragraph such as this, should wish to get rid of the British Council which has had, as a number of noble Lords have said, such a unique part to play in encouraging the use of the English language throughout the world. It may be that the British Council needs some revision—the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was good enough to say so—but it is for those with experience, even though they are over 35, to explore these matters in detail and not for the whole issue to be dismissed, almost in an aside.
The noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, recorded the modest financial beginnings of the Council. I can recall the days when the first Lord Riverdale put his own funds into the British Council, when the Government were not very enthusiastic about it, and when the first Lord Lloyd of Dolobran, whose imaginative contributions have never been adequately appreciated, suggested setting up a Near East

937
University in Cyprus. Further, let the Review Staff realise—as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, told us so eloquently and as the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, emphasised later, as also did the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—that the English language is the greatest international asset that we have today. President Sadat may address the Israeli Parliament in Arabic, but when it comes down to negotiation it will have to be conducted in English.
With so much to explore, it is strange that the Review Staff should spend, as a number of noble Lords have said—the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, spoke effectively upon this matter—so much of their time on food and entertainment. One almost feels that they had never encountered a well presented meal until they went on their all-too-brief travels. I shall not weary your Lordships with a full quotation of chapter 17.5 on page 280, but some noble Lords will have shared with me, before reading this report, ignorance of the fact that entertainment can be tactical, strategic or responsive.
I have spoken with some firmness about this matter and I have done so for this reason; the Review Staff speak with great praise of the Foreign Service itself and of the British Council, but then they turn to a different mood, and I feel with some noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon that this report will have led to a certain amount of irritation, discomfiture and even unease in some of our posts overseas; and I believe it is an encouraging thing that the major emphasis in the debate today has been to reassure.
7 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am glad to be following the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Hungershall, because I know from previous debates of his close concern for the efficient operation of the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I shall be pursuing his venture into the functions of the CPRS. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, on raising this subject today and for commenting so wisely upon the report before us. I am sure we all agree that we have heard two outstanding maiden speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, and Lord
938
Thomson of Monifieth. Their speeches were fluent, relevant and effective, even though somewhat restricted by the convention of being uncontroversial. The noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, has a distinguished record in Commonwealth affairs, having started in the Dominions Office, and he has served particularly in India and Pakistan and in Australia. The personal knowledge which he has brought to the subject today has greatly added to the debate and in particular I liked his recognition of the contribution which a successful husband and wife can make in diplomacy abroad.
I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, make many Parliamentary speeches in another place. He and I were colleagues representing Scottish constitutencies so I was delighted to be able to hear him again today and to be able to congratulate him upon his speech. He also has a magnificent record in foreign affairs as a Minister and as a Commissioner in the EEC. He will be assured of a welcome whenever he addresses your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae and my noble friend Lord Eccles have exposed, clearly but kindly, the errors and false doctrines which regrettably occur in this report. They have dwelt especially upon the proposals for the British Council's cultural work and the overseas services of the BBC. In a speech of reasonable length, which this will be, I must choose only a few points and so I shall concentrate on those parts of the report dealing with the machinery of government and in particular the drastic proposals for the Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service. I must confess straightaway my own opinion that this was not an appropriate task for the CPRS to carry out. I remember well in 1970 when it was being set up and the concept was that there would be a group detached from day-to-day administration with the time and the talents for considering and advising upon broad policies. It was not then contemplated that they would also review the application of policies in detail, as in this report. According to this report, it was the CPRS themselves who asked to be given the task, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Hungershall, has reminded us. The request was granted by the then Secretary of State—now the Prime

939
Minister—with very wide terms of reference. The report states that the CPRS were instructed to undertake a radical review. But that was not in the terms of reference: comprehensive, yes, but radical?—there is no requirement there at all.
This leads me to think that the CPRS group, which I shall refer to as the "Tank team" for ease of reference, suffered from the disability of a preconceived idea that dramatic changes were needed. To recall a particularly murky episode in Scottish history and in Campbell history of nearly 300 years ago, which the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, will know all about, this request was like the Clan Campbell asking to send a platoon to carry out a review of the situation at Glencoe. The results are not dissimilar. For Option 3, the one preferred by the Tank team, would mean the massacre of the Diplomatic Service and the FCO; the massacre of the British Council and the decimation of the BBC External Services. According to the report, the Tank team visited 44 posts in no fewer than 27 countries. It seems that in applying for this remit on overseas representation Sir Kenneth Berrill, in effect, was advertising—with an apt French word for the occasion— "Have char, will travel"!
I support and reinforce what has been said about the folly of abolishing the British Council. To take one point only which has already been mentioned, we have the much envied advantage of the English language used throughout the world. It may be an uncovenanted benefit, like North Sea oil, though it will last for centuries more. To derive the maximum benefit from this we, who are regarded as the originators and the experts where this language is concerned, should not give up the opportunities in the cultural and the educational fields which it provides. Not only is it a means of projecting our ideas and extending our influence in many ways, but these activities increase and facilitate exports.
With regard to the BBC External Broadcasting Services, of course monitoring and reviews should be carried out to ensure that everything being done is still really worth while. To cut as drastically as is suggested, however, would be to throw away valuable and irreplaceable assets. The audiences in different
940
parts of the world have been gathered over the years and confidence in the programmes, especially in news and current affairs, has been built up. Should we willingly discard these means of direct communication, greatly envied by other countries? Surely the answer must be, No.
I now turn to the machinery of government and the two services, the Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service. This report makes some helpful and sensible recommendations. For example, on avoiding duplication and making more use of United Kingdom-based staff who can make short visits abroad as specialists. In some of its principal conclusions, however, it is entirely wrong and those conclusions have been based on assumptions and observations which were also completely wrong. The Tank team started by assessing the pronounced decline in Britain's relative economic and military strength in the past quarter of a century. This is outlined starkly and precisely in chapter 2, which I suggest should be compulsory reading for some leaders in the trade unions and in management of British industry. Where the team have made their first wrong assumption is on the hypothesis that the United Kingdom's ability to exert influence in the world must have declined proportionately. There is no reason why it should be so directly related. Indeed, we are surely in more need of all the available means of influence at reasonable cost in our present weakened situation than ever before.
The report fails to distinguish from each other three attributes; namely, power, influence and interests. The first has unquestionably been reduced. The second, influence, may consequently be reduced to some extent, but it would be folly deliberately to jettison existing mechanisms and expertise simply to match our diminished strength, as the report proposes. On the third point, interests, most of them remain. In particular, there is the general interest, apparently overlooked by the Tank team, that other countries in the world should adopt policies if possible which do not conflict with our own policies.
The report states that the team made comparisons with analogous countries, including France and West Germany, but full comparisons have not been made.

941
For example, France has more posts than Britain and is planning to expand; Germany has about the same number as we have. The report suggests that, in contrast, perhaps 20 United Kingdom posts abroad and at least 35 subordinate posts should be closed. Certainly reductions in staff should continually be sought, but to remove an embassy from a country, however small that country, has much more significance than the Think Tank imagines. The action itself can gratuitously offend the country concerned. Far better is it to reduce such a mission to a minimum. Not only can it then, through its eyes and ears, give advance notice or warning of events, but it is easy to expand if it unexpectedly assumes importance. There have been several examples of this in recent years which noble Lords will recall. Thank heavens!, incidentally, that the Tank team did not name in the report the 20 posts which they consider could be disposed of. That in itself would have been noted by the countries concerned, to the detriment of Britain.
Then there appears to be an underlying assumption that officials overseas have been increasing. Whatever may have been happening in the Home Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service has steadily decreased in numbers, by 15 per cent. since 1965, and I will remind your Lordships that that Service represents only about 1 per cent. of the total number of non-industrial civil servants. I do not believe that the Tank team realised these facts when they embarked on their mission. Consider some of the new approaches and principles which they have suggested. The report proposes that foreign policy should be separated from economic work and export promotion. They suggest three specialisations. Those working in exports would form a corps who would spend the whole of their careers on that subject only. The two specialisations of economic work and foreign policy would involve the people working in them for 75 per cent. of their careers. That runs completely counter to the basic aim which I understand has been pursued in recent years, and is now being successfully achieved in most of our embassies and other missions. That is the welding together of the specialisations necessary with wide experience. Both are needed. There is the paradox also that the proposed corps of foreign policy experts would undoubtedly create a new elite of the
942
kind which the Tank team are trying to avoid.
Let us look also at the end product, the embassies, large or small. The ambassador, in the view that has been adopted in Britain, should be like the conductor of an orchestra. He is directing, and responsible for, all sections in his embassy; for example, the press and information section, the commercial section, even the defence attachés. In some countries the commercial section may well be the most important part of his embassy. Under the existing system, the ambassador will himself have spent some time in his career—two or three years—in a commercial section or in an information section, and will, therefore, be familiar with some of this work. Also, although he may know one part of the world well, he will have worked in other parts, too, so that he has the background against which he can make judgments. He will receive visiting businessmen when there are important contracts or other business involved. He will be able to give them introductions, because he is in touch with leading and influential persons in the country where he is posted, and he can, at his request, be received by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other Ministers.
There is criticism in the report about the amount of time spent by the Diplomatic Service abroad. At present it works out that they spend more than half of their careers abroad, but less than two-thirds. I think that is about right. It is right that they should spend time abroad and at home, because there are the dangers, which I need not rehearse, of people who never come home and cannot see it from the home point of view and are out of touch; similarly, those who stay at home all the time can forget what it is like in distant places.
I should like to give an example of a misconception which has caused, I think, one ridiculous recommendation; that is, that the post of Head of Chancery in a mission should be abolished and that the work of co-ordination should be carried out always by the second-in-command, the deputy to the ambassador. This shows no knowledge of the duties of a Head of Chancery. He is like the first-lieutenant in a ship. His work of co-ordination includes a good deal of

943
detailed work, such as "devilling" or "dogs body" work, and in a large embassy that would not be appropriate for the deputy. But in a small embassy it is often combined; the second-in-command often is the Head of Chancery. What the Tank team failed to recognise was that the post is, to put it in Parliamentary terms, rather like the Chief Whip in the Commons; it is like suggesting that the Chief Whip in the Commons should always be the deputy Prime Minister. Whether he is the adjutant of a battalion, the first-lieutenant in a ship or the Chief Whip, he will be working with the full authority of his chief and directly responsible to his chief; that is the way the system works. This is an example of where the Tank team have completely misunderstood the system and misread it. Indeed, their suggestion would create the kind of inflexibility which would make it more difficult to rationalise, if every second-in-command had to do the Head of Chancery's work, and which would indeed make it more difficult to reduce staff.
The Tank team have also been misled, I believe, by one single phenomenon, and that is that there was a decision in 1949 that an additional number of entrants should come in to what was then called the Foreign Service; the Tank team have noted that there are a large number of senior members of the Service now in their mid-fifties due to retire between 1980 and 1982. This was the result of a single incident. About 1949 it was decided that those who had just failed the entrance exam, in the previous three years would be asked if they would like to come in; that is to say, the pass mark was lowered and additional numbers were brought in. That has caused what has been colloquially known in the Foreign Office as "the glut". Except for "the glut", there is a natural thinning in the Diplomatic Service, and the Tank team need not be influenced by that phenomenon.
They have noted that a high proportion of the ablest of those who succeed in the entry exam and competition choose the Diplomatic Service, despite the unpredictable conditions, family separations, and general uncertainty which later attend such a career. In its recommendations on organisation and staffing, the team appears to have fallen into several unintentional
944
Tank traps. It advocates more specialisation and at the same time ignores perhaps the most important specialisation of all—the ability to communicate and negotiate with foreigners in a foreign country. An expert on a particular subject—for example, civil aviation—can be sent abroad to take part in negotiations. However, he will be much handicapped unless he has the help of this specialisation at hand.
The Tank team also assumes too lightly that many of the appropriate members of the Home Civil Service will be willing to serve abroad for periods of years. That is one of the main weaknesses in the practical application of many of the recommendations. There is an immense difference between the conditions of service which members of the Diplomatic Service accept and those of the Home Service. The diplomats know that they must be ready to serve for as many as six or more years at a time abroad in different parts of the world, often being sent at comparatively short notice. They have to make their plans accordingly. In contrast, members of the Home Service organise their homes usually in or within reach of London, their children's education, and even their wives' jobs as part of long-term domestic planning. They know that it is most unlikely that they will have to move.
The report refers to those matters but does not attach enough weight to them. I remind the House of the objections of the Civil Service unions even to the proposals to disperse some sections of Government offices to other parts of England. That difference has, I believe, been the reason for the restricted amount of interchange between the two Services hitherto. It has largely been based upon volunteers.
I fully support the first of the three options put forward by the Tank team, that more interchange should be undertaken. If the necessary volunteers do not come forward, then some special arrangements will be needed to make the secondments easier both for individuals and for families. Of the other two options, the second, the creation of specialist services within the Home Service for export promotion and aid to developing countries, is ruled out for the qualifying objections put forward in the report itself: that is to say, few suitable recruits would be attracted to the specialist services suggested.

945
There remains the third option: the disappearance of the Diplomatic Service and the creation of a Foreign Service group. Unfortunately, that is the option preferred by the Think Tank. Surely such an upheaval would not be worth while unless tangible advantages were certain. The supporting arguments in the report are astonishing. In foreign policy and other work it is stated that the standard at present is unjustifiably high. The present esprit de corps in the Diplomatic Service is deprecated. What the Tank team failed to recognise was the need for high standards and high morale when our representatives are coping with life in a distant and insulubrious place, with their families but often in small groups, while engaged in the task of promoting British interests. In considering both the mobile Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service, the Tank team has simply ignored the human factor.
I believe that the report is on the right lines when it proposes that unnecessary work should not be undertaken and the need for particular services should be reassessed from time to time. Nevertheless, that work deemed necessary or essential should be carried out to the highest standards. That surely should be our aim. Surveying the British scene as a whole, can we afford where excellence and high performance are to be found, to reject them?
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, feel that I have been here before. I was dealing with the Plowden Report in 1965 from an Opposition Front Bench in the Commons. However, this report contains proposals which are meant to be radical. They are extreme, even sensational, and they have been put forward knowing that they would make an impact, and knowing that they would be in the headlines. If their purpose was mainly to draw attention to these services, then no great harm will be done. Option 1 should be pursued as regards interchange. Option 2 is unlikely to get far. As for Option 3, it would be most dangerous and damaging to United Kingdom interests, and it should not be adopted.
7.25 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the noble
946
Lord, Lord Saint Brides, because unfortunately another engagement caused me to miss his maiden speech. However, I wish him well and hope that I shall be in my place next time he speaks. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth on the excellence of his maiden speech, which I was fortunate enough to hear. I look forward to hearing future contributions that he will make to debates in your Lordships' House.
My intervention in a debate which has attracted so many illustrious speakers will be suitably brief. I intended to comment on only one part of the report—the subject covered in Chapter 6, headed "Export Services". However, I shall not talk about matters such as the British Council or the World Service of the BBC, except to say that although I tend to agree with the recommendations in the latter case, my view has been prejudiced by the fact that BBC Radio 4 has deteriorated to such an extent lately that for many home listeners the World Service is the only alternative BBC listening.
I should like to say a few words in appreciation of the report as a whole and to point out how important I think it is that the review has been carried out. It would be a great pity if the fact that there is disagreement to a greater or lesser degree with some of the comments and recommendations of the report, resulted in the need for objective reviews of this sort being questioned. I should perhaps say that I know of many people—I was about to say particularly younger people, but they were not all that young—who are involved in the subjects under review and who welcome the report: indeed who consider it to be not radical enough.
This House should not, in my view, fling the baby out with the bathwater. Whatever happens to this report, and I personally hope that it will be given the most careful and balanced consideration and that many of its recommendations will be taken up, its validity cannot be questioned. It is a substantial report. Advancing through life as I am, I applaud the choice of a typeface large enough, I should have thought, to give it a better reception in your Lordships' House than it has received. However, it is 442 pages long. It is more than tempting, battered as we constantly are by broadsides of paper, for people to turn to the Press for

947
exposition and enlightenment, for not many people will pay £8·50 to learn about our overseas representation.
I do not intend to round on my colleagues in Fleet Street, for I appreciate their problems with reports, Bills and other paper avalanching upon them. However, I do not think that this report has been well reported or considered carefully enough. One way and another, this treatment may have been reflected in your Lordships' House today. I hasten to assure noble Lords that in saying so I in no way intend to set myself up as an expert on the report, but simply wish to emphasise my belief in a course of action which subjects our Departments of State—lumbering on their remorseless way as some of them are—and Government organisations, to the most detailed, thoughtful, imaginative and radical scrutiny.
Long before the review was carried out I was not alone in realising that all was not well with the export services provided by Government—especially in the case of medium-sized and smaller companies. At best, they were patchy. I have travelled all over the world, developing export business in about 40 different countries. In common, I suspect, with many similar companies, I have made initial surveys of what was being offered in terms of information and general support—the real practical manifestation of Government help, not, I hasten to add, financial aid—and have found it wanting. For a start, much of the information we sought was much more easily obtainable from sources other than the Government. There was no real inducement, no special encouragement, to turn to the Departments concerned, or which should have been concerned. I remember one occasion when I did go to the Commonwealth and Foreign Office in connection with a potentially very large export deal, only to find myself passed rapidly down the line to what, I suppose, was the lowest level compatible with my keeping my self respect. It was not encouraging.
I have heard my quota of horror stories from businessmen who have found here at home little response to their needs, and in our representatives abroad lack of involvement, lack of expertise and lack of local knowledge—indeed, in some cases,
948
lack of any interest in export promotion, except of the most languid sort. The experience of some big firms may be different. In their case the ambassador may really put himself out, but in any event the really big export-minded company can afford to have its men in the field.
I am concerned with the smaller but maybe no less keen company which cannot afford to send representatives on a number of exploratory, long-distance trips, much less maintain a presence in many different countries. Such companies badly need expert, on-the-spot information and advice—fast, specific, detailed and accurate information about present and future trends—and commercially-informed advice. On the face of it, the sources are there in the form of our embassies and consulates and their commercial attaches and representatives. But are they fruitful sources? It is clear that all too often they are not, and perhaps this is scarcely surprising given the present set up.
Table 6.12 on page 104 of the report explains one of the reasons. Compared with other countries our people lack export specialisation. It is as simple as that. Even those who make a real effort to make up for their lack of training and expertise and to promote exports are unlikely to have much effect or, indeed, greatly to enhance their future careers, because they are on the great Departmental merry-go-round. They will be on station for only a few brief years, and from a career prospect point of view their feet should not stray far from the diplomatic ladder. How different it is in other countries—in the countries with which we are or should be competing in a harsh and uncharitable world.
For almost the whole of my adult business life I have been listening to, and in my own way observing in its various forms, the dictum, "Export or die". Yet here we are still, it seems to me, wanting to play in the amateur league; gentlemen players, more concerned it seems to show the flag than to win exports. Is it not astonishing, for example, that in that booming area, the Gulf, our Arabists are mostly diplomatic rather than commercial? I am less concerned with flying the flag than with making our way in the world, for by making our economy strong we can ensure that no one writes off the part we have to play in the world.

949
In other countries Government support and involvement is taken to be of the greatest importance to the business of exporting. The private sector receives much help and encouragement; for the fact is that so far as export support is concerned, as the authors of the report conclude, there is no alternative source to Government. The question is: how should Government provide these services in the most efficient and effective way? Surely it is only common sense—or so it seems to me as a business man—that export services and those who provide them should be business-minded rather than Government-minded. It is a matter of common sense that, if one wants to export, one certainly needs staff who know how business operates and who have the necessary business experience.
When we consider the present situation, I think it is clear that we need a new type of recruit to Government export services—preferably younger people (for it demands enthusiasm and stamina) with business experience. Having, as I said, spent most of my adult life in business and also having been fortunate enough to serve in a Department of State, I have seen and appreciated the difference in attitude and approach as between the business community and the Civil Service. I simply do not believe that present Civil Service recruitment and training—much as I admire them for other purposes—are adequate to meet our needs in the export field. Nor do I believe that the services that do exist—largely those for providing information—are even co-ordinated in a way that makes it easily possible for interested companies to make use of them.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend when he last approached either the British Overseas Trade Board or the Department of Industry, which, of course, is the first port of call, not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, my noble friend has me at a disadvantage. I think that the last time I approached them was about three years ago. I was heading for them earlier this year but I was put off by a not particularly fortunate experience when dealing with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
950
As I was saying, I do not believe that the services that do exist—largely those for providing information—are co-ordinated in a way that makes it easily possible for interested companies to make use of them. My clear impression is—and to some extent this answers my noble friend because I have been in this field—that there are all sorts of disparate bodies scattered across Whitehall, each operating in its own little field, treating information rather as its own life blood than as plasma for transfusion, which are so separated and bureaucratised that they actually put off rather than encourage companies that try to establish contact. Surely it would be easier for, and much more helpful to, our exporters and potential exporters if these disparate elements were drawn together into a properly organised export service.
Since I have received the message that we must compete effectively in exports, I believe that there is much in the recommendations of the report, in particular that there should be:
"…a unitary body responsible and accountable for the three main parts of the export promotion services (overseas, headquarters, the regions); that together with the ECGD it should form a distinct part of the DOT under a Minister of State who might be called the Minister for Exports".
I also believe that there should be:
"Specialised careers for export promotion staff, involving postings at home and overseas".
In short, I believe that Chapter 6 of the report makes a lot of sense and that it offers alternatives which would be a great improvement on the present system.
I believe that there are a great many improvements that can and should be made in the export services offered by Government and I am glad that the CPRS have had the courage to look squarely at the problem and, in spite of the formidable opposition that they must have expected, have made the comments and recommendations that they feel the situation demands. In doing so they are neither protecting nor promoting any special interest of their own, as has been suggested here this afternoon, but are simply proposing what they genuinely feel is best for this country.
Perhaps, above all, I value the Review simply because it subjects an important area of Government activity to such searching examination and actually has the temerity to make significant recommendations, for I do not believe that

951
Departments of State or Government bodies generally should be free to pursue their own way without, from time to time, radical outside reappraisal of their activities. In that sense, and in its specific area of concern, this is an important, obviously thought-provoking and worthwhile report.
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of LIMERICK: My Lords, this debate would be memorable if only for the two maiden speeches of rare quality which we heard this afternoon, which were based upon an unusual breadth of experience. They were highlights in an especially valuable debate and, therefore, I am all the more sorry that I undertook an engagement before I knew which day would be allocated to this debate and that I shall be unable to be present for the conclusion of the debate.
I should like to return to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, with whose basic conclusion on Chapter 6 I fundamentally disagree. However, before doing so I should like to take up a point first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in his maiden speech—namely, as he put it, a plea for a society for the prevention of cruelty to the Think Tank. I would put it a little differently and say, a society for the promotion of the objective study of the report.
In paragraph 19, page xv, there are the three options, sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)—interchange, total separation, total integration, as they might be paraphrased. I think it is fair to point out that the Berrill recommendation was, as he put it, marginal in expressing a preference for the third option of integration. Like others, led by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Home, I have a preference for the first of these options, the interchange. I am told that there are currently 150 Foreign Office personnel exchanged outward and 48 inward exchanges, mainly from the Department of Trade. Clearly there is scope for a good deal more of that, and not only between these two Departments, or Whitehall alone, but, as has been suggested, more changes with industry.
952
There is one more general point—and here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. The chief danger is not that the main recommendations in this report will be accepted, but rather that they have already drawn so much flack from so many quarters that much good research and valid minor recommendations may be overlooked. He pinched my phrase about the baby and the bathwater, so I shall change the metaphor and say that I think that there is a danger that so much water may be baled by critics from the fish tank that some promising young marine specimens may not mature.
It is entirely valid, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae—to whom we are greatly indebted for introducing this topic—to take a step out of the ranks and look at yourself. However much we may be irritated by the defeatist approach in the report and by the proliferation of acronyms, by the transparent prejudice of certain passages, or whatever may be our pet aversion to certain of its pages, this should not prevent a critical examination on their merits of all the recommendations to find those nuggets which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was seeking.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—the conventions of the House prevent me from referring to him as my noble friend; he is certainly a very valued colleague; we have it in common that we have a doubly unpaid interest as members of the British Overseas Trade Board and as chairmen of area advisory groups—in my case the Committee for Middle-East Trade—I am the first to agree that there is more to life than economics. But others have spoken eloquently to that theme, so I shall address myself to the promotion of our overseas trade interests.
I should preface this by saying that we are practising what we preach. A detailed study of the whole of the report is to my knowledge currently being undertaken by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, by the CBI, and the British Overseas Trade Board itself. In concentrating on this area I am following the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. My immediate quarrel is with the narrowness of the approach. Paragraph 9 on page xi contains the passage:
"Our method in the review is to analyse in turn each of the separate functions which together make up overseas representation. We identify 14 of these".

953
The first is economic, social and environmental work; the second is export services, and among the remaining 12 there is none with any direct connection with overseas trade. Thus the whole thrust of the research and the argument is on export services.
There is not a single word in the report—an astonishing omission, which has been commented on—about invisibles: not a single word about the valuable work that has been done in promoting this by the Committee on Invisible Exports and other bodies, and the vital contribution which this plays in our balance of payments situation. I shall not dwell on this because my noble friend Lord Denman will be speaking to this theme later. There is not a single word about the importance of overseas investment, the part which it plays in our balance of payments, and the consequent vital role of our posts overseas in advising on both inward and outward investment. We have these 14 categories but only one of them, and that too narrowly, looks at what is termed export services.
Cost-effectiveness is an entirely proper criterion, but not if narrowly used. The criticisms that are made in certain passages of the report are ones that we should take seriously. I am not saying this in a mocking tone; there is a lot of truth in many of the criticisms. In many sectors, less work could be done without detriment to the users of the service; the effectiveness of some functions may be overestimated; some functions could, at least in principle, be undertaken other than by Government. Some procedures are too complicated; some are duplicated.
The phrase "unjustifiably high standard" has been quoted with some derision. I think that there is a case where tasks may be taken to a standard which is not cost justified, just as one can spend a lot of effort in collecting information which, it turns out on examination, nobody will make effective use of. Although I find this more difficult to assess or to think of a good example, some work currently done overseas might more cheaply be done at home. But it is no use, in a situation where inevitably one faces overall expenditure constraints, demanding more of anything in general without accepting the implication of less
954
of something else. We know—and if we did not know the report tells us so—that nationally we are already heavy spenders on export services. The ratio of exports won to funds spent on export promotion is some 50 per cent. higher in our case than it is for France or Italy; some 100 per cent. higher than for Japan, and 150 per cent. higher than in the case of Canada. I am not saying that we spend too much, but one cannot indiscriminately ask for more services without being prepared to say what might go to make way for them.
If pleas are to be raised, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has just pleaded, for more specialisation, more expertise among overseas export staff, we must recognise that that is equivalent to a demand for more money. At the expense of what? I suspect that many of the complaints which arise in this respect come from exporters who are doing too little to help themselves and expecting too much of Government services in a way that does not seem to be the case with their competitors from other countries. That remark is based on certain direct experiences.
I hope that the virtual unanimity of unflattering comment on what is an avowedly radical report will not be interpreted as the establishment closing its ranks. In so far as users of export services are concerned this is certainly not so. As one representing, through chambers of commerce, the interests of users of these export services I would say that we never hesitate to criticise individual, or what we may see as structural, shortcomings as we perceive them. The mechanism for evolutionary change, consultation, exists, and it is being used and it is working. I think that the most notable reaction to the initial leaks on the thrust of the Berrill Report was the virtually unanimous reaction of the users of the services in resisting the thought that there should be a structural change to the system, especially an organic divorce of the political and diplomatic services overseas. That is a point of view which I would strongly endorse.
Although we do not accept, by the run of this debate, the defeatist, negative approach, and while maybe the "we would not start from here" argument is the one that applies to certain of our views about

955
overseas practice, nevertheless what is at stake is an effective presence. The commercial offices may be, sometimes should be, located away from the chancelries and there are places where this is compelled by geography—where it is not convenient to move from a down-town location to visit a commercial office—and there are places where there is a certain inhibition in visiting a commercial office which abuts on to a political office.
I believe that specialisation can be overstressed, but I would most strongly reinforce the point made earlier in the debate that it is vital to have a team representing your national interest. At the first level it is top political contacts; at the second level it is an enthusiastic introduction to information systems and local opportunities, mainly from United Kingdom staffs, and at the third level, which can be most valuable in practical terms, from locally engaged officers who could with benefit be given more authority and in many cases, more responsibility. This is all part of team-work. I would mention that during my recent journey to the Gulf I visited nine posts long known to me and I came back greatly heartened with the considered view that never in 10 years could I think of a time when the standard of our representation, both political and commercial, was higher than it now is. As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, we need a single playing captain to head this team and that captain is the British ambassador or High Commissioner. Integration would thus not be the answer; those who engage themselves in the Foreign Service really are different from those who sign on for the Home Civil Service.
As for the suggestion that there should be more selectivity in these export services, investing in success is a concept which we all recognise and which in general we applaud. It raises certain problems and it is followed already to a substantial degree, but in general it needs extra resources, and often there is nothing left to compensate for those extra services. It leads to arbitrary bureaucratic decisions which are unlikely invariably or frequently to be cost effective; therefore experience has shown that it is better to respond to demand, to reinforce the success and to put in extra effort, where it
956
is shown to be warranted. This way the suspicions of arbitrary choice can be overcome, and always there is available the process of consultation with any advisory groups, sector working parties and other interested parties as to where that extra effort can be effectively deployed.
In my own committee we would welcome questions of this form: How would any extra resources be divided—by country, by product area or in support of special bids? Would you make a case for any of these? I would regard it as entirely fair that they should be coupled with a supplement, and offsetting saving if you want extra effort. Even more fundamental is the question of diminishing or eliminating services in posts with low trade turnover. This indeed seems perverse to those who are trying to effect entry into distant, difficult or little-known territories. Few exporters to Brussels or Baltimore would think of using the services of posts to a great degree, but they would automatically if they were going to Belize, Botswana or Burma. All three of these, I notice, because they are taking less than £10 million per annum of United Kingdom exports, are posts which are living under the shadow of the Berrill question-mark.
Growth of trade is one, but only one, measure of the effectiveness of any given post. The level of trade may of itself be a measure of opportunity. Noble Lords will recall the tale of the two salesmen who landed off the same boat in a certain territory. One immediately sent a signal back to his office, "No one wears shoes; am returning home immediately", while the other sent the signal, "No one wears shoes; send out a sales team in support". We are well served by our representatives overseas. Let us by all means criticise them when we are disappointed, just as we much more frequently praise them when we are pleased. But let us cherish and nourish this valuable national asset, not dig it up by the roots.
7.55 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, there have been so many powerful and effective speeches in this debate, not least the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, with which it opened, and not forgetting two superb maiden speeches, that I shall do what I suspect others will

957
do, namely destroy part of my speech and concentrate on two points. First, much has been said today about the principles that seem to underlie this report: that international influence is based on economic performance, and that as Britain's economic performance has declined so, therefore, must her influence—in other words, if you cannot influence the world by your strength, do less to influence it by persuasion.
I have sought to apply those to the references in the report to the BBC's External Services. The report praises the External Services; it speaks of their worldwide reputation for high quality broadcasting, their tradition of objectivity professionalism and commitment, worldwide trust as a dispassionate and independent source of information; and it describes them as one of the United Kingdom's success stories. It goes on to recommend more money for capital purposes, to make the signal better heard and stronger—in short, to convey the message to a larger number of people. But having made the services more audible, having recommended the expenditure of money to strengthen the signal, the report goes on to propose substantial cuts in the output. You make it more audible; you cut down the hours during which this more audible service is used; you reduce the languages it uses; you reduce the programmes; you invest more in the services and then you under-use them. It is an odd doctrine. For a saving of 10 per cent. in cash you cut the External Services' broadcasting by 40 per cent. I find that puzzling.
The Think Tank knows what it would cut. It is explicit on this point. "Don't broadcast to your friends in the developed Free World"; so no more broadcasts in French, German, Finnish, Italian, Greek, Portuguese and Spanish. Britain is to have nothing to say to those countries, no message to give. Had Britain nothing to say to Greece a few years ago, or to Spain and Portugal even more recently? Then there is the World Service in English, with a regular audience of about 8 million. That is another audience the Think Tank wants us to give up. No broadcasting to the United States or Canada, Australia or New Zealand. No wonder there is now down for consideration by the New Zealand Parliament an
958
Opposition Front Bench Motion protesting against the cuts and saying that those who live in the South Pacific would be deprived of one of their two main sources of overseas news.
The Think Tank makes a good deal of the value of an unbiased world news and information service, but not to America, Australia and so on. It takes a poor view of talking about Britain because it says it will not contribute to the United Kingdom's political and economic interest. Some people want to hear about this country. They want to buy British. They want to hear about our open society, with its ups and downs, its warts, its hot flushes, its strikes and all. You really cannot turn broadcasting on and off and expect to get listeners as you do so.
Of course one could go on. There is the further proposal of no broadcasting from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m.—right out, not in English, or in any other language. Just silence; an abandonment of the airwaves during that period. You would think that these brainy people would realise that when it is night time in Italy it is quite different time in New Delhi; and that to go for peak listening periods in different countries, in different parts of the world, it is necessary to broadcast around the clock. This proposal in the report would mean no breakfast time broadcasting in the whole of Asia, from Tehran to Tokyo, to the Gulf, to Eastern Central Africa, and to much of Soviet Russia. It would mean no peak evening broadcasts to Latin America. The BBC would lose much of its peak time, a crucial audience over a wide swathe of the world's surface. But there it is—that is what is recommended; that is what the application of these principles seems to lead to.
Surely it is not true that we need not cultivate our friends. Britain may no longer be politically, economically, militarily, the pre-eminent Power that it used to be. But a distinguished allied ambassador, lately at the Court of St. James, wrote these words:
"As a cultural Power it is still an empire of world dimension";
and he added:
"It should remain so for the benefit of us all".
I want briefly to dwell on one other, more difficult point. We are fairly good in this

959
country at running ourselves down, often forgetting that the world is eavesdropping on what we say about ourselves. We have much to grumble about. We have many troubles in this country—troubles of all kinds, heaven knows! The media, preferring the bad news to the good, remind us daily of those troubles. Yet—and this is the difficult part—despite it all, and despite our reluctance to save ourselves, this country has an enormous amount to offer the world.
It is many years since I did a four-year stint in the co-ordination of overseas information services. I learnt a very great deal. I began by knowing nothing about the British Council, apart from what I had read in the Beaverbrook Mess. Your Lordships will remember the attacks of those days; such as, that the British Council concentrates on Morris dancing in Madagascar. You will remember all that derision which was poured on the British Council. But I came to realise that it is a superb presentation of this country, its culture, its history, its quality.
One other thing I learned was that there was then—and I believe there is still—much which the rest of the world finds to admire in this country. This is not just jingo sentiment; it is a fact of experience. This country has an atmosphere of serenity, of tolerance; a capacity to make democracy work; a quality of life which cannot be measured by export performance, balance of payments, or by keeping up with the Joneses. It seems to me that the thinkers in this Tank have ignored what this country has to offer, and still has to offer, despite our troubles, to which we give such publicity.
It seems to me that the report has gone wrong in omitting to weigh things which, admittedly, are difficult to quantify. It is a basic error in much of this report; it is a partial blindness which is a serious flaw. Unless we recognise, as foreigners do, that this country has much to offer in the quality of life, then our gaze, our examination, of the external services is at its least partially incomplete, and at its worst wholly misleading.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, at this stage I think that most of us are hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-
960
Roberts, will rise to his feet fairly soon. But I cannot resist the temptation of saying what a real pleasure it has been to have heard two of the finest maiden speeches I have listened to in three decades. It is reassuring to know that we are so well fortified by noble Lords of such wisdom, particularly in this field of the European Common Market. Many problems will arise here. We have discussions from time to time arising from the work of the Scrutiny Committee, but we must be very careful to know that we really are understanding what will, I am sure, be a very big problem.
I have never been in the Foreign Office, but I have been in its pay, for four years when I was in South-East Asia. Here I should like to take up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made, relating to the difference of quality, of character, of people who stay abroad. It is not a mere vacation for these people. They are on duty 24 hours a day. These people go away for a long time, and they are forgotten about. Others do not know what has happened to them. This kind of situation requires a special kind of chap.
When I read the report I was rather astonished by—though perhaps in a way I even admired—the unashamed dogmatism with which it laid down the behaviour of almost everybody. The report told the Foreign Office how it should run embassies, how and where it should communicate with other countries, as if the Foreign Office was just starting in this work and had not got very far. There was this wonderful point about entertainment; one was told to entertain in bars. If one went home one should send one's wife upstairs as if she was in purdah because it would be a nuisance for her to take part in one's conversation with some of the people in the neighbourhood. These are curious quotations, and I wonder where the authors of the report got them. The interesting point about the report is that nowhere does it quote an authority for any of the opinions it gives. This leaves me with the impression that perhaps the authors knew the answers before they took the evidence.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is not here at the moment, but he brought out the fact that the authors of the Report more or less appointed themselves.

961
I do not know whether or not that is true, but there is an impression that they have not given the attention to the evidence that they might have done, If this is so, it raises a rather serious point, because the authors of the report have taken a scunner to the Diplomatic Service. Some of these points have been raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. They are perfectionists—that is a bad thing. There are too many able people in the Service—that is a bad thing. Their security is too high—that is not good, either. There is an esprit de corps—and this is rather bad. And it leads to elitism, which of course is extremely bad, Then there is this fearful thing, "middleclassness", which I suppose, as in the case of Humpty Dumpty, can mean exactly what you want it to mean. In place of all this they want to have a common set of values and attitudes. I hope that the noble Lord will repudiate these things. I personally have never doubted that we have the finest Diplomatic Service in the world, and I think that we should recognise it. They are people who have been exposed to a very great deal indeed.
I want to say a few words about the alternatives. Your Lordships will remember that it is proposed to put the Foreign Office into a commission, in some respects under three Permanent Under-Secretaries, with a co-ordinating committee in the Cabinet Office. That sounds to me as if there is a Whitehall row going on, of which I am of course wholly ignorant. I think there is a major matter of principle here, and that is "fuzzing" responsibility. If there is any one thing which has been the main cause of the failure of democracy it is the "fuzzing" of responsibility. No one was prepared to come forward and take responsibility and if it disappears into three Under-Secretaries of State along with a co-ordinating committee, no one will know who is responsible. I hope the noble Lord will say quite clearly that there will be a Foreign Secretary responsible for the external policies of this country. I regard that as absolutely fundamental.
May I also take the other side of the question on this—on location. I have had a little experience of this myself, because when I was in Singapore I had the advantage of having everybody, in a sense, playing to me. I do not know how many
962
departments I had at times, but I know that I can quite easily count up to 12 at one time or another. This was a fundamental difference from the organisation which the United States had in Saigon. I used to go up to Saigon from time to time to see the authorities there. They had three authorities there—the CIA, the armed forces and diplomacy—and they had no meeting point outside Washington. I would say that it is terribly important that whoever is on the post should have the Government official appointment reporting to him in some way or another. I had one chap who was engaged in watching satellites, and I think he was examining thunder storms. Singapore is a very good place to examine thunder storms. He came and saw me from time to time, though I had nothing whatever to do with what he was doing. I believe he did quite a good job for his Department of Education and Science (I think it was) and there was no difficulty about this at all.
I can see no difficulty about attaching or exchanging with the home Department. They are people who work extremely well. I see no difficulty at all, and I have had experience. It is only when they think they are independent that there may be difficulty. At that time the trade commissioners were half independent, and they were the only people as to whom, if I may say so, there was just a little uncertainty as to how far they were prepared to co-operate. But if it is clear that they are playing to one person on the spot, then I can see no difficulty of any magnitude if that is desired of home civil servants.
8.12 p.m.
Lord GREENHILL of HARROW: My Lords, I must first declare a three-fold interest: first, as a former member of the Diplomatic Service; second, as a former member of the executive committee of the British Council; and, third, as a Curren governor of the BBC. However, I am going to speak for only a very short time, because this debate has already been going for more than five hours, and my main reason for speaking is lest my friends and colleagues should interpret my silence as consent to the report. But before my short remarks I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, for taking the initiative in calling this debate. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear his speech, but I know his views and I know

963
I agree with them. His stewardship of the British Council was outstandingly successful and, in particular, his overseas visits made a great impression. I think I may be allowed to say that, in his overseas visits, the contribution that his wife made was most appreciated.
I should also like to congratulate the two outstanding maiden speakers. Reference has been made to their excellence. It did not surprise me that Lord Saint Brides, whom I have known very well over a very long time, made such an effective intervention. I thank him for it, and I found myself in agreement with most of what he said. As for Lord Thomson, I hope he will not be embarrassed when I say that, of the many Ministers with whom I served in the Foreign Office over nine years, few were more sensible, more practical and more unprejudiced than he was. These virtues made a great impact on the office and, perhaps more importantly, a great impact on the foreigners with whom he did business.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, that from time to time Government Departments and the structure of Government should be looked at from outside, and looked at radically. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that the Think Tank team were fully qualified to do this. I think that, had their zeal and high intelligence been combined with that of an equal number of people who had practical experience of the problems, the resulting report would have been much more relevant and much more effective. The debate has very well covered the fundamental problems which the report has created, and the criticisms, the fully legitimate criticisms, have been expressed with great eloquence and great perspicacity. I particularly found Lord Goodman's way of expressing the defects of the report quite compelling.
I do not want to repeat the objections. As I say, they have been adequately stated. I merely want to make three short points, the first being about the British Council. The British Council has the virtue of being a long-established and familiar organisation, and foreigners dealing with this country and having contact with this country naturally find it more easy to
964
deal with a familiar and long-established organisation. I think that if it was absorbed by the ODM or the Department of Education and Science one would lose the dedication of its members and would confuse the people who wish to make use of it. However, I do not think the British Council are beyond criticism. As Lord Goodman said, they certainly deserve some assurance for their future. They have long felt that they were prone to a takeover bid. They justifiably feared a takeover bid from the ODM, and they unjustifiably feared a takeover bid from the Foreign Office. They deserve to stand on their own and they deserve to be assured that they are going to stand on their own.
They might do one or two things with advantage. First, they could, I think to the benefit of everybody, occasionally take in, as the Diplomatic Service does, outstanding people from outside; and I should like to see from time to time a British Council representative appointed who was an internationally-known scholar and who could make a strong impact in the country to which he was appointed. So I hope they do not close their mind to bringing in outsiders. The second thing I think they ought to do is to make a career structure which is clear and which gives those who are going to devote their lives to the business of the Council a proper career course. The other thing they might try to do is to shed their fear of too close an association with embassies. There is a strong belief in the British Council, not without some substance, that there is a disadvantage in being too close to the embassy. If, as the report says, notable economies and conveniences of administration could be made by putting the British Council close to the embassy, or as a part of the embassy, I personally see no objection to it, and I hope they will continue to give consideration to this.
The second point I want to make is about the BBC. I believe there is a convention that a governor of the BBC does not speak about the business of the BBC in the House, but I should like to make a brief reference to the problem of audibility. This is a very real and difficult technical problem and the BBC needs all the assistance that it can get on this subject. Obviously, the problem caused the "Think Tankers" some difficulty and they, so to speak, "kicked it

965
into touch" by saying that outside advice should be sought on some of these problems. This is not necessary. The BBC knows, I think, most of what there is to know about the problems of international broadcasting and, indeed, is consulted by many other countries. It can resolve these problems with the sympathetic help of the Government without involving outsiders.
Another point I want to make is about my own Service. I am, I know, a pre-judicied witness and, perhaps for that reason, I will not speak much about it; but, since I retired, I have had an opportunity to look at it in a new way and I must admit that from time to time I have found that it is wanting in some of the requirements that are put upon it. It is improving, has improved and, I have no doubt, will improve. I do not think the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, are common or are in a majority, but there is no doubt there are aspects of the Diplomatic Service work which can be improved.
The last point that I should like to make is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; that is, the question of how you conduct your diplomacy abroad and what is the position vis-à-vis the countries with whom you are conducting your diplomacy. People are very particular about how they are treated and the Think Tank may think it convenient to do business one way but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, the countries that are going to be subjected to the system advocated by the Think Tank do not think it is a good idea. I can remember a West African President who was told that we were going to make available to him a visiting ambassador who would call from time to time on his capital. He said that if that is the case the visiting ambassador would not be welcome.
People are entitled to express a view on how we do business with them. What suits us does not necessarily suit them. When we are planning the future structure, we must think of these things. People do not necessarily like being invaded by what they consider as a self-important person from London who wishes to ask a lot of embarrassing questions and call on all of their offices. There is no substitute in my way of thinking for as many resident diplomatic posts as we can reasonably afford.
966
As I say, I am a prejudiced witness in this matter and I do not wish to take up the time of the House by continuing further on these points. I think it has been an extremely valuable debate. I do not think that the criticisms of the Think Tank's recommendations have been frivolously made or made by prejudiced people. I think that those who have expressed their views are people who are entitled to have their experience taken into account. For that reason, I hope that when the Government consider the Think Tank they will regard it as a contribution to knowledge and not necessarily a guide to future action.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Ballantrae, for raising this debate. I should also like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides. I remember only too well the briefing he gave us when I led a delegation to India and the excellent way he entertained us. When my noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned the question about women being sent upstairs, I do not know what we would have done without his charming wife who did such a great deal to help him in that post and in getting to know the women of India—and she is still remembered there.
I should like also to say a word of congratulation—I do not know whether it is impertinent of me to do so—to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I wonder whether he would agree with me in his work at the EEC that the cultural barriers are as great in Europe as elsewhere. I feel that we should have more researchers and our students should be given more information about ourselves and learn how each of us does more and not less. I think perhaps he will also agree with me that the British intellectual and artistic achievements are greatly admired. We must continue this work and we are very grateful to him for his work in the past.
I have been to Singapore recently and I want to say a few things about the British Council and its future. Whenever I have gone overseas I have always, whether I have gone officially or unofficially, obtained the address of the British Council from their organisation

967
in London to see whether they want information in return. I found that the British Council does so much in helping understanding between peoples. I should like to see its work extended, if possible, rather than abolished, as is suggested in one of the reports. I think one must realise that it is not only the British Council that they are thinking of abolishing; but also TETOC, IUC and CBEBE. I do not know how we can do without all these organisations; the suggestion of the action to be taken does not seem to me to be sensible for the future. I should like to see extension and not curtailment. I do not think that a more cost-effective task could be performed by the rest of the administration, embassies and High Commissioners overseas.
Paragraph 215 states that expert advice could be provided by visiting educational advisers from the ODM and local development divisions. One of the difficulties about this report is that these people have just been visiting and have not been able to get down to rock bottom on what is happening in the various countries. To have somebody who is not politically connected, like those who are working for the British Council, and who have time to get to know the country, and perhaps to learn the language of the country, is very advantageous.
I have mentioned that I have visited Singapore and I found the Singaporeans found it difficult to believe that the British Council which had served them for 30 years may be abolished. As a local Singapore Ministry of Education official said, the British Council is part of the educational and cultural family, holding a privileged position through its standing and the amazing contribution it has made to Singapore's development. So pleased have the Singaporeans been with this that they have started a regional school for the teaching of languages. I visited this on two occasions and I think it is doing extremely well. Not only has the British Council helped to start this organisation but it has been able to encourage eight different countries to come in. Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam are now concentrating on sending teachers to learn English and to teach English in their own countries when they go back. I think that this will be a great advantage for the
968
unity of that area. The Ministers of Education are now meeting in Bangkok. They meet regularly to discuss the programmes. This has been a great advantage and is working very well.
It seems strange to me that at the present time, when the Germans are reopening the Goethe Institute and the French are increasing their activities through the Alliance Francaise and also they are giving training scholarships, the Japanese are now coming in with their different cultural activities. It seems a pity that we are contemplating a change. As the military and economic power of this country declines surely educational diplomacy becomes more important. This fact has been recognised in Singapore.
It seems strange, too, that in the report only two paragraphs deal with the English language. The economic benefits are also underestimated in regard to English language training or teaching, which I understand brings in Britain, through the British Council's overseas work, about £6 million from teaching operations overseas. The potential growth is far greater and more diverse than the Berrill Report states. The promotion of British books is also another matter. For instance, there have been two exhibitions of books this year in Singapore, and publishers such as Longman's and Heinemann's show that sales of British books through the British Council in 1976 brought in £170 million. I understand that in Singapore, which after all is a small island with a small population, they have over a hundred serious educational inquiries made each week. Students are encouraged by the Government to come to Britain.
English is one of the five languages used at the United Nations, and even now the Republic of China has English as its second language. The British Council—and this is something which has not been mentioned before—helps the newly-dependent countries to write text books and recruits qualified consultants for various Ministries. It also holds classes. There is a statement in the report that there is duplication between the British Council and other Government financed agencies and that is inefficient and confusing to the recipient. Personally, I do not think that the recipient knows from where the money comes. He does

969
not mind so long as he gets the teaching that he requires. Therefore he is perfectly satisfied with the British Council.
Another benefit of the British Council is that it is not tied by any political considerations. The report says that that may lead to some over-emphasis on formal education compared with other forms of technical co-operation and training. I do not know why it is considered that this should be done by the British Council any more than the other people it is suggested may take their place. There is the suggestion in the report that educational and cultural work overseas should be performed by diplomatic posts and development divisions with resident educational experts for DES and ODM as appropriate. Surely this would be much more expensive. I suggest that this is carried out extremely well at the moment by the British Council.
There is one contradictory statement on page 391. It states:
"The Government should no longer put resources into ELT except in poor and intermediate developing countries".
The next paragraph reads:
"Direct teaching of English should not normally be undertaken in poor and intermediate developing countries".
Surely those are completely contrary statements.
The other point that I should like to mention relates to students. More students are going to the British Council since fees have been put up in this country. This is unfortunate. Many people cannot now afford to pay unless they are sponsored by their Government and therefore they are taking much more advantage of the British Council itself.
I should like to support the whole of what the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said about broadcasting. I understand that if we reduce the broadcasting overseas from four hours to two hours it would put us into the external broadcasting league of Albania. Surely we do not want that. We should rate ouselves higher than that. The BBC is extremely highly regarded abroad, much more so than are our competitors, because of its independence of both Government and commercial interests. I have lived in Indonesia, Malaysia, East and Central Africa, and
970
at that time in Indonesia it was the only way of getting any news from the outside world. I therefore hope this change will not be made. Overseas broadcasting is a great advantage to this country and to people abroad.
8.35 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness who has an exceptional personal record in the fields of social service abroad and connections with great institutions like the former Commonwealth Society for the Blind and in the very fields with which the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, has had a close connection. One can understand the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, in his forceful and, at times, almost resentful speech—a speech to which it was good to listen—at having this report issued just at the time he completed five years of distinguished and successful service. I should like to associate myself with the very genuine compliments made to the two maiden speakers. I listened to both speakers with benefit. I want to speak briefly and that means cutting out all the nice things I was going to say and saying all the things that will probably be resented.
The British Council has a dubious past; it has always tried to do good, no doubt, which is excellent. When I first came across it in 1945 it was a subject of jokes of the intelligentsia, and I have on occasion repeated one or two in the other place. The British Council has improved enormously. It is regrettable that it may have to submit to some tough measures. I wish someone would look at the alternative.
I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, may have missed some remarks that the noble Baroness made following up, agreeing with him and expanding on his thesis about the importance of English. I agree with every word he said. The use and teaching of English is one of the best methods of foreign education. If people are taught to acquire the reading of English, that is the best possible way over scattered communities of acquiring a love of literature which I hope is inherent in most Englishmen.
But even these things are altering. I gather that the definition of art now is that one line is not art; two lines are art

971
provided they are not parallel. We have moved from the immense canvasses of Delacroix, Canaletto, and so on, to the utmost simplicity. I am in favour of this, my Lords. I believe the greatest stream of art should derive its waters from many tributaries; and I do not think one has a right to pass harsh judgment on the original works of any lover of the arts, painting and sculpture, and so on.
This is a doctrine which must necessarily be applied to a wealthy country in the plenitude of its expenditure. If cuts have to be made, then there must be some arbitrary judgment. I do not know the unhappy Sir Kenneth Berrill who was responsible for this report. I found it a considerable work. I found the arguments deployed with ability and clarity. It is a monumental report which must have involved him and his small team in an immense amount of work. He says it involved an immense amount of travelling. I do not find it to be written in bad English. I do feel perhaps that his temerity in treading on some sacred preserves may have earned him the rebukes which we have heard so constantly. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, and the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, made excellent speeches in which they gave him a very fair hearing for his proposals.
There are questions raised in the report which have not been touched on. The question of the American alliance has been mentioned. It is getting very difficult: what have we got to offer America when they see the state of our Forces? They have rescued us in two wars and they have treated us with great generosity. I saw my own ideals perish when the source of information was Radio Free Europe and when the prompter of much British foreign policy, or the supplier of propaganda for it was the Central Intelligence Agency. We never heard how the Colonial Office permitted the so-called revolution in British Guyana, financed and directed, as we now know, by the CIA; and the alleged plot, revealed to the House of Commons, to burn Georgetown and the suspension of the Constitution, was wholly a figment of the rich imagination of the CIA.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, to whom I listen with more respect, personal and political, than almost any other Member of this House, said that we must beware of
972
introspection. I gave my honest opinion—it is worthless and I do not profess otherwise—that the Government really are now engaged in a last great economic struggle. If this is lost over the next few weeks, I do not think we need introspection to say that, with the steel industry in the state it is, with the threat of an all-out strike of electricity power workers, cogitating on just what a disaster that could mean, to claim there is nothing like leather is not good enough.
In effect, many of the speakers today might have said:
"Not a minute on the day,
Not a penny off the pay"
in this time of crisis. Something has got to go and as I have already spoken for nine minutes, I will conclude by mentioning figures which were given in another place last week: the social wage for 1976–77 is estimated at £1,460 per head and £2,920 for a married couple. I will not quote the figures; but the figure for education, libraries, science and the arts is £314 per head of the community. We ought to look at this situation. We ought to be prepared to say: "Well, we don't like what you have said, but we will go through it carefully, item by item, and see what little sacrifices we can make here and there". I am sure the BBC World Service gives a very remarkable performance. One can look at it and see whether it can be pruned—most trees benefit from that.
Finally, let me say this: About six years ago, I spent my last holiday with my wife. We were in Sweden and we went together to the lakes below Stockholm. That was one of the most sophisticated countries in the world, with the immense prize of vast resources of timber—almost limitless—and with a sophisticated well-organised, well-governed people. They appeared to have the secret of the future. But where is Sweden now? A series of currency crises have arisen. These storms have come and those economists who have lectured us so much all these years have little to suggest in the way of a solution. One solution, we are told, is to try to get together, recover the wartime spirit again, and so by preparing ourselves to make individual sacrifices, we could, perhaps, get together to save the country from an impending and grave disaster.
8.47 p.m
Lord DENMAN: My Lords, I hope you will allow me a few moments to dwell on a subject which has been mentioned by many noble Lords: the invisible earnings of this country. Before doing that, however, I should like to comment on one particular aspect of the gloom of the report, the constant references to the diminished power and influence of this country. None of us will dispute the diminished power, but I certainly dispute very hotly the diminished influence, and I believe there are many here who will support me.
Some 21 years ago, it became apparent to us and to the world that we could no longer act unilaterally in a power structure. We had to relate this to other nations in the world—now perhaps the nations of Europe and America—and to work with them, not unilaterally. That made us a Power which was not to be reckoned with in any minor international incident. It took five to 10 years for us in this country and for the rest of the world to come to terms with that. Ten years ago it was apparent to all of us that this had happened, but 10 years ago we began, in my view, to rebuild our influence in the world; and we have heard today from many quarters of how we are regarded and the way the world now relies on us. I believe that situation is gaining in strength every day, every year. In my travels round the world, I am constantly being told: "You are a Briton; stand up and be proud of it. You have great things to give us. You have leadership, understanding and you have skills unlimited."
I say this as a background to our invisible position. I simply cannot understand how an inquiry commissioned by the State can make the incredible error of a total omission—the invisible invisibles. I must give a figure or two and I hope that your Lordships will be tolerant with me. In this last year the invisible earnings of this country were no less than £13,000 million. That is rather more than half the total of our visible earnings. Our visible exports amounted to £25,000 million. Those invisible earnings grew last year at the rate of 25 per cent. They are the services which Britain can offer the world, be they education, medical, banking, insurance or shipping, which the
974
world needs and where we very frequently have world leadership.
The case which I would present to your Lordships is that we are striving forward in these areas in the world and our influence is growing. A very large measure of this success is dependent on all the institutions of our country which have been brought into question by the Berrill Report. I travel the world, and have the pleasure of the company of many noble Lords, and I cannot speak too highly of the support which every embassy to which I have been has given to our efforts to promote invisible earnings. It is given without thought of time, trouble or effort. Whatever initiative we have offered to them, they have picked it up and doubled it and given it back to us.
In support of the embassies, the work of the British Council and the BBC's External Service is something which I cannot quantify, but I believe that it is of the highest possible order. Although I am totally critical of the Berrill Report, I must join in the chorus of thanks for having been given the opportunity of understanding and being able to stand up in this House and vindicate the services which I personally value so highly.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who talked about the basis on which the inquiry had been conducted. I have said that it baffles me how an inquiry of this kind can have forgotten about the invisibles, and it raises very serious issues in my mind which I wish to present to your Lordships. I believe that the conduct and development of our influence in the world, which, as I said, I believe to be growing very fast, is something outside the comprehension of the economists and it is not necessarily understood by the politicians. I believe that this has come about because there is a total lack of understanding in Whitehall. I should like to suggest to this House that it should be considered whether there ought to be some form of advisory panel given to the Foreign Secretary, just as the Department of Trade has an organisation called BOTAC, where people of goodwill come together to consider how certain aspects can be developed. I believe that had such a group of people existed, this report would never have got one inch down the road that it took. I believe that it is the blinkered existence—and I can understand how it

975
came about—which must be broken open and given freedom for the development of those great service industries on which this country relies.
8.53 p.m.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, it is some hours now since we listened to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. But I am sure that those of your Lordships who are still here will have those speeches clear in your minds, because they were two excellent speeches. It may be thought that enough ex-Excellencies have already taken part in this debate, and there may be more than a suggestion that they are not only past mark of mouth but, also, to use a recent term of art, "old fuddy-duddies". So I shall intervene only to refer as briefly as possible, and therefore probably with far too broad a brush, to three or four matters which do not change very much over time.
I have always been struck by the degree to which Foreign Service officers are objects of resentment and envy on the part of broad sections of the population, a position which to some extent they share with farmers. As I happen to have been both, I am doubly conscious of this: we are supposed to be specially privileged in some way. There is nothing new here, or indeed specific to the United Kingdom. But as our society gets more envious, so this resentment deepens, and this may help to explain why there is a kind of seven-year itch to investigate the Foreign Service, but not other services. It is about seven years since Duncan and about 14 years since Plowden. This perhaps also helps to explain why the current investigation, unlike previous ones, seems by all accounts to have been a hatchet-job carried out with a certain amount of arrogance and relish.
My next point refers to the suggestion that you can replace resident representatives at overseas missions by itinerant bureaucrats. To criticise this proposal is no reflection on the bureaucrats, some of whom take to diplomatic life like ducks to water. Certainly, there are posts where other Departments of Whitehall must be represented. Washington is one, and the representation there has for many years been a microcosm of Whitehall. The same applies to the headquarters of international organisations,
976
New York and Brussels being two outstanding examples. But there needs to be close supervision and coordination on the spot, by the head of mission, of the political and diplomatic aspects of the total activity in these places, and the head of mission may himself have to conduct or intervene in negotiations in very important matters. Possibly, the authors of the report have been too strongly influenced by the case of Brussels, which is an exception, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, a most important exception. In the regular diplomatic post, there is no substitute for a resident mission.
Secondly, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that diplomatic representatives cannot sell British goods. It has been said before in this debate, but I make no apology for repeating the point. Only British industry can sell British goods. The diplomatic representative can make contacts, set the stage and act as an impresario, but only the manufacturer or his representatives can do the selling and guarantee the quality and the suitability of the goods. Misconceptions about this aspect of the matter arose out of the Duncan Report and they seem likely to arise in an even more exaggerated form from this one.
The third matter is the much canvassed question of entertainment. I can assure your Lordships that you cannot run an embassy on ham sandwiches and beer, and that applies to the senior staff and to consulates-general, as well as to the ambassador. I once knew an ambassadorial couple who tried to do this, and British prestige in that capital sank in a few months to its nadir. Living abroad is not the same as living at home, and to attempt to equate the two, as the authors of this report do, is otiose. Practically nobody outside limited circles of urban intelligentsia in this country is impressed by ostentatious austerity in the British representation overseas. The Third World is certainly not impressed—one has only to look at the lavish hospitality of President Bongo of Gabon to his fellow members of the Organisation of African Unity to see that; the Middle East is not impressed; Latin America is not impressed; the Orient is not impressed. I am not recommending luxury or lavishness. British representatives abroad are

977
expected to keep what used to be called "a decent table", and they ought to be encouraged and enabled to do it. If you do not like something, it is always easy to claim that it should be hamstrung or abolished in the name of what used to be called economy and is now called cost effectiveness. But let us remember that even the most drastic economies in this field are made only at the margin of our national expenditures.
Few professions have had greater changes forced upon them in recent years than Her Majesty's Foreign Service. It has had to assimilate successive waves of people from other vanishing Departments; it has moved from being one of the safer to one of the more dangerous occupations; and it has had an increasingly difficult task to perform in upholding British interests as British power has declined. Its morale has not been improved by the present investigation, any more than the morale of the British Council and of the overseas broadcasting teams of the BBC has been improved.
We know that an inquiry is being carried forward in another place. All I ask is that at the end of the day the Government will ignore the bias in this report and apply it, and its recommendations, in such a way as to maintain the excellence, restore the morale and ensure the future of our representation overseas.
9.2 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I come to today's debate from the standpoint of a businessman rather than a politician or anybody who has been involved in any of the Services that comprise our overseas representation. I make no bones about it, because I look at the Berrill Report from that standpoint. In my commercial activities I have always felt that a report which seeks to investigate the activities of a body and suggest remedies for deficiencies should be absolute. In this report, of course, nothing is absolute; the subject matter is far too wide and intricate for even 440 pages to embrace. We have ended up with generalisations on a number of issues, which in my view most markedly ignore any human feeling whatsoever.
I believe it would be fair to tell your Lordships that I have a brother in the
978
Service. We do not see each other very often because he is an Arabist and has spent most of his serving life abroad. Over the last 25 years of his service he has written me a few letters, and I can assure your Lordships that neither my wife nor I would have exchanged places with my brother and his wife in attending to the representation of our country in certain of the stations to which he has been posted. It has been a most difficult job. Certainly it may be said with some justification that a look should be taken at entertainment and accommodation in certain areas. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, who reminded us in his admirable maiden speech that the entire Service cost less than one-half of 1 per cent. of the total expenditure in the public sector in 1975–76, and that over the last 10 years it has voluntarily reduced its manpower by about 15 per cent.
How can one expect to make other than marginal savings? For my part, I would ignore that question as being of not great importance to the main theme. I believe that the main theme, in a negative way, is how a group of people can spend £144,000 during 18 months upon reviewing a service both to society at large and to the business community in particular, and also to world peace, within the context of a minimal service which they reckon should be aligned with a declining military and economic strength. I suppose that any historian could look at the post-war years and quite easily find a root cause for that decline. Any businessman, any entrepreneur, would say, "So be it".
But this is no time to retire into our shell. The best thing that we have had for 100 or 150 years is our expertise in a number of fields, and diplomacy is one of them. In paragraph 4 we read:
"Inevitably therefore the United Kingdom's ability to influence events in the world has declined and there is very little that diplomatic activity and international public relations can do to disguise the fact".
In paragraph 6 the report says:
"In our view, over the time horizon of this review, the scale and pattern of the United Kingdom's overseas representation should be broadly that implied by its present relative position in the world. … This judgment about the United Kingdom's role in the world over the next decade and the likely availability of public resources for overseas representation has formed the background to this review".

979
I would suggest to your Lordships that this is quite the wrong background. This starts from a negative point. We have expertise. Oddly, as one goes through the report—and I admit that I have not read every one of the 440 pages—one comes to the conclusion that its authors assumed a world bereft of foreigners. Anybody who travels abroad, whether on holiday or on business, and talks to foreigners knows that British experience in a wide number of fields—British technology, expertise and general views on a number of international topics—is eagerly sought after. It is quite wrong that if people, Governments, diplomats, businessmen, ordinary men and women in foreign countries are asking for the benefit of these qualities they should be denied them, because it will not be many months before they stop listening to anything we have to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Denman, spoke about the invisible effects, and of course he is absolutely right. How does one quantify influence? How can one quantify a dinner party? One cannot quantify these things. The Berrill Report suggests that we should be able to quantify; in that report the modern jargon "cost effectiveness" is used. I know from the last three years' work that I have done in a certain company that without the benefit of advice from foreign posts about certain situations with regard to motor vehicles, hospitals, hospital equipment, services, irrigation and a wide variety of things, companies that I have had a little to do with would not have gathered any business whatsoever. But if the board of directors asked, "Out of the value of this contract how much can you put down to the advice we received from our overseas post?" I could not in all honesty find a figure. It is there, and businessmen know it is there, and they are not prepared to accept that that effectiveness should necessarily be quantified, or recommendations for curtailment of those activities on the grounds of cost alone. Indeed, that is exactly what the report does in relation to broadcasting. It attempts to set a value on the influence that our external broadcasting has and says that it should be cut on the basis of cost. That is a very great mistake.
I should have thought that a far greater expansion in the field of overseas representation
980
should be the keynote. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in his maiden speech—and I do not like to quarrel with that noble Lord whose experience in Europe is so colossal—who suggested that we should reduce our European representation. Why reduce it? It is almost the same in the report. I think it is paragraph 11(d) of the conclusions which recommends that more resources should be devoted to the concentration of effort on particularly promising markets or products for periods of, say, five years. I know that business houses have representation for 15 and 20 years before anything really comes home.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said that there was no substitute for the resident expert abroad. The bureaucrat making a flying visit ex-London is a complete waste of money and time. These people whom we are asking to represent us—nay, advise us at home as to what we should be doing in various places—must spend perhaps a lifetime to learn the ways in which people think, to learn the way they do things and how we should do things.
A short time ago I went abroad full of zest and vigour to do some business, and I came horribly unstuck, because I just did not understand the way the people I was trying to do business with did their business, and I was too stiffnecked to change my way. I went to our overseas post and said, "Help me. I have spent all this money, come all this way. What do I do?" They said, "You think again. You are doing it all wrong. Our commercial man knows these people, knows the way they think, knows the way you should attack this problem."
I find in the report one other very grave error. It talks almost throughout—this pessimistic attitude—of our military and economic power being so very little that there should be a rundown of the political (and I use that word rather loosely) representation. They say it as if that kind of representation is rather like a machine, that you turn a knob—fast, faster, fastest—but it does not work that way. What British industry wants is a whole network of intelligence, political intelligence and commercial intelligence gathered in from almost every corner of the world where perhaps one day a business opportunity might arise. It is too late then to send one bureaucrat from

981
London to make a two-week review and come back with the answers.
What of the Service itself? What of the men and women in the Service today? How do they see their future? What is their morale, and what is their advice perhaps to their sons or daughters, who may think of entering the Service—in other words, recruitment? If there is not going to be the opportunity to serve—and most men in overseas representation go abroad knowing that the service they are going to perform will be quite different from that at home—and unless there is a future, are we going to get the recruits? Are we going to get the people into the services representing us overseas to enable us to take advantage of those opportunities that are going to come in 10, 15, 20 years' time? I do not believe that this report contributes anything towards meeting that requirement.
9.17 p.m.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ballantrae on having provoked a debate which all of us who have been here throughout have listened to with the keenest interest, and to thank him for having provoked the two best maiden speeches that I can ever remember having heard on one day. It seems to me that the Think Tank has not had a very good evening, and I think it is extremely important that the Think Tank and those who have its future in their hands should not be over-depressed by the reception by your Lordships' House of this particular report. I do myself believe that the idea of a Central Policy Review Staff, or whatever you call it, is sound, and that the country will be deprived of a very valuable initiative if we do not follow this up and have something at the centre which I imagine was what the Prime Minister had in mind when he first invented this device.
I must declare an interest here, because I was very much involved in what I regard as the prototype of the Think Tank, though no one else has noticed it. For the last 18 months of the War there was a very obscure office of the Ministry of Reconstruction—not an obscure Minister of Reconstruction, because he was Lord Woolton—which was limited to half a dozen people by Mr. Churchill, as he then was, and was therefore sharply
982
distinguished from the Ministry of Reconstruction in the First World War. Under Lord Woolton, we were there concerned in trying to see what could be done in the last 18 months of the War in preparation for what should be done when the War was won.
Among other things, a White Paper was produced and endorsed by the Coalition Government with all the Parties concerned enthusiastically endorsing it on a high and stable level of employment. I mention that only because that is the kind of job which I think, at any rate in those late War days, was very well assigned to a kind of Think Tank. I do not believe that this particular job ought ever to have been taken on by these people. Whether they took it on themselves—we shall perhaps hear that from the Minister—or whether they were asked to take it on by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, is beside the point. As it has turned out, it was an unfortunate assignment. I am particularly hopeful that that shall not be used as a reason for not using the device of a Think Tank in future.
If members of the Think Tank had been present throughout the debate, as some of us have been, they would have asked themselves: "Ought we to have heard this sort of stuff before we made up our minds and wrote our report?" It seems to me that some of this wisdom must have been available to them. I know how hard all the members of the service worked both in Whitehall and overseas to make it easy for the visitors to oversea posts. I have the impression, based on only a random sample of two overseas places where I happen to have been, that the visitors did not give the impression of being listeners. They gave the impression of having formed some view. I shall not suggest what it was or why they had formed it, but they were simply going to check that view and, on the whole, the checking confirmed them in that view.
In any event I believe that this has been a valuable debate in the same way as the correspondence columns of The Times were valuable in stimulating, from people who really had some experience, some comment on this important subject. I very much hope that the Government will be able this evening, or very soon, to

983
assure us that they will not implement two of the Think Tank recommendations: First, that they will not cut the BBC Overseas Services but, on the contrary, will follow up the problem of audibility and, if it means more money, deal with it with more money; secondly, that they will certainly neither abolish nor castrate the British Council.
Some time has passed since the report was published, but presumably the Government had knowledge of it at an even earlier date. As I understand it, the other place will not debate this subject for quite a long time. What has been said most authoritatively should be heeded by the Government who should study the report carefully, and there ought to be an early decision—if not tonight, then very soon—that in these two respects at any rate the recommendations will not be carried out.
As regards the rest of the report, I do not want anything that they recommend done in a hurry. However, the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, reminded us that this report has made a shot at answering some extremely difficult problems; namely, what should be the deployment of servants of the Crown, and let us call them servants of the Crown, in the overseas Diplomatic Service, on the one hand, and in the Home Civil Service, on the other? I do not think that any noble Lord would be rash enough to say that he thought the answer is that which we have at present or that he knows, at present, what the right answer should be. Very careful arguments have been put forward by certain people in the Think Tank which are an excellent basis for further thought. I very much hope that no quick decision will be taken on the basic question of the relationship between the Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service.
To be personal for a moment, I happen to have had the luck by a Great War to be made a Crown servant, first, from August, 1939 to the end of the War, in the Home Civil Service. I was a temporary, amateur, hack, or, if you like to call it, bureaucrat. I do not use the word "bureaucrat" in any technical sense because members of the Home and the Diplomatic Services are servants of the Crown. I then had the further
984
privilege of being asked to remain a servant of the Crown at home, for seven years at the Ministry of Education and for another six years at the Ministry of Power. Then I was asked to become a Crown servant abroad and I had nearly five years overseas. Therefore I am in a position to say that I have the greatest admiration for both the Home Civil Service and the Foreign Service. The Home Civil Service is not at present under attack and therefore I shall say no more, except that I am very proud to have ever been an amateur, temporary or permanent, home civil servant.
I enormously admire and feel proud at having in any sense belonged to the Foreign Service, into which for some reason I was pushed for the last four and a half years of my public service. That is not simply because I was a home civil servant. There is no doubt that home civil servants regard the Diplomatic Service with a certain degree of envy, although I do not say with malice or uncharitableness. This goes back a long way into history and we had better accept the fact—and everybody does—that we must get rid of it, and we can only get rid of it from both sides.
I remember very well leading, or almost leading, delegations to UNESCO conferences; eventually I became chairman of the governing body of UNESCO. There was a case of a lead Department which was the Ministry of Education. We felt that we did not receive very much help from the Foreign Service. The only other part of Whitehall that was interested in us—and it was deeply, effectively and disastrously interested in us—was the Treasury, who sent the delegations to conference after conference in order to make fools of this country, simply because there was not enough control by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs over this essential new power that was evolving after the War in the specialised agencies.
Therefore, I am extremely cautious about any suggestion of lead Departments or of the Foreign Office divesting itself of interest and leaving it to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Education and Science or the other one. I am quite clear that the Foreign Service is something of a vocation, although it is different from that of the

985
Home Civil Service. The vocation is a commitment. Whether one is going to get married or has been married, one of the most difficult human achievements of which I have had any experience is to be a happily married and effective spouse of a foreign servant.
I suggest that that requires much more serious attention than it has been given in the Think Tank report. It is linked with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was so right in stressing; namely, the enormous importance of political advice and the political "specialism", if we can so call it—it is a beastly word which I do not like to employ. If we call an economist a specialist, we had better call the bloke who has an idea of what conditions are like in France a specialist, because he has lived there and is a member of a team that looks at all aspects of French society. He is able to brief Ministers, civil servants or businessmen when they go there.
That is why I am absolutely convinced that we do not want to merge the two Services or do either of the other things that the Think Tank proposes, except in so far as the Foreign Office and all of us are already doing it. This is, to make progress towards this extraordinarily easy thing to say, and difficult thing to do, which is to get inter-penetration and secondment across the barrier between home and overseas, for reasons that I shall not go into at this late hour because they are all familiar.
My experience is very limited and quite unusual in that I was a totally unprofessional head of post abroad, but I saw the essential truth of what has been said by many noble Lords this evening; that you must have an ambassador, or whatever he may be called, who is head of the whole of his staff in the embassy, no matter who pays them. The defence people can pay their chaps; that is fine. So far as my experience goes it makes no difference at all. But let us have nothing to do with this ghastly sense of a sort of committee abroad in each post with the head of the post chairman of this committee; of someone from the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Education, the Treasury and heaven knows who else. I honestly do not believe that that would be in anybody's interest, and I cannot believe that the Government will seriously consider it. Exactly the same applies in Whitehall.
986
You must have the Foreign Secretary recognised as responsible to his colleagues in the Cabinet for the whole of the business of our overseas work.
Then I think a word must be said—and only a word at this hour—about the inarticulate major premises of the Think Tank report; the things that they do not quite come out about and are altogether explicit about but which lurk beneath the surface. This aspect has been dug out by several noble Lords this evening. I seriously think that this report as a whole is a charter for barbarism. It is a charter which totally ignores, and regards as not even worth discussing, the value of anything which you cannot quantify; the value of anything which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, so rightly said in his speech, enormously valuable, particularly in the world that we live in today when, thank God!, the economic interests and the economic calculations are not regarded, certainly by the young, as the only, or even the main, considerations of ultimate value for humanity.
This report constantly and at so many points (and I shall not waste time quoting them) makes it plain that it regards those invisible exports of £13,000 million earned by insurance companies, and the like—and as the authors were economists I still do not understand this; perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us—as not worth a mention, and that it is not interested in the other sorts of invisibles, which are not unimportant. For example, take Henry Moore. Anybody who goes to Canada will find that Toronto is honouring him as a world figure, not as a Briton; not as something outside Canada but as a world figure that they delight to honour. There is Benjamin Britten, and all sorts of products of post-war Britain which are first-rate and excellent, and are as much part of our image as the strikes and the miseries which we are going to surmount when we have conquered inflation.
Finally, the report is a charter for defeatism, because having boldly and rightly drawn attention to the facts of the post-war situation, and the decline in our power in the crude sense of the word, the authors should have gone on from there to say, "And that is why what we are looking at in this report is of outstanding and unique importance. Now is the time when we have to exploit all our excellence

987
and all our capacities, both historic and present, in order to make something out of what at the moment does not look too good. We have this new and exciting European Community. We are going to make something out of that".
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, there is no ray of hope in the Think Tank report that joining the Community is one of the great opportunities that we must seize. If the Think Tank had suggested that we must seek adaptations that would make us better Europeans, we would all of us have said, "Let us look at this seriously". In fact they do not do that, but they imply an attitude of defeatism which no speech made today, with the possible exception of that made by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has supported. We know that we are not defeated and that we will make use of every part of our excellence, be it in the artistic field, in the humanities, in the Home Civil Service or in the Foreign Service.
9.36 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wish that in the order of speakers somebody else had been chosen to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, for I do not have the knowledge or experience to justify a comment on his speech. I hope he will feel that if I do not make reference to it it is not because I do not have admiration for it but because it dealt with spheres in which I recognise I am a pupil compared with his authority.
I would not intervene at this very late hour if I did not wish to discuss a subject which is dealt with at considerable length in the Think Tank's report but to which I do not think any reference has been made in the debate. Let me assure noble Lords quickly that I am all in favour of the British Council, that I am all in favour of British representation—though I dislike some of its luxury—that I am all in favour of the expansion of the BBC's services abroad, and that I welcome the suggestions which have been made, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, for co-operative education with the developing countries. I must, before going further, welcome my old friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, though unfortunately I had to leave for an important appointment while he was
988
speaking. I assure him that tomorrow morning I will read, again with the attitude of a pupil, the report of his remarks in Hansard.
The subject with which I wish to deal is the considerable section of the report which refers to the immigration control procedure. I welcome their recommendations, as I shall indicate in detail later, and particularly the reference to the delays in reaching decisions regarding the dependants, the wives and children, of residents in this country. It is not too strong to describe as a scandal the way we have treated these people. Since 1969 the wives and children of residents in this country have been required to obtain entry certificates either from the high commission or embassy in their countries, and when this decision was debated in another place Mr. Merlyn Rees said there would be no question of an extremely long examination. But what has happened? Early in 1977 the Think Tank tells us that the waiting time for first interviews by wives and children in these countries was as follows. For the first interview it was six months at Delhi, 15 months at Bombay, 13 months at Islamabad, and 24 months at Dacca. Actually this was an improvement. At one time wives and children had to wait three years at Dacca before they had their first interview.
This is not a matter of statistics. I have had the most pitiful letters from separated wives in South East Asia, telling of the long distances they have had to travel from their village to the town where they could be interviewed, taking their children with them. There was no accommodation when they got there. They had to sleep on the streets, and they had to squat day after day for months in front of the commission building or the embassy. This is not only a question of delay in the first interviews. We have to ask ourselves whether the present procedure is right for judging the justification of the application. Interviews take place. There are village women, often illiterate, with bewildered children, and unknown interpreters. In these conditions it is almost impossible for the most sincere English civil servant to come to a decision of right or wrong.
The Runnymede Trust has made an examination of 58 cases in Pakistan of

989
people who were refused entry to this country. Of those 58 cases it was found that 55 were genuine. We are dealing with human beings, with families separated over the years. We condemn the Russians, rightly, for not allowing their citizens to leave their territory. We have to acknowledge that we ourselves do not allow wives and children of residents in this country to join them here.
The Think Tank make several recommendations on how this situation can be improved, and I want to welcome them. The first is that documentary requirements should be ignored where documentation is poor. This would remove the temptation to resort to forged documents through unscrupulous agents. Secondly, they recommend that children under 14 years of age should not be interviewed; thirdly, that the practice of looking for family likenesses should be dropped as unreliable; and, fourthly—and this is very important—that the appeals procedure should be changed. At present, when an applicant is refused entry overseas or at the port of entry in this country, he is entirely absent when his appeal takes place. The Think Tank report suggests that there should be a tape recording of the relevant interviews so that the adjudicator can judge the reason for the refusal. Fifthly, in the view of the Think Tank there should be an end to the interviewing of male fiancés, who, unlike female fiancées, are at present required to obtain entry certificates. If a fiancé does not marry an objective decision can then be made. Sixthly, they recommend that consideration should be given to abandoning entry certificates for visitors. Instead, there should be a follow-up of visitors who overstay in this country.
At present, as I know from my own correspondence, close relatives of families are continually refused permission to come to take part in family occasions—weddings, anniversaries, Jubilee holidays. This is a human problem. The recommendations which the Think Tank has made have been supported by the Labour Party Home Rights Committee, the Runnymede Trust, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Liberation and the immigrant organisations. I want to urge upon the Government that there should be swift action to apply them, thus mitigating in some way the injustices of the immigration Acts.
9.48 p.m.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, at this late hour, and after so many distinguished speeches, it might seem that there is very little left to be said. I should simply like to pick up one or two loose ends concerning "cultural diplomacy", which the report puts in derogatory quotation marks. To dismiss British Council activities as "high culture", which phrase is also shown between these derogatory quotation marks, as the report does in Chapter 12, paragraph 43 (b), is a red herring. Of course culture does not or should not mean just art exhibitions and ballet. It means the interaction of society with its members, the energy that they derive from this contact and all the things they do or make.
A lively culture will have lively arts and lively technology. "High culture" (their quotes) is no more undesirable or elitist than "high technology"—my quotes. These days you will not have one without the other. Artists no longer live in ivory towers, if they ever did. Few of them are even aesthetes. The artist, whether visual, literary or performing, is at the cutting edge of things, just as much s a designer of machine tools. Thank God!, my Lords, we still have lively arts, which means that we are still alive. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has just mentioned some of the great names—Moore, Britten and I cannot remember whether he said Dylan Thomas. This is the message we want to get across, and the British Council is our most tireless messenger.
In the period 1945 to 1970—and your Lordships will forgive me if I just mention this; for it has not been mentioned before—very largely as a result of initiatives by the British Council in sending shows of avant garde experimental British art to such events as the Venice and Sao Paulo biennials and as far afield as Japan, the reputation of London as an art centre rose until it was the top of the world league.
I am not setting out to make a strictly economic argument but anyone interested should ask dealers what this meant in terms of their trade; and the effects of this great pioneering effort remain and are constantly renewed. Foreign museums and dealers still come to the Council wanting to put on exhibitions of British

991
art abroad. Arte Inglesi oggi in Milan last year attracted 120,000 visitors. It cost the British Council £50,000, while the host body, the Commune of Milan, contributed £60,000. This is not an abnormal distribution of costs. Incidentally, of the £0·4 million given in paragraph 42 of Chapter 12 for expenditure on fine arts, it is worth putting on record that this includes the overheads; and that the amount actually available for exhibitions abroad in 1976 was £155,000—which one would think was a modest enough sum.
In the performing arts, which have not been mentioned either, it must be stressed that no country does or can send its cultural ambassadors abroad without some support. The British Council swears it never spends money on what would happen without its subsidies; which vary between some 15 per cent. and 75 per cent., the remainder being the box-office takings. West Europe requires less support; India or Australia much more. But wherever the curtain goes up, there is no doubt of the tremendous esteem in which the British Theatre is held.
One of our leading Shakespearean actors told me recently of the extraordinary cornucopia of expectation, goodwill and satisfaction that is showered on him when on tour and of the very strong sense he has of being, with due respect to any ex-Ambassadors who may still be present, his country's ambassador. Apparently, Richard II, in Bratislava, was an unforgettable experience for all concerned. My actor friend went on to say that actors were very often out of pocket on their lodging allowances but they still wanted to go and that he, personally, felt that the relationships he formed helped to break down a series of misconceptions about what Britain was like, based on reports of strikes, apathy, poor industrial relations et cetera; while a senior British Council official told me he thought it one of his most important functions to allay people's concern about the so-called "British Disease". This supposed infirmity is probably not so much a home truth and a half truth; but our cultural ambassadors certainly do as much as anyone else to set the record straight.
In the realm of music, for example, the London Philharmonic Orchestra became
992
the first British orchestra ever to tour China where it was received with something like rapture and where some excellent personal contacts were made. This could not have happened without Foreign Office-approved British Council support.
I should like to turn briefly to Iran, where the British Cultural Festival this year combined a number of events: ballet, theatre, music, ceramics, architecture, contemporary British art, design, books, posters, films, military bands and football. They all played their part. And this effort was sponsored to the extent of some £70,000 by business interests. Why, my Lords, do we find on this list such names as BP, British Leyland, British Steel, Lloyds Bank, merchant bankers, accountants, insurance, the London Electricity Board and Plessey? Christies were there, too. Well, perhaps you might expect to find them. They subscribed precisely in order to soften a little the crude pragmatic business-like approach to newly-rich countries who might otherwise suspect—and be forgiven for suspecting—that we are there for absolutely no other purpose than staking out a corner in their newfound wealth. The lesson surely is that all nations are resentful of mere exploitation and feel happier if active cultural relations and the disinterested human contacts that emerge from them are established at the same time as business relations. Here is a significant list of British business interests that have not been slow to learn this lesson. I congratulate them. They are a step ahead of the Berrill Report.
But, curiously enough, the authors of this report have a reservation to add, quite an important one, to their general condemnation of cultural diplomacy. This point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but I think that it is so important that I am just going to make it again. In Chapter 12, paragraph 30, they recommend that continuing provision of arts and culture should remain a high priority in the Soviet bloc, because.
"it contributes to our objective of breaking down barriers between east and west".
This is a very interesting proposition. True, our music has always had a wonderful reception over there, but when it comes to drama the Soviet authorities will want to have prior notice of the

993
repertoire before they give it the green light; and they definitely will not touch our contemporary art, which has had such a tremendous success throughout the rest of the world. Why is this? It is because anything done after 1939 is dangerous and subversive. Turner, of course, is welcome. The art of the past is all right because it can be historically labelled and is politically defused. Yet the report wants virtually to confine cultural diplomacy to the zone where natural resistance to it is strongest and the return might well seem to be least. And it quite fails to take into account that if our cultural effort is virtually confined to that area, it is likely to increase suspicion of our motives rather than induce sympathy for our way of life. If we are seen to be using cultural manifestations only on one front, we shall lay ourselves wide open to the accusation of turning cultural diplomacy into cultural warfare. And would it not be irresistible to Russian officialdom to decide that the British Council was just a front for MI6?—if they do not think that already.
No, my Lords, the authors of the report cannot have it both ways. If cultural diplomacy is no good, why attempt it where it will meet with most resistance? And if it is so good that it should be tried even there, why not carry it everywhere? I firmly believe that credible cultural diplomacy must be worldwide. That includes the English-speaking world, which is a very low priority in Berrill's eyes because it is supposedly looked after adequately by the commercial market. This is simply not the case as commercial contact is largely confined to the sale of TV programmes and films, and the vital contact between a performer and his audience or his opposite numbers never takes place. There are parts of the world that thirst for this. May I quote from a letter from the chairman of Musica Viva in Australia to a British Council official:
"I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that the British and the Americans were two people separated only by a common language. At times I have felt the same might be said of the British and the Australians."
Then he goes on:
"It would be wrong to fail to acknowledge that the tics which formerly existed between the United Kingdom and Australia are much looser than hitherto … This fact makes it all the more important, we believe, for the exposure at the
994
highest level, of the products of British culture … The British Council has a proved record in Australia and I and all my colleagues … hope that its activities will continue and, indeed, expand."
What about Europe? Am I straining a point if I claim that our cultural relations are of relevance to our emergence on 1/1/78 as a fully integrated member of the European Community? The economic arrangements and advantages are not the only dimension of the Community, and this is underlined by the desire of the new applicants to join at least partly for political and cultural reasons. Does that not suggest the desirability of our maintaining our contacts at all levels, including cultural, with Spain, Greece and Portugal, whom Berrill would largely phase out?
And what about our partners themselves? France and Germany spend vastly more on cultivating us than we do on them. But all these countries—our European partners and the applicant countries plus Yugoslavia—come into the Berrill category E of non-Communist developed and Southern Europe and we are to suppose that little or no cultural contact is necessary with them. Yet, if we are so interested in Russian Communism, why should we turn a blind eye to Euro-Communism which has strong roots in France, Italy and Spain and which might be more receptive?
No; whatever the merits or demerits of the rest of the report, on which I am not qualified to touch, Chapter 12 is simply not good enough. It betrays inadequate research, lack of imagination, inconsistency and naivety. I earnestly beg the Government not to be swayed by any streamlined, no-nonsense, tough or realistic appeal that these recommendations may seem to have, because any such appeal is illusory and neither recommendation should be adopted.
Before sitting down, there is one misnomer that I should like to correct. Throughout this debate the Central Policy Review Staff has been referred to as the "Think Tank". The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to the "Tankers", and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the "Tank team". It is true that the Central Policy Review Staff is generally thought

995
of as the Think Tank, but I do not think that Sir Kenneth's team thinks of itself in that category.
On 23rd March of this year a debate was initiated in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and I attempted, admittedly without much success, to draw your Lordships' attention to the usefulness of Think Tanks. I mentioned in particular the Brookings Institute of Washington. The characteristics of true Think Tanks are that they are independent of Governments, except for a small
996
proportion of their finance; they accept work by commission or under contract; and the intellectual spectrum and financial resources available to them are far greater than those which were available to Sir Kenneth Berrill and his team. I was therefore going to suggest that it may not have been entirely their fault if they fell down on their task; but if they brought it on their own heads, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has revealed, that is another matter. In any event, my Lords, may I suggest to the Government that they have another think about Think Tanks.
10.1 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, your Lordships' House has a very short memory. About the time that the CPRS Committee was delegated with this responsibility of looking at the Overseas Services and the way in which they serve this country, we were in a grave economic financial plight, and there was not a voice in any quarter of your Lordships' House that did not demand that Her Majesty's Government should make the most drastic cuts in public expenditure—I repeat, drastic cuts. But, as so often happens, when the cuts are proposed the House somehow unites and says: "Not there; not there."
Let us be fair to the CPRS Committee and to Sir Kenneth Berrill. They were set up at a time of parlous economic straits. Things have changed and now perhaps we can look to a brighter and more confident future. Perhaps, therefore, some of the proposals made by Sir Kenneth and his team do not need to be accepted. I think one needs to be fair; I think that if there were any responsibility as to the choice of who should make the third inquiry into our overseas matters, perhaps the mistake was made by the present Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in selecting an internal domestic body to carry out that inquiry. If I may put it crudely, it was rather like asking Celtic Football Club to carry out an inquiry into Rangers, or Everton into Liverpool. I think the body was the wrong one. Although the analysis and the material the Committee provide is of very great value both for Government and Parliament to consider, I think that the conclusions were reached in the isolation of Whitehall, if I may use that phrase. They did not take into account the basic problem and the nature of our needs within the totality of world affairs. Perhaps that became more apparent when dealing with the area which has dominated part of this debate, the field of entertainment.
I have spent a great deal of time travelling and, to me, the great strength of the diplomatic world is that, whether it is in Manila, Singapore, or in East or West Berlin, it is basically a club. Diplomats meet together; they exchange views and information; and it is that
998
exchange of information between diplomats which is the great strength upon which judgments can be made, and not so much the exchange of information between an ambassador and a host Government.
I believe very much that the embassies and high commissions have played a notable part in assisting British industry in the field of exports and trade promotion. If I have any criticism, it does not lie with the embassies and high commissions. It really lies in the way Whitehall assimilates and makes use of the material and information that is provided. Because the Chief Whip is looking at the clock, I shall not say how I would change it, except that I do not believe that the present machinery in Whitehall is sufficiently geared to make use not only of the information, but of the opportunities which our embassies and high commissions provide, to be able to go after large contracts. I do not believe that at present the machinery exists, and I hope that one day we shall find some way of having a much sharper point to enable us to assist our industries.
The Minister of State, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has an unenviable task in replying to this debate. There are so many factors which need to be taken into account. There is much in this report that is worthy not only of further consideration, but of acceptance. But I should like to say this. First, with the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, I am quite convinced that the British Council ought to remain very much as it is today. It provides a service which I do not believe an embassy or a high commission can itself provide. Certainly, I believe that the BBC provides a service which no one else can provide. If we were to lose it, then we should only create a vacuum. Nobody would fill it and the world, and we, ourselves, would be poorer as a consequence.
Having said that—and I keep most of the other points quite loose—I would ask my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts to say to his Secretary of State that an early view of the Government is required, not only in terms of the staff in our overseas offices, who are very much concerned, but also in terms of the host Governments to whom our high commissioners and ambassadors are accredited. They, too, are concerned. Therefore,

999
there is much to be said for an early view of the Government on this matter. But I hope that it is not a hard view and that, as a consequence of this CPRS report, the Government will produce a Green Paper—not a White Paper—which is a statement of their views and basic conclusions, but is open to further discussion.
I believe that there is such a wealth of knowledge and understanding which we ought to be able to contribute, not solely in the present climate or in the sense of our immediate ability to find the money or resources, but also for the future. Therefore, I hope that the Government will give us an opportunity of considering their proposals in the light of this CPRS report, giving us time for an examination and an opportunity to give our advice to the Government in this respect.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and I am grateful to him for giving way—may I say that I agree with most of what he has said, but he made a very important point at the beginning of his speech about public expenditure. Would he agree with an important sentence in the report at paragraph 22 of the Summary and Conclusions, which states:
"Although our recommendations, if accepted, will permit some savings in public expenditure, my colleagues and I have not been primarily concerned to find such savings."?
The point is that they have made these recommendations, without making savings in public expenditure the primary consideration.
Lord SHEPHERD: But, my Lords, the Committee was set up very much in that climate.
10.10 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, nobody who has served for 35 years in diplomacy can fail to have been moved by this debate. By that I mean that the service which I have been proud to serve is not much accustomed to hearing its praises sung. However, the welcome which your Lordships have given to us this evening has been most encouraging—and not just to us but to all people who are serving in the Diplomatic Service around the world. Although I cannot
1000
speak for the service any longer, I am particularly grateful for the way that welcome was expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, given that, in so far as he was speaking from a former ministerial post, he spoke not as a former Foreign Secretary but as a former President of the Board of Trade.
Many noble Lords have spoken of the splendid maiden speeches which we have heard this evening. Perhaps I may put it in this way. It is also a very great pleasure to me personally that my former boss and my former colleague are doing so well. We are very grateful indeed for their contributions this evening, and I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more from both of them, much to our pleasure and profit.
I believe that many of us greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said. As it has turned out and as might have been predicted, I believe that this was the wrong way to handle an investigation of this kind. The most successful committees covering big subjects like this are similar to the committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which examined the BBC. That committee consisted of a number of people with a great variety of experience and opinions, so that all points of view were bound to be expressed in the report. Even if somebody was in a minority of one, he was still able to record his objections in an annex or a footnote. To put an investigation of this kind into the hands of a tight, small group of people living together and with a certain community of opinion could lead only to disaster. I feel that it is a great pity that this should have happened.
In the few remarks I shall make I am certainly going to look at one or two things about which I believe the committee were right. I wish that I had more feeling in addition to reason for doing this, and I should have had it had I found a word of humility in the entire volume. May I start by very quickly paying one compliment to each of the other institutions under discussion. To the BBC I should like simply to reiterate in one sentence what has been said by many other people. There has been much mention, in this volume, of alternative sources. From (shall we say?) Paris to

1001
Tokyo—either way round—there is no equivalent for accuracy and promptitude to the BBC World Service. It simply does not exist, and this needs to be understood and repeated over and over again.
To the British Council I should like to add to the expression of my own happy relations with the Council when I was in the service (again in one sentence what has been discussed in many) that if there were no British Council the state of the learning of English around the world would be pretty parlous. The other place debated this problem in the last Session and concern was expressed at the slippage in English learning, despite the help of the British Council. If the British Council were not there, the English language, as one noble Lord said earlier in the debate, would be splitting itself up with the greatest rapidity into all kinds of extraordinary versions, and that would not be to our national advantage.
I propose to mention very quickly two or three more nut-and-bolt problems which are mentioned in the report and which I, quite frankly in the American senatorial manner, think ought to be in the record of this notable debate. I will go through them quickly. The first is one with which think every diplomat will enthusiastically agree with the committee: it is that the committee looked at the accounting system in the Foreign Service and said that it was not cost effective and it referred to Sir Val Duncan's "crack" about our accounting system—that it was "in the quill pen age".
I also heard it suggested that we spend five pence for every one penny saved in the accounting procedure. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that everybody knows this and has known it for years. Efforts should be made to do something about it. It is known that in certain fields of small expenditure for one thing or another—perhaps for a minor repair in an embassy or for some small piece of furnishing or machinery that is needed urgently—the delays are quite preposterous and the private sector does this very much better.
We all realise that there is a great obligation here of a different dimension from that in the private sector. None the less, it should be possible to take off
1002
the burden of the constant looking for mistakes. Perhaps I may make an unorthodox suggestion, which probably could not be done, but it is worth mentioning and I will not ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to reply. Could not perhaps a group of officials and a group of Members of Parliament conversant with these matters try to have a quiet discussion on this matter between themselves to see whether we really could not bring ourselves up to date on it?
Another nut-and-bolt matter which I think is very important and on which the committee have made some useful suggestions is that of accommodation. I should like to read one sentence because it plays a part in the argument between the committee and the rest of us. The committee write—and very rightly:
"The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the PSA"—
I do not know what that is, but it is the people who handle the property matters—
"recognise that the management of the diplomatic estate is a matter of partnership."
I cite that because it is the key to something which has gone very much wrong in the report in the analysis of Government. Even in this chapter on accommodation the committee already begin to tend to allocate responsibilities, whereas any of us who have worked in this field know quite well that this partnership concept is the right one. We try to do things together with what we used, with exasperated affection, to call "the Ministry of Works"; usually we agree and, if we do not agree, the matter then goes home to top officials and to Ministers and is thereby resolved. It is not a question of the allocation of percentages of authority; but I shall come back to this again in a moment.
I also wish to say my word on entertainment. If I may say so, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, put very graciously the point that entertainment at home, that is to say in an embassy residence, or high commission house, had the great advantage of joining husband and wife together in a diplomatic operation; and anyone who has seen a highly professional French ambassador and ambassadress at work knows how both politically effective and aesthetically pleasurable this experience is. The recent

1003
French Ambassador and Madame Beaumarchais were splendid examples. And perhaps I may say that I know a little about this myself.
There are other reasons why the proposal of the committee that there should be an aim at reducing expenditure on entertainment by 50 per cent. would be a catastrophe. It would be a piece of diplomatic unilateral disarmament of enormous proportions. I think we can agree with the committee that there is a tendency away from large cocktail parties—and we can all rejoice at that. We can also rejoice, equally, at an informalisation of entertainment. But I was horrified to see a recommendation to the effect that junior officials were doing too much entertaining. I began entertaining, rightly, at about grade Z, or whatever it is called.
There are good reasons for this to be done. The first is that, when you arrived at a strange capital, one way to get to know anybody at all was to ask them in for a drink; otherwise you could not get started. Secondly, it perhaps is not understood that diplomatic entertaining is not just throwing a few people together; it is something of an art and a science, and you had better learn what the snags are before they begin to matter. This recommendation is just wrong, and I trust will be firmly turned down by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I have a philosophy about a good working embassy, and that is that it is an embassy which has the maximum number of ramifications in the sense of knowing how to get to somebody or something in the country where it is serving. The great reason for that is the fall-out, the spin-off, of entertaining: one meets a man who knows a man who knows a place. If you do not entertain reasonably liberally you are beginning to miss out on that primary task of an embassy.
Again there is a deprecation of "keeping the British Community happy". One need not be promiscuous, but do let it be remembered that, particularly in countries where conditions may be difficult—and I would put that as the majority of countries—the embassy or high commission is the home from home of British
1004
people. If the embassy or the high commission fail to be at least elementarily hospitable to people of that kind they are going to complain to this country, and honestly, with the greatest respect, Ministers are not going to defend their representatives perhaps as strongly as they should. How can they? So the nightmare prospect which the committee bring up of ambassadors tearing their hair about whom they should not invite really must not become part of embassy life.
One is not asking for lavishness. One is not in these days in any danger of simply entertaining a diplomatic set; there is no such thing any more. All entertaining can have relevance. Incidentally, the inviting of colleagues or other such people to some kind of party means that you do not have to drive across the town through the traffic and spend half your morning visiting one colleague; you can probably talk to several at once if you have a party and achieve whatever you have in mind. So may I suggest that except for that first point, which is a thoroughly valid one, this is a thoroughly invalid section of the report.
Then there is a strange sentiment expressed at the beginning of one chapter, which is that in the overseas field the expertise required is expertise in the subject matter more than expertise in living among and working with foreigners. When I read that I looked back; I thought I must have missed a page, because if somebody makes a statement like that he has presumably thought about it and worked it out. Well, if the committee have, they have not told us, and it is there in the report on the basis of "That is what he said".
This brings me to one of my principal arguments. There is this curious obsession in the report throughout, that anything that Government do is done by A or B or C, who, somewhat ex-hypothesi, disagree with each other. I apologise to your Lordships if I say a word about a piece of diplomatic procedure with which many of your Lordships are perfectly familiar; I do so because really this haunts the whole report. If there is an important negotiation or discussion of a somewhat technical nature in a capital abroad, one of two

1005
things takes place. Either the ambassador is told to carry out those negotiations, in which case he telegraphs back saying, "Yes, if you will send me an expert"; or he is told, "Our Mr. So-and-so from London is coming", in which case the ambassador, if he has sense and courage, telegraphs back, saying "Fine! But my Mr. So-and-so will accompany your man from home for the first few meetings to ensure that nothing goes politically wrong." It is all so easy, but it is made so difficult in the report.
That spreads itself far further than a bilateral instance of that kind. The whole of that long and discursive chapter on the handling of economic policy, again is made on a proposition which this time is not stated but which is inherent in the whole argument. It is the supposition—which people who have never had anything to do with it might well make—that the higher levels in Whitehall are one vast battle for victory between the different individuals and the different Departments. That is far from the truth. It is the case that in the higher reaches of Whitehall, people represent different Ministers and different interests, but in fact it is a battle for consensus. Your Minister at any time, provided you have not reached a foolish consensus—and that calibre of person does not—is only too thankful if a committee or whatever group it is, can approach the Cabinet or the Minister concerned with an inter-Departmental consensus. I lived with that for at least six years and I know that that is how it works.
I think that the committee had the fundamental feeling that there was conflict everywhere and especially conflict between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and their Home Civil Service colleagues. I assure your Lordships that there was nothing of the kind and that some of my closest personal friends in that period were members of the Home Civil Service. My only sadness is that several of them have died since that time. I hope that in putting that matter rather theoretically I have none the less been able to make it clear, because it is a major defect in the report.
I revert to the rather painful topic to which one noble Lord at least has made reference, namely, mention of the
1006
Diplomatic Service having a great ethos, and then saying that the other side of the coin is that it gives the appearance to some people of an élitist attitude. By using that obsolescent, misleading term "élitist" the committee really fall into their own trap. In these days when the word "élitist" is rapidly wearing out, it either means, "I don't like you"—I am sure it is not meant to mean that—or else suggests a theory of life by which you had better go out tomorrow and abolish Nottingham Forest and the Royal Society and go on from there. This has gravely upset a great number of good people. All right, the committee may not feel that way, but they have said it. It was an extremely foolish thing to do and it betrayed something about their attitude which has probably been taken more seriously than it should have been. However, I make it clear that it is a comment that should never have been made.
Finally, what then do I want?—if I may put it thus crudely. I can think of three and a half things. The first is that I suggest again that a really purposeful examination be made of accounting procedures. Secondly, I should like quite seriously to suggest to the Minister who is to wind up the debate that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office thinks in terms of dropping the word, "entertainment" and substituting the word, "hospitality". In these times "entertainment" slightly suggests champagne and a floor show while "hospitality" is a little more homely and genuinely welcoming—which I can assure noble Lords is how anyone visiting any well-run mission abroad is greeted.
Thirdly, I express the hope that we shall see more women in higher places in our Service abroad. I believe that they receive every encouragement and I live in the memory of Dame Barbara Salt who was first appointed to ambassadorial rank. I hope that they will be forthcoming because they add a dimension to our representation which is extremely valuable. I also hope—and I am sure that this will happen—that we shall have the closest and ever-increasingly close relationship between the Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service. I have given noble Lords my experience, and I am sure that that relationship can continue and increase.

1007
Together with many other noble Lords, I entirely agree that interchange is the alternative for which we should go, but we must not minimise the purely domestic personal problems which it creates. I have one other thought. It is simply that, of course, I would have been thinking in terms of expressing the hope that occasionally our Service would receive a little commendation. Instead of saying that, however, I think I can just say, "Thank you".
10.32
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to apologise for delaying the House for a couple of minutes. I asked to be allowed to speak at this stage because it seemed to me that no one was making the point that I thought should be made on the value of the recommendation of the CPRS on the question of control of entry.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for his remarks, and therefore in effect noble Lords should be grateful to him because I no longer have to make the speech I was going to make. However, I should like to underline a couple of points. I endorse all that my noble friend Lord Brockway has said. I hope that the Government will implement the recommendation of the CPRS on this matter of control of entry. None of it requires legislation and there is no need for any delay. I want your Lordships and the Government to remember that the great majority of applicants are dependants—they are mainly women and children—are genuine, and have a right to settle in the United Kingdom, or are visitors who intend to return to their own countries.
But in order to detect a minority of applicants who are bogus, a complex system has been introduced which also affects the genuine applicants. That system has two bad effects so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. The first is that the treatment of some applicants is likely to create lasting resentment—and I know what I am talking about—towards the United Kingdom, which in some cases may damage British interests. I want the Government to bear that in mind. Secondly, the treatment of others because of errors sometimes leads to permanent
1008
separation of close family members. These are very important points which I should like the Government to bear in mind. The truth is that the Canadians have, in fact, shown us up. The most telling part of the chapter was what is said about the Canadian experience.
The Canadians deal with the same problem, but there is no waiting time for applicants. An interview is arranged as soon as the sponsorship form is received from Canada. Contrast that with what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said: there is a delay of six months for Delhi and two years for Dacca in the case of a British applicant. In the Canadian case young children, aged parents, and wives who are not joining the labour force are not interviewed at all, or only selectively. Then again the Canadian interviews last about half-an-hour as a rule, compared with the United Kingdom one to three hours.
The other point which comes out in the report is that the Canadians use locally engaged staff as secretaries and registry clerks, and in processing and verifying documents and advising on local laws, customs and registration priorities. They are fully integrated into the section, and given as much responsibility as possible. If this were done in our missions it would reduce a lot of the hardships, headaches and heartaches that are being created.
Most of the report dealt with what happened in the Asian sub-continent, but most of my problems are of course with West Indians. There is no longer any West Indian migration to this country. The only people waiting in the West Indies to come here are young children. Usually they are illegitimate children whose mothers are here. I think of the number of letters I get from Ministers telling me that, because a man pays an occasional pound to the child's grandmother for its support the mother is not the sole responsible person, and therefore the child cannot come and join her. I get these letters all the time and they sicken me, because I think in some instances—and I know of one—the man is paying because he was compelled to do so in court. He has no more interest in the child than the man in the moon. But yet because he was doing that we are told the child cannot come and join the mother.

1009
I sincerely hope that the Government will look at the Canadian experience and try to do likewise.
10.38 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the House will feel deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, for introducing this important discussion, and for the admirable speech with which he did so. That speech set the tone for a most valuable debate, wide ranging and reflecting a great variety of informed experience from all parts of the House of overseas representation work. This was uniquely reflected, or exemplified, by the two remarkable maiden speeches to which the House listened with such pleasure: one from the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, who comes to us from a career of great distinction at the higher levels of diplomacy, and another from my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who also has a background of extraordinarily successful and valuable public service; Parliamentary, ministerial, and international. We look forward to frequent and early further contributions from both noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and all those who have taken part understand, I know, the position of Her Majesty's Government at this juncture. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and those of his colleagues who are directly concerned with this matter—that is, the report—are presently engaged in a detailed study of the CPRS Report. The report is indeed a substantial document, but so is the advice that we are receiving and which we welcome. There is the official advice on the subject covered by the report, and that is invaluable, and we have heard substantial echoes of it in this debate.
But Ministers also wish to take into account the views of people outside Government who are or have been involved in overseas representation in any way; for example, industrialists, exporters, leaders and promoters of culture, academics and ordinary travellers. Additionally, we have welcomed the discussions in the Press and in the media, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has indeed
1010
received a great flood of correspondence on these matters: I am tempted to say, at this stage, by far the greater part of it somewhat consonant with the views I have heard in your Lordships' House today. In an important sense it is the views expressed in this House and in another place that matter most. Both Houses of Parliament and indeed the Select Committee, the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee, whose hearings are now proceeding—Parliamentary consultation by Ministers—are all essential to Ministers being able to arrive at the right decisions on these matters.
It is therefore important that I do not anticipate the decisions of my right honourable friends, and myself in a small way, before all the evidence and advice is in. We are not only studying the report; we have studied and are engaged in studying very carefully indeed the advice, including in a special way the advice presented to us in this rather remarkable debate, remarkable not only by its length but by its content and spirit. It has been a debate marked by very strong views—but, then, we have been discussing strong views, 450 pages of them—expressed always with good humour, which makes the debates in this House doubly valuable.
Ministers will weigh all this wealth of experience and comment when they come to make their decisions on the major matters raised in this report. The decisions we shall be taking will be taken quite soon, and here I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and others, who pressed that we should not unduly delay with this; but at the same time I make the point that this is of such persisting importance for the future that we must not scamp the task of coming to the right decisions after due consideration. Those decisions, which we shall be taking quite soon, will indeed decide the basis of our overseas representation for the appreciable future, not only for this but for succeeding Governments, and while therefore it would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to assert at this juncture a definitive view on any of these major issues, I might usefully identify some of the principal emphases that have emerged.
First, I think that your Lordships have asserted in no uncertain terms your

1011
belief in not only the importance, but the increasing importance, to this country of an adequate and efficient Overseas Service. The point has been made against the background of our political and economic condition, and I welcome references to the fact that we in this country are much too prone to denigrate our condition and our performance. Sometimes one feels that one has more supporters outside this country than in it, and that is a sick situation into which to get. This is a great country, with a prospect of further greatness, with great assets, not least in its people; and among those people are the exemplary civil servants, home and foreign, of which this country can be proud. So I think I can say at once, with that emphasis, that we are all at one in feeling that this country needs, in an increasingly important way, an adequate and efficient Overseas Service.
Secondly, noble Lords are clearly in no doubt about the value of the work of those presently engaged in our overseas representation, and I think that this message is timely. I believe it is common ground—and not only in this noble House—that that work, at home and abroad, is done very well indeed, whether by the British Council, the BBC, or the Diplomatic Service. I go further and say, with some little experience of this and other countries, that it is done better here than anywhere else that I know. Comparisons are always odious, especially so in international affairs, I am told, but there comes a time when one wishes to express one's own feelings about these matters.
The CPRS Report has indeed opened up a debate on how much needs to be done, at what level of excellence, and through what kind of organisation. I think that I know the answer so far given by this noble House. It is, I think, that there is a case for reforming these bodies, little case for transforming them, and none at all for abolishing them. Perhaps that is the centre of gravity of the accumulated judgment of the nation.
I pass on quickly, because I do not want to delay the House unduly, to the third point of emphasis that I detect. A number of noble Lords have commented on the approach and methodology of the report. I suppose that each one of us, faced with the task confronting the CPRS
1012
team, would have gone about it differently. They have gone about it according to their own view of what was required. They have, as I said earlier, produced a very substantial volume. It is more than a document; it is a quarry of very useful information, and a great deal of valuable suggestions.
Our views on its central proposals may vary, but in the intensity of our opposition to some of the proposals made, let us not forget that at the end of the day it may well be found that this report contains some very valuable and practical suggestions. Many of them have been mentioned by noble Lords on both sides of the House in the course of the debate. My noble friend Lord Evans of Hungers-hall applied himself almost exclusively to the approach and method of the report; and I think that we all enjoyed very much that very trenchant speech, which combined scholarship with invective in almost equal proportions.
Then, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot—and I feel I must give this point of explanation—asked why there were omissions, blanks, gaps in fact, in this report. There is a sufficient reason for that. It relates to our sensitivity to our friends abroad and, indeed, to their sensitivity to references to them, and also to marginal questions of security. I am sure the noble Baroness will be the first to agree that, for those reasons, a few gaps here and there are quite excusable. The suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd—that, having heard the views of this noble House, Ministers should consider whether to bring back to this House and to the other place a Paper, not necessarily lily white but possibly with a shade of green round the edges, which will enable both Houses to comment on at least the fundamental decisions which Ministers have come to—is one which I shall personally put to my right honourable friend. It has great merit.
May I now touch very briefly on one or two specific points raised in various speeches. Very important was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and many others, about the effects on the morale of serving staff of the fact of a report like this, and of continuing uncertainty as to what might ensue from it. This is a point which concerns

1013
Ministers very directly, and which they are watching very closely indeed. I think I can say without in any way anticipating the definitive decisions of Ministers that I am confident that, whatever changes are made, this country will of course continue to need overseas representation machinery of the quality to which we are at present accustomed; and that means that the organisations presently engaged in the work of overseas representation will continue to offer attractive, worthwhile careers to staff who have the ability and the dedication to meet the demands which such careers place upon them. That would be my answer to any young man or woman now considering a career in the Diplomatic Service, in the British Council, in the External Services of the BBC or, indeed, in any other organisation related in any way to Government in the field of overseas representation. I hope that that word of firm reassurance will be of help to those who have been understandably worried about their future.
This takes me to a point which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned, which is recruitment. I will not quote what he said, but will simply say to him that we believe we should recruit the best wherever we can find them, without distinction of school, university, region or class. If it turns out that, in a certain period, some group of schools or universities, or it may be some region of the country, conies up with a higher percentage than any other, so be it. We are after the best, and the best are measured by test—very rigorous tests—both on entry and after entry. Therefore, I have little patience with the continuous cry that somehow we should bend this proper test of excellence to meet the statistical requirements of the various types of population we have in this island. This is not the way to go about it at all. Let the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the DHSS and every other Department in Whitehall compete for the best.
Not everybody will want to become a diplomat. We have heard from time to time in a very salutary way about the great disadvantages and, indeed, the dangers of diplomatic service. Not everybody wants to enter this Service. Let those who want to, apply for it. I can assure noble Lords that, wherever people come from, whatever part of the country, whatever school or university,
1014
they will not get in unless they are up to it. That is the answer to that.
My noble friend Lord Balogh is no here. I had something rather good to say about his speech. I will say it anyway. He compared the diplomatic performance of this country and its diplomats with those of France. Usually I listen with a fair mede of admiration to my noble friend. I listened to him today with abject astonishment and horror. This is not my experience. Again, comparisons are odious, but if they are made, one is bound to reply by saying that the performance of British diplomacy at every level is at least equal to that of any other country I know. Shall we, in view of the thunder on my right, leave it at that?
My noble friend Lord Gore-Booth, who, as usual, put into a comparatively few sentences so much constructive good sense, made a suggestion which I really think we should look at very carefully, for a hybrid committee to maintain a continuous oversight of the functioning of our overseas representation—and I hope I have got that right. It is a suggestion, that of course, is not new.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I think I was applying it particularly to the vexatious question of accounting where Parliament must be satisfied. But possibly officials and Members of either House together might evolve a more efficient system which will satisfy.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, even if it were confined to accounts and related matters, it has certainly, prima facie, a great deal of merit. I began to be quite excited about its wider application. Perhaps my noble friend and I can have a word about this later.
The other speech which put forward very constructive suggestions was that of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. I will not go into any detail about all the points he made. I think he made a valid point about the need for a central planning organisation that is really separate from what we have been debating tonight; namely, the validity of certain suggestions or proposals which have emerged from that planning body. As to the need for a planning body, I think that is valid.

1015
Then he made a strong point about the need to deploy servants of the Crown as usefully as possible, especially from the point of view of the relationship of Home and Overseas Services. That is a point which my noble friend Lord Gore-Booth took up when he suggested that, of the options, perhaps greater interchange was preferable. I do not know yet, but it seemed to me that if we go for that option, we shall need, as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said, to look at it very carefully to see what the by-products and difficulties might be.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, speaking from the Front Bench opposite, made the point about maintaining British diplomatic presence in as many parts of the world as possible. I think that I can agree with that now without being gainsaid later. We need to maintain—perhaps expand—thc number of places in which the British presence is diplomatically effective, even though this means slimming down the larger posts and perhaps increasing the number of the smaller and even very small posts—"mini-missions", one might call them.
The noble Lords, Lord Tanlaw and Lord Hill of Luton, both took up the question of audibility on the BBC. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, is always audible and I always listen to him, having performed opposite him in the other place so many times in the past. We take the point that the range and reach of the External Services of the BBC need to be maintained and, if possible, improved. The noble Lord made the point very effectively.
My Lords, I end on this note. The Diplomatic Service, the British Council, the External Services of the BBC and certain other agencies of overseas representation, have served this country well. They have served it well in their present form. We must give careful thought to any proposals for change, especially fundamental change, in what has probably served this country so well. Certainly they stand high in international estimation—an added reason why, while we must come to decisions, we need to be very careful that we reach the right ones. Above all, in doing so, and here I borrow Lord Saint Brides' phrase, we must take counsel of our hopes not of our fears.
11.3 p.m.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, this has been a spendid debate; a fascinating debate; a memorable debate; possibly a historic debate; and certainly a very long debate. I am not going to prolong it. I must take pride, however, in being able to claim to have flushed from their covers for their maiden flight two such magnificent birds as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides. I have known the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, since 1945 and the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, since 1954. It is my conviction that both are still improving. To have such massive reinforcements to your Lordships' House is really spendid. I take pride in having—to mix my metaphors—been midwife for their maiden flight.
One last remark about the report. I remember a friend who during the war lost his revolver. In reply to the third request for a report on how he had done it—he was not a regular officer; he had no rank—he sent a signal: "Press the trigger and the report will be instantaneous". I am not asking for instantaneous action on what we have heard this afternoon. I take the greatest pleasure and relief in hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said to us a few minutes ago: that this matter is under active examination at this moment. He and other noble Lords—among them the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and myself—have all pointed out how many people are anxious and worried about their careers and the future. The noble Lord has reassured us about that, and I am immensely relieved to hear what has been said. I will not keep your Lordships any longer. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ATHOLL INVESTMENTS (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; then (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
  DESERTIFICATION: UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE
  DESERTIFICATION: UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE