Sitting of 4 April 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Easter Adjournment, a warrant for a new Writ for the borough constituency of Lambeth, Central, in the room of Lieutenant Colonel Marcus Lipton, CBE, deceased.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.

  SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people within the United Kingdom have currently been unemployed for more than one year.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed have been on the dole for at least 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The number of people in Great Britain unemployed for more than 12 months at 12th January was 333,917. In Northern Ireland the latest information is for December, when there were 16,716 unemployed for more than a year. Most of these were in receipt of benefit.
    I would urge trade unions and employers to help to achieve a rapid buildup of the special temporary employment programme which will assist the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The lights have been turned off. May we call for candles?
    Mr. Speaker: The lights have come on again. I have never known anyone more effective.
    Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his reply represents a substantial increase in the number of long-term unemployed? Does he agree that something like four out of 10 of these people are married men with dependent children? Will he arrange for extensive interviews to take place with all the long-term unemployed in order to ensure that there is as much information about them as possible? Will he organise crash programmes in training and retraining to ensure that these people are given priority in securing good employment?
    Mr. Booth: Certainly, I confirm that there has been a very considerable increase in long-term unemployment. That is mainly among unemployed men, one-third of whom are over 55 years of

    213
    age. We have appointed a number of special employment needs advisers, who are inquiring into the particular needs of the long-term unemployed, particularly with a view to retraining.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be much better to look at this problem of the unemployed on a more permanent long-term basis than by piecemeal measures in relation to creating specific jobs over shorter periods? Will he hover a little nearer to the Tribune Group's "Alternative Strategy", which would enable us to resolve the unemployment problem, otherwise we shall be in serious difficulties when we go to the people at election time?
    Mr. Booth: I am convinced that we need both a long-term and a short-term strategy. We need a long-term strategy to deal with the underlying economic and employment problems and a short-term strategy to deal with special features, including the additional 170,000 people a year who will be coming forward in the next four or five years.
    Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even accepting that the overall responsibility for the unemployment problem rests with the Labour Party, is it not rather odd to take two Questions in succession from that side of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall be very kind to the hon. Member and say that it is normal practice. I will not say any more.
    Dr. Hampson: Does the Secretary of State know how many longer-term unemployed have already had the benefit of Manpower Services Commission or Training Services Agency courses? The MSC seems to have an insatiable appetite for resources, but there are grave doubts about the evaluation of the effectiveness of its schemes.
    Mr. Booth: I have no precise figures on the numbers of longer-term unemployed who have been affected by these schemes. But, of the 25,000 places that have been provided through the temporary employment subsidy programme, we are giving preference to those over 25 who have been unemployed for longer
    214
    than 12 months and to those between 19 and 25 who have been unemployed for six months.
    Mr. Fitt: Is the Minister aware that in Northern Ireland, in such areas as West Belfast, Strabane, Newry and the city of Derry, the figure of male unemployed ranges between 27 and 47 per cent.? Is he further aware that many of those male unemployed have never had a job since they left school and that they are now married and trying to rear families? Will he exert some pressure on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to try to remedy this situation?
    Mr. Booth: I have worked in close coordination with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, particularly in recent months when certain measures which aid the whole of the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland, were thought to be under threat from the EEC. But I assure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring that the special measures which we have introduced and which are particularly applicable to Northern Ireland can be run there and that they will be fully funded.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these appalling figures represent an increase of 150 per cent, since the Labour Government took office? Can he deny that the number of unemployed in a period of six months or more is even worse proportionately—three times as bad as in the period when Labour came to office on the slogan "Back to work with Labour"? Has he no shame over this pathetic performance, and can he offer no hope to the over-55s and the young people who will be searching for jobs later this year?
    Mr. Booth: No, I cannot confirm those figures, but I can confirm that there has been a fall in total unemployment over each month in the last six-months period—that is to say, over five months seasonally adjusted. The increase in long-term unemployment owes a great deal to the increased numbers of people coming forward on to the labour market. The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on the position in 1972 when the Conservatives were in office and when there were fewer people in employment than there are now and when the economic conditions in the country were less difficult.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are now unemployed.
    Mr. Booth: At 9th March, 1,398,986 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not 1,398,986 an absolutely disgraceful figure, which not only means tragedy for those who want to work and cannot do so but is highly expensive to everybody else as taxpayers, because the social security scheme cannot possibly pay for so many unemployed people? When will the Government resign and give somebody else a chance to have a go?
    Mr. Booth: It is certainly the case that the figure represents a great deal of individual tragedy and frustration, and it is a national tragedy and frustration as well. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate, though, that this country is coping with the problem at the moment somewhat better than a large number of our EEC partners are doing. Unemployment in the EEC rose by 8·4 per cent, between February 1977 and February 1978. In this country unemployment increased by 6·1 per cent., in Italy it increased by 21 per cent., in Belgium by 13·8 per cent, and in Denmark by 19·7 per cent. Therefore, some of the measures that we have been taking in this country have fended off some of those individual problems and part of the national tragedy that we are talking about.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us believe that the time for at least partial reflation of the economy has now arrived? Does he accept that it is our hope that the Budget will reveal that? Does he further accept that many of us have sat here and listened to the Conservative Party resisting every measure that we have put forward to try to put our people back into work and that it has resisted public expenditure, wanted much larger cuts and is the party of unemployment and would increase unemployment?
    Mr. Booth: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have heard the Tory Party make attacks on all sorts of public expenditure which I believe to be essential in the interests of employment as well as being necessary for the maintenance of
    216
    the standard of our public services. I hope that Tory Members will be listening to a statement to be made from the Dispatch Box next week which will give some indication of the Government's desire to see some economic expansion as well.
    Mrs. Bain: Against the background of these figures and the frightening predictions of the Cambridge group of economists, is it not all the more ridiculous that the Government are continuing to cut back on public expenditure and have set their face against measures such as the establishment of a special oil fund? When can we expect from the Government a less hypocritical attitude towards the working people of Scotland?
    Mr. Booth: I do not accept that the Government are continuing to cut back on public expenditure. The way in which we use the oil revenue is open to discussion in this House because of actions taken by this Government. When we came to office, the oil was not owned by the British people. The British people did not have the interest in it that they now have. They have this interest largely as a result of actions taken by this Government. I hope that the hon. Lady, while joining in the debate to the full and expressing her views on behalf of those whom she represents, will recognise that it has taken political action by this Government to make this debate possible.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now overwhelming evidence that the greater the investment in manufacturing industry and the higher the level of output, the smaller the subsequent labour force? Does he recognise the necessity of turning to the public sector—education, housing hospital services and so on—to provide increased employment?
    Mr. Booth: I accept that there is a long-term, ongoing problem as a result of increasing capital intensity in manufacturing industry. I believe, however, that in the short run we need so much investment in British industry that the investment itself will create work. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join with me in seeking to ensure that the wealth produced by that new capital will provide the means of funding a considerable number of service jobs, including public service jobs.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Does not the figure of 8·4 per cent, stick in the right hon. Gentleman's throat? Is not that statistic as selective as the same figure which was used by the Chancellor in October 1974? When the Secretary of State boasts of the jobs that he has saved, why does he not itemise the jobs that have been lost as a result of the burdens of increased taxation and unnecessary legislation placed on industry by his Government?
    Mr. Booth: The 8·4 per cent, figure is from the European Economic Community. It is not mine. I am doing my utmost, as I hope all hon. Members are, to ensure that Britain's contribution will be towards reducing that figure. As for the taxation and employment measures, I suggest that some of the employment measures that the Government have introduced have improved our industrial relations and have, therefore, been beneficial.
    Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of the work force currently registered as unemployed.
    Mr. Booth: At 9th March, the unemployment rate in Great Britain was 6·0 per cent.
    Mr. Goodlad: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a substantial contribution to the solution of this problem could be made by the expansion of small businesses? In that connection may I ask him to reconsider his decision not to extend the small firms employment subsidy to all areas of the country? Second, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to undertake to amend the Employment Protection Act so as to get the Government off the back of small businesses and reduce the amount of pointless form-filling?
    Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that small businesses can make a considerable contribution towards the solution of the problem of unemployment. That is one of the reasons why I announced in the House the extension of the small firms employment subsidy to all assisted areas when it had been confined simply to special development areas. That is also the reason why I announced the extension of the subsidy to firms employing up to 200 persons rather than up to 50 persons, as had been the case previously. As for any decisions on the Employment
    218
    Protection Act, I suggest that if small firms offer poorer standards of employment protection than large firms they may have difficulty in recruiting the best possible employees, and that would be no great advantage to small firms. I also suggest that small firms can set very good standards of employment protection and that those who suggest that they are incapable of doing so are not very good advocates of the cause of small firms.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not time that the Government acted on the recommendations of the Cambridge School of Economics, which has called for import controls together with a massive increase in investment over the next 10 years? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that without measures of this kind we cannot significantly reduce unemployment?
    Mr. Booth: I agree that we need considerable investment. Great support has been given by the Government to investment in industry. We have to be selective in our approach to import controls since we, as much as any other country, stand to benefit from an increase in world trade.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any figure available giving the amount of overtime now worked? Can he let the House know how many job equivalents are involved in overtime and whether it is now more or less than the current number of unemployed?
    Mr. Skinner: The Liberals do not do any overtime.
    Mr. Booth: The last departmental estimate, based on a partial count, showed that about 16 million hours of overtime were worked in manufacturing industry in a week and about 40 million hours of overtime were worked overall. It is difficult to turn those into job equivalents because in some cases they covered essential overtime and in some cases they could be turned into normal working week arrangements by reorganisation in the places where the overtime was worked.

    Motor Mechanic Apprenticeships
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that sufficient funds are currently available for the sponsorship of all motor mechanic apprenticeships proposed by garage proprietors in the West Midlands.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I am satisfied that there are sufficient funds available to the Road Transport Industry Training Board for the sponsorship of all motor mechanic apprenticeships proposed by garage proprietors in the West Midlands. Of course, it is a matter for the board to determine what grant it should make, over and above the Manpower Services Commission's key training grants which are available to all employers and other grants which are paid to employers who pay the levy and train to approved standards.
    Mr. Litterick: I must confess some surprise at my hon. Friend's answer in regard to the West Midlands since the facts as he relates them are not borne out. However, notwithstanding the increase in funds granted to the Road Transport Industry Training Board, will he bear in mind that there is considerable disappointment among employers such as garage proprietors who have made decisions about taking on apprentices in the Birmingham area only to discover later that the informal rationing system of funds used by the training board has meant that they have not had the financial support which they expected and that this in turn is leading to uncertainty in the employment of young people for training?
    Mr. Golding: I understand the disappointment of both the employers and the apprentices concerned, but I wish to make it clear that I referred to the fact that funds were available to the board. The board has the money to deal with this problem and the board has the responsibility in this regard.
    Mr. Cope: The board may have the funds in the West Midlands, but what does the Minister intend to do about the muddle in my area whereby employers who were promised by the training board premium grants for apprentices in the Bristol area are receiving them whereas those who were promised them in the Gloucester area are not receiving them?
    Mr. Golding: This is a question for the board, but the distinction is that whereas the board solicited apprenticeships throughout the country, it was only in one area that it actually promised them.

    Job Saving
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of jobs saved by the Government's employment schemes in the past year to the latest available date.
    Mr. Golding: The total number of people assisted by all the employment and training measures is currently about 320,000. In the last 12 months temporary employment subsidy, designed specifically to save jobs, has done so for 185,000 people. It is also estimated that about 118,000 jobs, including 37,700 in the last year, should be safeguarded where assistance has been offered up to 31st January 1978 under Section 7 of the 1972 Industry Act, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
    Mr. Ashley: Although the present schemes are warmly welcomed, particularly so far as they help young people, does my hon. Friend agree that middle-aged people who are out of work for any period of time can face a lifetime of unemployment? Therefore, will he consider a special scheme to assist middle-aged people as well as continuing the present admirable efforts to help young people?
    Mr. Golding: The training opportunities programme is aimed in that direction, and we want to encourage as many people as possible to attend the Hanley skill-centre and other skillcentres throughout the country. The new special temporary employment programme is aimed at the 19-year-old group and the older people, particularly the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Ridsdale: I welcome some of the schemes which have been introduced, but why cannot the Government make it more worth while for some of the young people to join the Armed Services?
    Mr. Golding: I do not think that that matter arises from the original Question. I must emphasise that our problem is to make certain that there is regular employment of all sorts for young people.
    Mr. Watkinson: I welcome the Government's measures aimed at creating jobs. Has my hon. Friend noticed the report of the Pay Research Unit at Ruskin College, which pointed out that possibly

    221
    one-third of a million jobs have been lost through the underspending of planned public expenditure? Does it make sense for his Department to be creating Jobs when other public bodies are losing them?
    Mr. Golding: It makes sense for any Government Department to provide opportunities for the unemployed.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Minister aware that what the Government give with one hand they take away twice with the other, as we have seen with our great coal and steel industries? Is he further aware that the withdrawal of the regional employment premium alone cost 10,000 jobs in Wales?
    Mr. Golding: When the regional employment premium was withdrawn, the temporary employment subsidy was continued. In our view, that subsidy has been far more effective in fighting the battle of unemployment than was REP.
    Mr. Silvester: Would it not help if we stopped talking about saving jobs? Are not these measures, although useful, merely a means of holding on to jobs which will be lost shortly unless the Government get the economy right?
    Mr. Golding: I agree that the Government have to get the economy right, and that is what the Government's industrial strategy is all about, but the Question related to the saving of jobs. If Conservative Members had asked a Question about the creation of jobs, I could have talked in even greater numbers than I am now doing.

    Employment Subsidy Schemes
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment in view of the development of structural unemployment, what consideration is being given to methods of employment subsidy on a long-term basis.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): For the present, we prefer to keep employment subsidy schemes subject to periodic review as being designed primarily to support jobs during the recession.
    Mr. Evans: As well as consideration of the question of faster economic growth, which we hope will be stimulated in next week's Budget, does my hon. Friend
    222
    agree that an employment subsidy and the introduction of a phased working week and reduced working hours are complementary in solving the long-term problem of unemployment? Will he examine the proposals advanced by the TUC's economic review for 1978?
    Mr. Walker: We shall certainly study the TUC's proposals and the economic review with great care. I hope that my hon. Friend, in rightly expressing concern about the development of structural unemployment, will not overlook the fact that in the past five years the labour force has grown by one million and that during that period half a million extra jobs have been created.
    Mr. Powell: Is not the subsidisation of employment on a long-term basis a contradiction in terms?
    Mr. Walker: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that successive Governments have been subsidising employment over a long period of time with such measures as, for example, Section 7 of the Industry Act and similar legislation which preceded it.

    Birmingham
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the Birmingham travel-to-work area.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): At 9th March, 39,843 people were registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It shows a reduction in unemployment in Birmingham of about 3,000 in the last three months. Will he tell the House how many jobs in Birmingham at present are being saved by the Government by the use of the very measures that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) wants to stop immediately as false subsidies?
    Mr. Grant: Yes. Our special employment measures have helped well over 9,000 people in the Birmingham area and will be further developed by the new youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme. The temporary employment subsidy has helped nearly 5,500 people.

    223
    There is clear evidence that the Government have recognised the particular problems of the Birmingham area.
    Mr. Eyre: Does the Minister fully realise that a new, frightening unemployment situation has developed in Birmingham particularly affecting the young and those over the age of 50? The recent loss of 600 jobs at the Typhoo Tea factory highlights the contradiction between the Government's regional policy and their inner city area policy. Will the Minister undertake to ensure to review that contradiction and put it right, because it should not be allowed to continue?
    Mr. Grant: No, I do not think that there is a contradiction here. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Government should put right what he terms a contradiction. It would be interesting to know how he suggests that we should put it right and what sort of intervention he is asking for.
    Mr. George: Can my hon. Friend estimate the number of jobs saved in Birmingham, Walsall and the West Midlands by the Government's commitment to British Leyland—not those directly employed, but the thousands of people in my constituency who are dependent upon British Leyland?
    Mr. Grant: The figures in that respect speak for themselves.

    Youth Opportunities Scheme
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the basis for the calculation of £19·50 to be paid weekly free of tax to those taking advantage of the youth opportunities scheme.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the weekly allowance of £19·50 paid to those taking advantage of the youth opportunities programme was calculated after careful consideration of current levels of supplementary and unemployment benefit, of allowances payable under existing schemes and of normal remuneration levels for young people in employment.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister really think that a tax-free benefit of that order is the best introduction to working life for young people? Does he understand the feeling of outrage of pensioners receiving
    224
    £17·90 a week who have earned and contributed to that?
    Mr. Walker: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should be criticising the allowances for being too high. There is a need for a proper balance to ensure that, on the one hand, the allowance is large enough to provide incentive to young people drawing benefits but not so high, on the other hand, that it acts as a disincentive for young people to take up normal employment or to continue or resume full-time education.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that this very welcome measure will be a positive step in finding employment for young people? However, will he be careful to co-ordinate his attitudes with the Department of Education and Science to make sure that amounts of money are available to ensure that people receive adequate training at the same time?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I gave my hon. Friend the assurance that in the development of those measures and in their application we are working in the closest liaison with the Manpower Services Commission and with the Department of Education and Science. I stress that the youth opportunities programme is primarily one of work preparation and work experience and is aimed at providing young people with experience of work and with an understanding of the work environment and is a preparation to help them to enter full-time employment.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister watch the effect of this programme on places in further education? Secondly, is he aware that a young man taking up agriculture is currently on a wage of £25·80, which after deductions leaves him with £21·58 per week? This is £2·08 more than the youth opportunities programme would pay, and the employer would be £3·10 better off for creating a new job than he would be if he paid his part of the contribution himself. Is this not a very bad way to treat an industry?
    Mr. Walker: Let me emphasise again that the purpose of the youth opportunities programme is not to provide young people as cheap labour for anyone but to to provide them with work preparation and work experience. Part of the application of the scheme will be

    225
    that young people will not be on a sustained task for long periods.
    The level of the allowance has been fixed by the Manpower Services Commission on the basis that I have already given to the House, on the assumption that it will be a standard rate and will operate in a way which will not provide incentives for employers or others to enter into competition for those young people.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend accept that one implication of paying this £19 under the programme, which is very welcome, is that the Government must do something about education maintenance allowances for young people who very often sit at a desk next to some of these youngsters on the youth opportunities programme and who decide to stay in education but receive no maintenance allowance or grant?
    Mr. Walker: I understand the strength of feeling about education maintenance allowances, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science rather than for the Department of Employment.
    Mr. Madel: As the youth opportunities programme depends on an adequate number of supervisors and instructors to assist in the courses that are offered, can the Minister say what is the current shortage of instructors and supervisors, particularly in skillcentres, and what is being done to overcome this by September, when we are assured that all these schemes will be fully operational?
    Mr. Walker: The youth opportunities programme has only just got under way. It is a little early to say what the staffing shortfalls may be. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing with the youth opportunities programme and its staffing needs the undoubted shortages that there are of instructors in the Government's skillcentres. One of the problems is pay. We are anxious about this and are doing what we can to remedy the shortage.

    USSR (Trade Unions)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will raise with the International Labour Organisation the question of recognition by the ILO of the Association of Freed Trade Union Workers in the USSR.
    Mr. John Grant: I understand that the International Labour Office is already examining the matter in the light of the ILO's constitutional obligations and responsibilities. We await the outcome of that study.
    Mr. Blaker: When members of this asociation have been confined to mental hospitals, although they are perfectly sane, simply because they have urged the official trade unions to investigate abuses by the State of labour regulations, is it not time that the ILO should at least investigate the real nature of Soviet trade unions?
    Mr. Grant: We certainly would not want to condone the misuse of psychiatric treatment or anything of that kind, because it is clearly an abuse or human rights. We think that we should await the outcome of the initial inquiries by the ILO.
    Mr. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend accept that many on the the Labour side of the House are concerned that workers in the Soviet Union who want to create free trade unions should be allowed to do so? On the other hand, is it not equally true that Tory Members in particular have never shown their support for the existence of free trade unions in Spain, Portgual, Greece, Turkey or any other country? Is it not true that they are hypocritical in their attitude and are climbing on to a bandwagon? There is a real problem in which they have never shown an interest before.
    Mr. Grant: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. I am not convinced by the record of the Tory Party on the question of free trade unionism in this country.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs he expects to be created in United Kingdom manufacturing industry in the calendar year 1979 and the calendar year 1980.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The Government's policies seek to bring about an eventual expansion of jobs sufficient to reduce unemployment and meet the needs of the extra workers expected to join the labour force over the next few years.

    227
    When they will succeed depends on a variety of factors only partly within Government control, and I therefore see little point in trying to produce estimates of this kind.
    Mr. Renton: Is it not the case that one such estimate has already been produced? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently state that he saw 2 million new jobs being created over the next few years as a result of the Government's industrial strategy? Does the Minister agree with that or does he think that that forecast is unrealistic and crude election-mongering, as was the Chancellor's statement during the October 1974 General Election about an 8·4 per cent, rate of inflation?
    Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman ought to read what the Chancellor said and not what the newspapers suggested he might have said. I dealt with this same point fully on 31st January in reply to a Question from the hon. Gentleman. I will refresh his memory as to what the Chancellor said. I quoted then what the Chancellor had said in Glasgow on 27th January. He was referring to the work of the 40 sector working parties and their analysis of the problems. He said:
    "Although"—
    Mr. Renton: Reading.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Of course I am reading. I am quoting the Chancellor's speech to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is all right as long as the Minister does not read the whole speech. Please keep it as brief as possible.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor said:
    "Although in these sectors employment overall is not likely to increase dramatically from such improvements in productivity, the balance of payments benefit they generate should enable the Government to run the economy at a level of demand sufficient to produce between ½ million and 1 million additional jobs".
    Mr. Terry Walker: Can my hon. Friend tell us about one matter that is vital to the manufacturing industry, namely, the efforts being made to get more apprentices, especially in the engineering and tool-making industries,
    228
    because a lack of apprentices would be a big drawback to the expansion of manufacturing industry later?
    Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend and the House will be pleased to know that we have been able to sustain the number of young people in apprenticeships in the engineering industry over the last three years and that there are now more people in such apprenticeships than when we came to office in 1974 and compared with most of the period when the Conservatives were in power. This is almost entirely due to the support given by the Government to the Engineering Industry Training Board.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Do the Government still believe that between 500,000 and 1 million new jobs can be created in the next few years, and when do they think that a start will be made on their creation?
    Mr. Harold Walker: I have quoted to the House the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A start has been made. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but the current level of unemployment is below that officially recorded in March 1972, when it was 1½ million. There are also 500,000 more people in employment now than there were five years ago.

    North-West Region
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the North-West; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Golding: At 9th March, 205,428 people were registered as unemployed in the North-West Region. We estimate that our special measures have so far helped over 164,000 people in the North-West. It is hoped that full advantage will be taken of the extension of the small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme, and that full support will be given by trade unions and employers to the special temporary employment programme and the youth opportunities programme.
    Mr. Silvester: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are more school leavers unemployed in the North-West than in any other region except Scotland? What do the Government propose to do about it?
    Mr. Golding: We have imposed an obligation on the Manpower Services Commission to make sure that every youngster who left school this Easter or who leaves in the summer is given an opportunity by next Easter.
    Mr. John Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has given are alarming? Does he not feel that the time has come when special development area status should be extended to more areas in the North-West than enjoy it at present?
    Mr. Golding: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. We certainly regard the figures as alarming, and that is why we have taken measures that are particularly helpful to the North-West, such as the new Multi-Fibre Arrangement, the short-time working scheme and the successful renegotiation of the temporary employment subsidy with the Common Market.
    Mr. Arnold: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the appalling unemployment situation in the North-West has become much worse as a result of the declining trend and low absolute value of renewed capital investment relative to every other region in the United Kingdom? How will the policies to which he has referred bring about a situation where this will be changed?
    Mr. Golding: The relationship between investment and employment is very complex, as those in the North-West can confirm. Our belief is that the £400 million that has been given to the North-West in regional financial assistance over the past five years has been very helpful.

    Redundancies (Merseyside and Kirkby)
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies were reported in his Department in the last three months in (a) Merseyside and (b) Kirkby.
    Mr. Golding: In the three months to 28th February 1978, 126 proposed redundancies were notified on Merseyside under Section 100 of the Employment Protection Act covering 10,477 employees; six of the notifications were in Kirkby, covering 1,534 employees. We expect that many of the notifications will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend accept that the redundancies that have been announced in Kirkby and on Merseyside will have a terrible effect on the job opportunities in the area and that these are precisely die sort of jobs that we cannot afford to lose on Merseyside? Can he give an assurance that the Government will take all possible steps to prevent these redundancies occurring and go further and accept that, if we are adequately to deal with the problems of areas such as Merseyside, a totally new initiative on regional policy is called for?
    Mr. Golding: Great attention must be paid by the Government to Merseyside, because there is a need to recreate confidence there and there is also an important job to do in creating confidence in Merseyside among those outside Merseyside.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that there should be a co-ordination of various Government Departments in relation to Merseyside? Can he indicate whether the discussions that I and my hon. Friends from Merseyside have had with the Secretary of State for Industry are bearing fruit in relation to that co-ordination? Can we have positive proposals to deal with the serious situation that has developed in the last month or so?
    Mr. Golding: There is very close consultation, particularly on the Liverpool partnership committee, and I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that Departments will combine to deal with the current dreadful problem on Merseyside.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on 16th March.
  Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as a result of a recent speech by the former Secretary of State for Social Services, there is now a conflict

  231
  of evidence between her, the present Secretary of State and Lady Falkender about the social security files of Mr. Norman Scott and whether they were destroyed or transferred to 10 Downing Street, and, if so, for what purpose? Does not this leave the present Secretary of State in an unsatisfactory position? How does the Prime Minister propose that the matter should be cleared up?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rising to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not following up the fact that he had alleged that my right hon. Friend had intervened improperly to waive proceedings against a private individual. I am surprised that he has not seen fit to withdraw that allegation, which was repeated by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) after my right hon. Friend had given his denial. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington also owes my right hon. Friend an apology.
  As to the particular circumstances, I have nothing to inquire into further. With these continuing questions, I am wondering whether the hon. Member for Black-pool, South (Mr. Blaker) is more concerned with governmental proprieties or with pursuing a personal vendetta against the former Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
  Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my wife will be delighted that he is not going to dismiss the Secretary of State for Social Services, because from today, along with a few million other women, she will be getting £2·50 a week in child benefit and she thinks that the Secretary of State is doing a marvellous job?
  The Prime Minister: It is true that there is a substantial increase in child benefit payable from this week. I do not want to disillusion my hon. Friend's wife, but the sum she will get will be not £2·50 but £2·30 a week. However, I hope that this will not destroy her confidence in the Secretary of State.
  Sir J. Eden: Is there not another reason for sacking the Secretary of State? Does the Prime Minister have any idea how long it takes to get a consultant in
  232
  the National Health Service? Is he aware that even in urgent cases in the Bournemouth area it can sometimes take 30 weeks or more? Does he care about this scandalous situation, and, if so, what is he going to do about it?
  The Prime Minister: The situation in the Health Service is not as satisfactory as I should like. There are a great many people, more than 500,000, waiting for treatment, and that number has persisted, although it is rather higher now, ever since the formation of the NHS. We should improve the position as quickly as we can. But I find it odd that the Conservative Party should propose additional expenditure when all that its Members consistently do is to tell us that we should reduce public expenditure.
  Mr. Dalyell: Far from dismissing the Secretary of State, will my right hon. Friend ask him to prepare legislation in the light of our debate on 3rd March to create conditions in which people can get kidneys for transplant?
  The Prime Minister: I note my hon. Friend's views. I know of his concern and I am aware of his Bill. However, I am told that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to launch a new campaign tomorrow, which I hope will be taken seriously by the House and by others, to ensure that the transfer of kidneys after death can be made easier and to ensure that as many as possible follow the proposal that is made so that other sufferers may take advantage.
  Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for 10 minutes until the end of Question Time.
  Mr. Blaker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, Mr. Speaker, I intend to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
  Later—
  Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister will check the record, I believe he will find that I did not make the statement about the Secretary of State for Social Services which he attributed to me.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: I am ready to do so. But I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who was associated with the dirty tricks brigade on this occasion, will make his apology, because I know that he said it.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Later—
  Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We realise that the Prime Minister does not like persistent questioning, and we also realise that if the Secretary of State for Social Services had made a statement, for which some of us have been asking, these allegations would not have arisen.
  May I reply to the Prime Minister's insult—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—by asking him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to let me have a letter containing his allegations, and I shall deal with them?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th April.
  The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
  Mr. Adley: When the right hon. Gentleman meets his ministerial colleagues, will he invite a representative from the TUC to join the meeting and thereafter to issue a statement deploring that any trade union should expel a member from a trade union merely on behalf of his political views or his membership of a political party, regardless of how obnoxious that party may appear to be? Does he realise that what the NUR did over the weekend could have serious complications if, for example, the National Union of Journalists were to do the same thing, resulting in some form of political censorship?
  The Prime Minister: On the substantive question, I have learned from long
  234
  experience not to comment at the Dispatch Box on the actions of particular unions or other bodies until I am in full possession of the facts. Therefore, I make no comment on the National Union of Railway-men. As regards the general proposition, I make clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I would deplore utterly, and would not find it at all acceptable, that people should be dismissed from their employment because of their political views, however objectionable they may be. However, there are some limitations that have to be imposed—for example, in the case of employees in the Crown Service, and maybe in the police. Generally speaking, what I have said as regards the general proposition should be the rule, and I hope that everybody will accept that.
  Mr. Litterick: As my right hon. Friend would appear to be having a quiet day, will he take time out to confirm or deny the factual content in the extraordinary broadcast made by Independent Television News last night to the effect that it is now Her Majesty's Government's policy to deploy the neutron bomb on British territory?
  The Prime Minister: It may seem like a quiet day, but it is rather like the swan which looks calm on top but is paddling like hell underneath. Of course, I do not accept any responsibility for what appears in ITV news reports, on the BBC or in any of the newspapers. I am tempted to add "Thank heavens".
  I have already said to the House that as regards the neutron bomb it is a matter of weighing the substantial political disadvantages against whatever military advantage may be presumed to exist. I had general discussions with President Carter last week about the issue of disarmament, and I would be glad if my hon. Friend did not press me any further today on these matters.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister explain why, after four years of Labour Government, the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in any of our major industrial competitors?
  The Prime Minister: The last part of the right hon. Lady's question is not true, as I think she will realise when she

  235
  reads the figures. However, unemployment is far too high in this country, as it is throughout the Western industrialised world. It is my intention, with, I hope, the help of others in other countries, to ensure that there is a revival of world trade so that we can get our own people back to work. I add that as a result of the sacrifices made by the British people over the past two or three years it could be that next week's Budget will provide a stimulus, too.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Does not the Prime Minister know that the figures I have given are true according to the Secretary of State for Employment and that the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in that of any of our main industrial competitors by a quite considerable margin? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his policies have led to that result?
  The Prime Minister: If I look at the figures that I happen to have in front of me, I see that the position in Canada is much worse. I take it that that would be a major competitor. I see that the position in Italy is much worse. I take it that that would be a major competitor. [An HON MEMBER: "What about Nicaragua?"] From the reaction of the Opposition, it would seem that major competitors are only those that the Opposition select. However, I hope that the Opposition will accept that we are facing a world recession and that such a recession demands collective international action if it is to be overcome. It is to that that we should be bending our efforts, together with the stimulus that we ourselves can give as a result of the success of the Government's policies on inflation during the past 12 months.
  Mrs. Thatcher rose—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows—I have said this before—that the Leader of the Opposition may take this course, which is a long-established custom in this House.
  Mrs. Thatcher: According to a reply from the Secretary of State for Employment on 30th January, on a comparable basis the level of unemployment in Italy was 3·3 per cent, while in Great Britain it was 7·2 per cent. We are suffering
  236
  from the same world recession. The right hon. Gentleman's Government are doing worse than other nations, with the single exception of Canada, which has less than half the population of Great Britain. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that result?
  The Prime Minister: I can give the right hon. Lady the explanation, as I have done on many occasions in the House, but I cannot make her accept it. That is something that will have to be judged in due course. However, generally speaking, the country understands that, whatever may be said—I shall not rehearse the arguments against the Opposition's monetary policies in 1973 and 1974, which are well known, and if I may say so, better deployed at the hustings than in the House—about the Opposition's policies, they led in Government to substantial inflation during the following years which the present Government are now succeeding in overcoming. From that position, we can build our employment again. I hope that in due course the Opposition will accept that as being the accurate analysis.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that when the Leader of the Opposition quotes the unemployment figures of our European competitors she forgets that unemployment in Germany is lower than in Great Britain because Germany has sent back 1 million migrant workers? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady may do if she is given a chance, he will not solve our unemployment problem in that fashion?
  The Prime Minister: It is true that the German unemployment figure, which is now over 1 million, has been kept substantially lower than it would otherwise have been because migrant workers have been admitted on only a temporary basis. As I understand it, it is not the policy of any of the major parties in this country to do that, although there are some who hold the view that migrant workers should be returned. Generally speaking, both major parties are agreed on that issue. I emphasise that the one thing we must not do is create unnecessary uncertainties in people's minds.
  As to the general level of unemployment, I have said before in the House, and I repeat, that those who believe in a

  237
  market economy should note that, whereas Britain's unemployment has increased twofold since 1973, German unemployment has increased fourfold since 1973.
  Mr. Emery: Will the Prime Minister, on a House of Commons matter, insist with his Secretaries of State in future that any major new announcement on public spending, such as the £450 million to British Leyland this year, should be announced at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House so that the Minister may defend his statement and Members of Parliament may have their traditional right of cross-questioning such public spending? Does he accept that to make such an announcement by slipping it in through the back door of a Written Answer is really cheating and ignoring the House and ought to be condemned?
  The Prime Minister: I think that whether a statement should be made at the Dispatch Box or answered by a Written Question is a matter for judgment on every occasion. But on this particular occasion as, I should hope, the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue about which he is speaking—Leyland—will be debated in the House. That will be his opportunity to express his view and, if the Opposition so wish, to vote against it and so reduce the West Midlands to an industrial wasteland.

  QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to hold up the business of the House, but you will recall that before the recess a number of my hon. Friends—I personally did not raise the matter on that occasion, although I agreed with them—pointed out that, during the brief quarter of an hour that the Prime Minister was answering Questions, the Leader of the Opposition took not just one, two or three questions, but on occasion went beyond that. I understand that at the time you assured the House that there was nothing that we could do about it, except to encourage the Members concerned to be circumspect about this matter.
  May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, that you go beyond that—[Interruption.] Mr.
  238
  Speaker happens to be the Chairman as well as the Speaker.
  May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, that you go beyond that and have discussions with the Front Bench concerned, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have further Questions should be allowed to ask those Questions and supplementary questions rather than have the right hon. Lady monopolising the whole of the quarter of an hour, which can get worse because we are now in fact on radio?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer that point of order first.
  Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: There is no further point of order on that matter. It has been the custom, ever since I have been in the House, that the Leader of the Opposition will from time to time come back on Questions at least three times. Hon. Members have it within their own memories, and I certainly—
  Mr. Faulds rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order on that matter.
  Mr. Faulds: But there is, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Faulds: There is, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Faulds: There is an Early-Day Motion.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must do the same as I do and count to ten.
  Mr. Faulds: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the microphones are now off, and since my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) raised the point that I first raised on the Floor of the House, and since there is already on the Order Paper an Early-Day Motion standing in my name and the names of about 60 or 70 other hon. Members criticising the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time, may I strongly endorse the argument advanced by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are two errors there. Number one is that, although Question Time was being broadcast live, the proceedings are still being recorded. That was the first mistake.
  Number two is that we are not now going to have debates about the Leader of the Opposition and her time at Question Time.
  Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that we hear a great deal more from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) than from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Could we not, in recording policy, reverse that trend?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it may seem so to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Lady has nothing to say. That is the trouble with her.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Although I have Question No. 3 to the Prime Minister, unlike my colleagues, I am not objecting to the frequent interventions by the Leader of the Opposition. I feel that she contributes to the Labour movement and to this side of the House every time she appears at the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the point of order was.

ROADS (POLICY)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's policy for the trunk road and motorway system.
The transport policy White Paper published last June outlined a new approach to the planning and improvement of the national road network. In the spirit of this approach I have now carried out a review of the objectives and methods of the trunk road programme in England and completed the first stage of a reassessment of all the schemes in it The results are brought together in the White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1978"
240
which I have today presented to Parliament.
My Department, jointly with the Department of the Environment, has also been reviewing the procedures for public inquiries into trunk road schemes. We have been guided by the Council on Tribunals, with which we have worked closely. The Government's intentions are set out in the White Paper "Report on the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedures" which I have today presented jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Copies of both White Papers have been available in the Vote Office since 3 o'clock.
To devise and implement the right policy for roads presents many problems and dilemmas. Within the framework of the national transport policy, we need a road system that will support our major national objectives—the industrial strategy, regional development and the regeneration of inner city areas—as well as relieve the serious local problems caused by traffic. The inter-urban road system has been transformed over the last 15 to 20 years but many deficiencies remain. The routes to the major ports are not yet complete. There is an urgent need for an orbital route round London. Certain of the assisted areas still lack adequate communications, and many bypasses are required. Hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House continue to urge priority for new roads to serve their constituencies.
Yet people are now less inclined to take for granted the assumptions on which road planning has proceeded in the past—for example, about future levels of traffic. They are less willing to accept the lengthy disruption caused by major construction projects. They are alert to the possibly damaging consequences, as they see it, of major new roads for the areas in which they live. As a result, there has been some dissatisfaction with the way that my Department and its predecessors have explained their proposals and apparently made their decisions. Public inquiries have on occasions been disrupted.
I shall not take up the time of the House by detailing all the changes which I propose. But the main elements of the new approach are these. First, in place

241
of a predetermined strategic network, our approach will be selective. Within the planned level of investment on trunk roads and motorways of about £300 million, there will be a more rigorous approach to priorities, with emphasis on vital industrial routes, but also increasingly on schemes with high environmental benefits.
Secondly, there will be more flexibility in applying design standards in the light of greater uncertainty about future traffic levels and the cost and supply of oil. Greater flexibility also reflects my concern that roads should be fitted into the environment in a discriminating way.
Thirdly, in the appraisal of road schemes my Department will apply a comprehensive framework for decision, as recommended by the Leitch Committee, whose report was published in January. It will set out the range of factors that need to be taken into account—economic, social and environmental: those that can be quantified and those that cannot. In this way, each can be given its full weight, and a balanced judgment can be made.
Fourthly, there will be a greater openness at the various stages of planning, from public consultation to the inquiry. In the arrangements for inquiries, my Department will secure that realistic alternatives are genuinely explored. It will make available information covering the range of factors on which road proposals are based and decisions reached so that, as far as possible, there can be equality of information for all those concerned.
Finally, we need to put beyond doubt the impartiality of inspectors who are appointed to conduct trunk road and motorway inquiries. With the approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will, in future, in exercising our statutory obligations, ask my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, to nominate a particular individual considered by him to be suitable for a particular inquiry.
On this basis, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can have a road programme that meets the country's needs and commands a very wide measure of approval. Where there are conflicts of interest, they can be resolved openly and fairly. "Policy
242
for Roads: England 1978" is the first of a new series of annual policy statements which will enable the House, if it chooses, to discuss the principles underlying the decisions of Ministers. I shall also welcome wider public discussion of these important issues.
Mr. Norman Fowler: The House will need time to consider these reports. We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that there will be a debate on them. May I put three short questions to the Secretary of State? First, is he aware that in many areas of the country there is an urgent need for bypasses and relief roads to keep traffic away from residential areas? Do the Government intend to give priority here?
Secondly, does the Secretary of State share the view of many local authorities that road maintenance is deteriorating to a potentially dangerous level? Does he not agree that it is important that existing roads do not fall into disrepair? Thirdly, does he agree that now the inquiry procedure is being further improved—and we welcome this improvement—there can be absolutely no justification for the disruption of public inquiries? Will he make it absolutely clear that the Department will not be influenced in any way by such strong-arm tactics in the future?
Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to the hon. Member. The question of a debate is not a matter for me. Certainly I and my colleagues would welcome a debate on these important issues as soon as time can be found.
The hon. Member raised three issues. He will find in both of the White Papers, particularly in the one dealing with the road programme, a clear indication that we shall be giving priority to relief roads and bypasses. I agree that there is a great demand for these and they often have considerable environmental advantages. On the question of road maintenance, I am aware that there is a view held in some parts of the country that irrespective of the severe weather that we have been having there has been some deterioration. I have been trying to find a means of evaluating the alternative trends and a basis on which decisions can be made. This is not easy. However, if I were satisfied that maintenance had been reduced too far I should be prepared to consider switching expenditure.

243
I agree that there is no case at all for disrupting highway inquiries. I hope that all those who are not against building any roads at any time on principle but who believe that roads should be carefully chosen and fitted into the environment will now feel that the procedures set out in the White Paper will provide an adequate basis for them to be heard. My Department will resist any suggestion that disruptive behaviour at inquiries will determine the final outcome.
Mr. John Ellis: Is there anything in the White Paper that deals with a policy on toll bridges? Is my right hon. Friend aware that although some of us are opposed to toll bridges we appreciate that there is a problem with the Humber Bridge for example? We appreciate that bridges have to be financed by tolls but there is a possibility that they will not be used if the level of toll is too high. Is he aware that there is a likelihood of a continuing financial crisis for the Humber Bridge because the revenue is not sufficient to meet the cost of servicing, the capital and keeping it in repair? If there is nothing in the White Paper on this subject, will my right hon. Friend take this problem on board?
Mr. Rodgers: I shall take the problem on board. There is nothing in the White Paper about this matter. I know my hon. Friend's concern about the Humber Bridge, which he has expressed frequently in the House. It is not only the Humber Bridge that is involved; there are other toll facilities. There would be a substantial cost and we should have to find the money from elsewhere to remove the tolls on existing tunnels and bridges and to pay off the capital debt.
Sir David Renton: I accept the need for more roads, but is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a tendency up to now to disregard the need to conserve farm land? Can he give the House some idea of the number of thousands of acres of farm land that will go out of production as a result of his White Paper? What steps will be taken to conserve farm land as far as possible in the future?
Mr. Rodgers: I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman the number of acres of farm land that might go out of use as a result of the White Paper. I
244
can say only that there will be fewer than if the former road programme had been maintained at its then volume. He should feel that the procedures that we have outlined in the second White Paper will ensure that, if there is any doubt about this, all those with a legitimate objection, on the grounds that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, will be heard and will have their views taken into account.
Mr. Leadbitter: The White Paper at least has the right kind of objective for dealing with the method of stopping the disruption of public inquiries. My right hon. Friend has stated that one of the purposes is to produce into the environment a discriminatory process in order to arrive at balanced judgments. Perhaps the time has come for the Government to take a more positive role in encouraging the proper representation of objections in such a way that disruptions are diminished. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a part to play both in the conservation of land and in meeting the objections of property owners to Government roads schemes? The Government also have a duty to provide proper legal procedures. Does he not agree that this would meet the objective that he has in mind?
Mr. Rodgers: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, I can give him that assurance. It is very important, as he says, that all those who have a legitimate objection and want to be heard should now be aware that they can be heard and that from now on our procedures from the beginning until construction starts are procedures in which everyone can participate if he has a direct interest or a legitimate point of view to express.
Mr. Pardoe: Does the Minister accept that there has been some waste of public expenditure on the quality of the bypasses built and planned by the last Conservative Government, particularly in the West Country? Will he confirm that the bypass that is now to be built at Okehampton will not be the same excessive standard as those built in parts of my constituency elsewhere in the West Country?
Mr. Rodgers: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. For reasons that the House can understand, a lot of road building was excessively ambitious at the

245
time. It is only fair to say, however, that while the hon. Member urges me to downgrade the standards of roads, other right hon. and hon. Members will be urging me to do precisely the opposite. I shall have to judge this as best I can in individual cases as they arise.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Let me inform the House that since we have business governed by a timetable motion today and since there is also a Ten-Minute Bill, I propose to allow questions on the statement until 4 o'clock. The number of hon. Members who will be called will depend on how brief the questions are.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for the welcome statement he has made. Will he confirm that the fact that the Lord Chancellor is to be consulted does not necessarily mean that a legal person—a barrister or a solicitor—will be appointed, but that the object of the exercise is to secure the independence of the person so appointed, not his professional qualifications? It is not clear from what my right hon. Friend said that Wales is affected in whole or in part by this statement. Will he confirm that it applies to the Principality?
Mr. Rodgers: I can confirm my right hon. Friend's point about the second White Paper referring to highway inquiries. On the procedural point, he is also correct. The reason that the Lord Chancellor is to choose people for these inquiries in future is to remove all reasonable doubt about questions of impartiality. There is no reason why he should choose lawyers for the task.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no new procedures will apply to the M25 routes which have already been cleared, particularly that affecting the constituency of Chingford between the A10 and the M11? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with one point that affects me personally, as opposed to my constituents? Is his mind still firmly made up that the M41 bypass of Berk-hamsted is definitely out and that a dual-purpose dual carriageway road will be built?
Mr. Rodgers: The new procedures set out today will apply as soon as possible, but obviously where decisions have been
246
made by Ministers and where roads have gone out to tender they will proceed. Schemes still at some stage of preparation will be subject to review. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he has correctly stated the position, but I shall confirm that to him. One of the elements in our whole new approach is that we shall be looking at priorities and standards all the time. We shall feel the need for flexibility both up and down when we consider the growth of traffic, environmental factors and the other claims on resources.
Mr. Rossi: May I ask whether, notwithstanding the abandonment of the Archway Road improvement scheme in the face of what the Minister termed organised disruption, the fact that the scheme appears likely to start, according to Table C in the White Paper, in the period 1981–83, means that he still regards the improvement as important within the programme? If so, when does he intend to reopen the matter under the new procedures announced today?
Mr. Rodgers: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am deeply concerned about the problems which remain in the Archway Road and which he has raised in this House on many occasions. My decision to abandon the current inquiry was made not on grounds of environmental problems there but on other grounds. As the hon. Gentleman said, the White Paper indicates that decisions are still to be made about how that improvement will take place. I shall be proceeding with consultations just as soon as I can because I think those who live on that road deserve relief when it can be achieved.
Mr. Urwin: I give a broad welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement on the review of highway inquiry procedures, but is he aware that there will be some disappointment that he has not referred in his statement to the underspending, estimated in the region of £160 million, by his Department on roads over the last two years? Does he intend to do anything to redeem that amount of money in the best interests of improving communications in the Northern Region to make an impact on high unemployment in the construction industry?
Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend knows very well that there are always very grave

247
problems in judging exactly when construction work will be completed. Completion is very much affected by the weather and other factors which cannot be forecast far ahead. He mentioned a figure for underspend which covers a period of two years. It covers not only my responsibilities but those of local authorities over whom I have no control. I hope, however, that we shall spend the whole of the £300 million while at the same time avoiding the sort of overspend which would also be unacceptable to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a welcome, albeit a rueful one, for the clear statement in paragraph 102 that Tamworth is an expanding town with severe traffic problems? Does he agree that there is a special obligation on the Government to help those authorities such as Tamworth that have helped to solve other people's environmental programmes by taking on massive housing problems? Does he not agree that the Government have a special responsibility to solve the environmental problems of such towns with a proper road network?
Mr. Rodgers: Yes, and in reaching our decisions and making judgments on priorities that is something that we shall certainly take into account. I should make clear, however, that the White Paper refers to my responsibilities as Secretary of State, and a substantial part of the road programme is the direct responsibility of local authorities. I cannot determine what their priorities should be or necessarily the speed at which they move.
Mr, Fry: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be a warm welcome for the fact that Parliament can now approve the overall policy for roads, thus removing that factor from the scope of individual highway inquiries? Does he realise that the new procedures laid down for these inquiries will tend to make them last rather longer? Will he therefore look, as a matter of urgency, at the route for the A1-M1 link, which is part of the vital Midlands-East Coast ports connection?
Mr. Rodgers: It is desirable that Parliament should take these White Papers seriously, because, as the hon.
248
Gentleman implies, some of the criticism has been that the House has been too ready to allow these decisions to be made by Ministers without ever having debated and challenged them. I am happy to have my decisions debated and challenged in the House, if that will increase public confidence in the awareness of these issues and of what the cost will be. I give the hon. Member the undertaking that he seeks in the second part of his question.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saying that he is to place emphasis on schemes of high environmental benefit? Does the converse apply—that he will try to keep away from those schemes that are likely to create social and environmental chaos, such as the projected schemes which may cut in half some of the great estates in Leicester, dividing up the communities in them?
Mr. Rodgers: I doubt whether those roads are my personal responsibility. Rather they would be the responsibility of the county council. However, my hon. and learned Friend mentions an important point. Environment cuts both ways. Sometimes a road will improve the environment, but sometimes it will damage it. We must be in favour of the first while doing our best to avoid the second either in rural or urban areas.
Mr. Temple Morris: Is the Minister aware that few things have suffered more from cut-backs in Government expenditure than bypass schemes for our ancient towns and villages? The Secretary of State has mentioned a welcome greater priority, as I understood what he said, in this regard. Will he go into more detail about that priority? Are we dealing with aspirations and good intentions of the Department of Transport, or is this a definitive Government commitment backed by the necessary expenditure?
Mr. Rodgers: It is certainly a definite Government commitment backed in my programme by the necessary expenditure. I make the point clear, however, that the programme of local roads is the responsibility of county councils, and although I hope that they will act in the spirit of both of these White Papers, ultimately that is a matter for them, not for me.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.
Mr. Sydney Irving: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most serious deficiencies, perhaps in the whole of our road system, is the failure to provide an adequate road out of London to the South-East, to Kent and the Continent? As this has been due, in part, to prolonged consultative procedures, does he expect that in the special situation of London his new policies will expedite this project?
Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on a problem which I think the White Paper acknowledges—that the more that people want to be consulted and are consulted, the longer the procedures are likely to be. I have certainly been very concerned that in making consultation more effective and in satisfying demand for it we do not make the whole process much too long. I do not think that I can give an undertaking in quite the terms that my right hon. Friend suggests, for that very reason. But, in so far as it is within my control, yes, I shall try to expedite the roads that he has mentioned.
Mr. David Price: Would the House be correct in interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's statement as meaning that, whatever decisions are made for the future, he will press ahead with and complete the existing published motorway programme, especially to the ports? If that is correct, will he say when he will announce a decision on the missing link of the M27 around Southampton?
Mr. Rodgers: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman slightly misinterprets the purpose of the White Paper. It does not simply confirm the existing programme, such as it is. It takes a new look at the programme as it was and sets out in detail, in the appendices to the White Paper, the priority that we are now giving to individual schemes. But I know of the hon. Gentleman's particular concern, and if he is not satisfied by what he finds in the White Paper, I shall certainly write to him.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (BROADCASTING)
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always been opposed to the intrusion of microphones and television cameras into this House because of the effect that they would have on the behaviour of Members—an argument which, I think, has been proved this last couple of days.
But the House having accepted this misjudgment—in my view—my understanding was that the hour to be broadcast would be the hour of Questions. This afternoon I got up in what I thought was blank time, because I thought that the microphones were off, to find that the things—to judge by your comment, Mr. Speaker—were still on. If these things are to be on for points of order following Questions, we shall have even grosser abuses of this new-fangled intervention than we have had before. I shall not make comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) getting in on my Early-Day Motion.
However, may we have a clear understanding from you, Mr. Speaker, when these things go off and how we are to know that they are off? Is it the hour of Question Time, and that is all, or will it extend into points of order as long as people want to get in on the act?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important question. First of all, I should say to him and to the House that the microphones are live as long as we are sitting. Selections out of the contributions made to the House are edited and broadcast in the half-hour at the end of the day and early in the morning, so that anything that is said during our day's labours may well be repeated in a broadcast.
Secondly, let me say that no one is more conscious than I am that there is a danger of points of order that are not points of order being raised in the knowledge that we are on the air. It would not be anything new, and not a new experience for me, to have points of order that are not points of order. But I earnestly hope that it will not be exploited.
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That does not quite

251
answer my point. As far as I understand it, we are going out live for the hour of Questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We were going out live for the hour of Questions.
Mr. Speaker: May I—I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He was addressing the House. Perhaps I may say to the hon. Gentleman that Prime Minister's Questions were going out live. Yesterday, understandably enough, Welsh Questions went out live. But I do not believe that every Question Time will automatically be going out live. It is a half-hour summary of the day's proceedings, with the exception of Prime Minister's Questions.
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you reprimanded me—if I may use such a gross exaggeration to describe your kindness to me—my understanding was that what I was then trying to say was going out live. Am I right in that supposition? Was it still live after Prime Minister's Question Time, or had it finished with Prime Minister's Question Time?
Mr. Speaker: Obviously there is a misunderstanding between us. What I sought to indicate to the hon. Gentleman was that it could be broadcast tonight because the microphones are live and active as long as we are here.
Mr. Faulds: You were, Mr. Speaker, unusually inaccurate.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Faulds: Unusually.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I accept that from the hon. Gentleman, whose heart is better than his voice.
Mr. Heffer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most sorry to have to raise this matter, but my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred to me and I feel it absolutely essential to point out to my hon. Friend that I come into this Chamber for practically every Question Time, whether or not we are on radio, and it is not a unique experience, as you, Mr. Speaker, will know, as will previous Speakers, for me to raise a matter on a point of order if I feel that the orders or procedure of the House are not actually
252
being adhered to or that there is an abuse of the procedures of the House. I make the point only because my hon. Friend would understand these matters better, perhaps, if he came here more often and put in more time in the Chamber, as some of us do.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to comment on the latter part—
Mr. Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Faulds: No, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the matter.
Mr. Faulds: That was cheap and snide. Typical.
Mr. Heffer: Damned cheek!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Faulds: The man proves himself every time he opens his mouth. Snide.
Mr. Speaker: Order.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (BROADCASTING)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Ordered,
  That the Eggs Authority (Rates of Levy) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978, No. 389) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

INNER CITY (DISPOSAL OF VACANT PUBLIC LAND)
4.7 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it compulsory for local authorities, nationalised industries, other public bodies and statutory undertakings to dispose of vacant land in their ownership in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
The aim of the Bill is to compel those local authorities guilty of land hoarding either genuinely to develop vacant land in their possession within a limited period or to put it on the open market by way of public auction so that others can do just that.
The scale of land hoarding by local authorities and nationalised industries is not fully known. Suffice it to say that

253
250,000 acres of prime land, mostly in the city centres, lie dormant. There are over 16,000 acres of derelict or vacant land in London. There are over 2,000 vacant acres in Liverpool and 1,100 in Birmingham. In Liverpool 60 per cent, of the vacant land in the inner city belongs to the local authority, and a further 20 per cent, is in the ownership of British Rail, the water authority or other public undertakings. Much of this vacant land has come about as a result of massive demolition programmes and the failure of the public authorities to rebuild on it.
The consequences of this land remaining dormant are far-reaching. It creates an artificial demand for what is left in the inner city. It sends land prices soaring, and rents with them.
Secondly, as a consequence, new factories and offices are preferred to be built on the green field sites on the edge of the city, where land is cheaper.
Thirdly, the failure to create jobs or to provide homes in the inner city results in a mass exodus of population. Between 1966 and 1976, Liverpool lost 22 per cent, of its population—150,000 people; Manchester lost 18 per cent.—110,000 people; and Birmingham lost 8 per cent.—85,000 people.
Fourthly, by reducing the rate base, the city councils have inadequate funds to provide services for the businesses that remain. The small firm is, therefore, penalised by massive commercial rate demands, and often loading on top of it for refuse collection.
Fifthly, inadequate rate income in the inner areas means that domestic ratepayers in the middle and outer bands of our cities are increasingly subsidising the provision of services in the city centres. If wealth is to be created in our cities, a prerequisite is that the dormant land there must be used to the full. So long as it lies idle, it attracts an artificial value which, as it continues to rise, makes it less and less possible, for anyone to buy.
254
The Bill would therefore force public authorities to make up their minds. Either they can develop their land and build homes and factories on it, creating new jobs and providing accommodation to tempt back skilled workers who left many years ago, or, if they prefer not to develop the land themselves, it will automatically be auctioned at the market value to the highest bidder and with a covenant that the buyer must develop it within a limited period.
If vacant land remains tied up with public authorities, our cities must continue to die. Small businesses will continue to be driven out and the domestic ratepayer will get less and less value for his money.
The nation's attention is focused on the revival of our cities, yet without the release of dormant land there can be no such revival. It is the cornerstone of our return to prosperity, but there is no hint of such a plan in the current Government legislative programme. That is why I seek leave to introduce this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Marcus Fox, Mr. Arthur Jones, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Michael Neubert, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Timothy Raison, Mr. Fred Silvester and Sir George Young.

INNER CITY (DISPOSAL OF VACANT PUBLIC LAND)
  INNER CITY (DISPOSAL OF VACANT PUBLIC LAND)
  Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to make it compulsory for local authorities, nationalised industries, other public bodies and statutory undertakings to dispose of vacant land in their ownership in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th May and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WALES BILL
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th March.]
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

  WALES BILL
    Clause 35

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREVENT OR REQUIRE ACTION
      Amendment No. 229 proposed [8th March]: in page 12, line 42, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'and' in line 1 on page 13.—[Mr. Brittan.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made:
      4.12 p.m.
      The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): I remind the Committee that we are discussing at the same time the following amendments:
      No. 230, in page 13, line 4, at end add—
      '( ) A direction under subsection (1) of this section shall be given if the House of Commons by resolution so requires, and any direction so required—

      (a) shall, as regards its terms and the time at which it takes effect and otherwise, be in conformity with the resolution requiring it, and

      (b) shall, for the purposes of subsection (6) of this section, be deemed to have been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.

      ( ) In the case of any direction under subsection (2) of this section that action shall not be taken, the Assembly or the Attorney-General or any other person, may, within the period of 28 days beginning on the date on which the direction is given, institute proceedings for the determination of the question whether the action proposed to be taken would be incompatible with any of the obligations referred to in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (2); and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the direction shall cease or (as the case may be) have effect only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.
      ( ) A direction under subsection (2) of this section that action shall be taken shall not have effect until the end of the period of 28 (or, if the Secretary of State in the direction certifies that the public interest so requires, 14)
      256
      days beginning on the date on which the direction is given; but the Assembly or the Attorney-General or any other person may, within that period, institute proceedings for the determination of the question whether the action so directed to be taken is required for any purpose referred to in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (2); and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the direction shall take effect (if at all) only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.'.
      No. 233, in Clause 36, page 13, line 29, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'or' in line 32.
      No. 234, in Clause 36, page 13, line 40, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'and' in line 41.
      No. 235, in Clause 36, page 14, line 10, at end add—
      '( ) An order under subsection (1) of this section shall be made if the House of Commons by resolution so requires, and any order so required shall, for the purposes of subsection (5) of this section, be deemed to have been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
      ( ) An order under subsection (2) of this section shall not take effect until the end of the period of 28 (or, if the Secretary of State in the order certifies that the public interest so requires, 14) days beginning on the date on which the order is made; but the Assembly or the Attorney-General or any other person may, within that period, institute proceedings for the determination whether the instrument which the order revokes is incompatible with any obligation referred to in the said subsection (2) or provides for any such matter as is referred to in that subsection; and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the instrument and the order revoking it shall take effect (if at all) only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.'.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: These amendments raise a number of separate issues, but one of the issues is the treatment of the House of Lords when the Government of the day try to use their override powers and cannot get their resolution through the House of Lords. It seems that they can simply come back to the House of Commons, get the same resolution through by exploiting their Commons majority and toss aside any objection which the House of Lords may have. No doubt my Front Bench would challenge me if I had got that factually wrong.
      If that is the situation, had we not better forget about all that wordy constitutional theory about the second Chamber being a guardian of the constitution? Clearly, in a matter in which the House of Lords might be thought

      257
      to have some right to delaying powers—an essential constitutional issue—in reality it has no powers whatever.
      If those delaying powers in a constitutional matter are revealed simply not to exist and lip service paid to them turns out to be sheer cant, that would seem to some of us to be a reason for the abolition of the House of Lords, since they would be serving no useful purpose in matters in which, by their very nature they might be thought to have a useful role.
      But of course I fear that if and when the Wales Bill goes to the Lords, they will make little objection to this, either by vote or by amendment. If their performance, with honourable exceptions, on Second Reading of the Scotland Bill is anything to go by and there is the same number of spineless speeches, all too clearly concerned mainly with the threat of their own abolition rather than with the merit of the Bill, I fear that there will be little murmur of protest at their treatment in Clause 35 and many others.
      I turn to another aspect of Clause 35. Is it not a fact that a Secretary of State in one Parliament—namely, the House of Commons—will solemnly be able to give a direction to another Assembly, either to take or not to take action? In what way does that differ from the relations between Parliament and local government?
      Before the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) leaves the Chamber, perhaps I might say that I heard him say at the end of our last debate on 8th March that it would be a case of one Parliament requiring another Assembly either to legislate or not to legislate. I have to ask what may seem to be a very ignorant question. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman right or wrong in relation to the Wales Bill?
      As I understand it, whereas the Scottish Assembly will be a legislative body, the Welsh Assembly will not. If I have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose comments I checked in Hansard, I will of course give way to allow him to clarify the matter, since this is an important issue.
      Sir David Renton: I would have preferred the opportunity of refreshing my memory completely as to
      258
      what I said, but since the hon. Gentleman has asked me a specific question about the legislative powers of the Welsh Assembly, my reply is that he is right in saying that it differs from the Scottish Assembly in having no powers of primary legislation. But it is to have certain limited powers of subordinate legislation, which will, of course, have the force of law.
      Mr. Dalyell: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually said was:
      "It is remarkable and without precedent that the Secretary of State should be able to give a direction to another Assembly to pass subordinate legislation. If there was a precedent it would help us better to understand the position."—[Official Report, 8th March 1978; Vol. 945, cc. 1558–9.]
      This is a matter which should be cleared up one way or the other.
      If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, there is a burden on my Front Bench to comment and to give any precedents—in fact, to persuade us that it is workable at all. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not right, Ministers must say what is being offered to Wales other than a glorified and expensive local government structure. It is one or the other, and I await the Minister of State's comment with some interest.
      If the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon is right, that raises some of the problems that we discussed on the Scotland Bill in relation to a Secretary of State ordering another Assembly to pass or not to pass laws. If that is the situation, how long can it endure?
      I would ask any of the Welsh Ministers or any of my hon. Friend's who are present—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) or my hon. Friends the Members for Bed-wellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans)—how long they as serious politicians, would be content to sit in any such Welsh Assembly. Would any Welsh Member of Parliament or Welsh Minister think it worth his while to be a Member of a Welsh Assembly which could be treated in such a cavalier way as the Assembly can be treated under Clause 35?
      I suspect that my right hon. and hon. Friends would do one of two things. Either they would decide not to seek

      259
      re-election to the Assembly, or to stay in the Assembly, or they would fight tooth and nail for it to have greater power. If they were Members of the Assembly, they would not just sit there and do nothing about it. If they claimed greater powers and fought for them, the position would not be stable if they were successful. If they decided that being Members of the Welsh Assembly was not worth while, we should ask ourselves what on earth we are doing in creating yet another tier of Government.
      It comes back yet again to the question, how can such a body as is being put forward in the Bill survive in that kind of form for any number of years? Once again this highlights the confusion into which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have allowed themselves to be drawn. In view of the fact that we are under a guillotine resolution, I think it would be unfair for me to develop my argument at any greater length.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has reminded us, we have touched upon a number of sensitive areas since the start of the debate, somewhat late in the day, on 8th March. My hon. and now learned Friend, the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)—I congratulate him on his elevation—described the effect of Section 35 very succinctly in his opening speech. It refers to the power of the Secretary of State to prevent the Assembly from taking action or requiring it to take action in certain circumstances.
      As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said, it is remarkable and without precedent that the Secretary of State should be able to give a direction to the Assembly to pass or not to pass subordinate legislation. The circumstances in which this power could be exercised hardly bear thinking about, yet they are real enough for the Government to have anticipated them in the Bill and sought to deal with the situation of conflict between the Government, represented by the Secretary of State, and the Assembly. I should have thought that in the event of a clash between the Secretary of State and the Assembly the right hon. Gentleman would have required the full backing and support of both Houses of Parliament for
      260
      any direction that he might decide to give to the Assembly, and that he would not be content with less.
      This is what makes the procedure under Section 25(6) and Section 73—to which Section 35(6) refers—so curious. Instead of being designed to secure maximum support for the Secretary of State by both Houses, the subsection allows for an alternative, which is confirmation of the original resolution by the House of Commons in the event of failure by the House of Lords to give its support. The Government thereby anticipated a situation in which the Assembly and the House of Lords are in agreement and the will of the House of Commons has to prevail against both.
      I should have thought that such a situation would be bound to extend and enlarge the area of conflict and would encourage the Assembly in its defiance of the Secretary of State. The Assembly could, after all, urge that the House of Lords supported it—and it could be a very different kind of House of Lords by that time. Be that as it may, the proposition contained in Section 35(6) is wholly objectionable, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, on constitutional grounds.
      The only precedent that I can find for it is in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of 1968 "presented by Mr. Secretary Callaghan," supported by the Prime Minister and diverse Cabinet colleagues at that time. Section 15(2) of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill provides that
      "an instrument or draft shall be treated as approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, notwithstanding that a motion for such approval is rejected by the House of Lords, if the instrument or draft had previously been approved by resolution of the House of Commons and that resolution is subsequently confirmed by that House."
      There is mention also in that Bill of a period of 10 days' grace given to their Lordships to approve or not approve. Therefore, it seems fairly clear to me that the antecedents of Section 35(6) of the Wales Bill are to be found in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of 10 years ago.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), at the end of our debate on 8th March, challenged the Minister to produce a precedent for this procedure of bypassing the House of Lords. He went on to say that
      "it is most improper, in a Bill of this nature, to introduce it in this way. The Government

      261
      are not merely introducing a Bill to alter the constitutional arrangements for Wales. They are also taking a step which … will alter the relationship between the two Houses which are part of our constitution."—[Official Report, 8th March 1977: Vol. 945. c. 1562–3.]
      I share that view, and I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that the Wales Bill is not the proper place in which to slip in a major constitutional change.
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has asked for a precedent. Surely there was no precedent in this country for, say, the Parliament Act 1911, which curbed the powers of the House of Lords. I do not think that the precedent argument is a sound one, whatever other argument there may be in favour of his view.
      Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me—and with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby—that there is nothing wrong with a motion or a Bill such as the Parliament (No. 2) Bill which concentrates upon a constitutional issue. What I am saying, very simply, is that the Wales Bill, relating only to Wales, surely is not the place in which to change the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Ian Gow: Clause 35 is a recipe for continuing conflict between the House of Commons and the Secretary of State on the one hand and the proposed Assembly on the other. If it had not appeared, it would have been impossible to believe that Clause 35 could have been drafted and presented seriously to the House of Commons, because the powers which are given to the Secretary of State in Clause 35(1) will put him and his successor in a wholly impossible position. These powers will also put the new Assembly in a wholly impossible position.
      I wish to examine first the position of the Assembly if a direction were to be given by the Secretary of State. What exactly would the Assembly do if it found itself wholly out of sympathy with the political directive of the Secretary of State? Clause 35(5) provides:
      "A direction under this section shall be binding on the Assembly."
      262
      If the Secretary of State were to direct the Assembly to do something for which there was no majority in the Assembly, it would be possible—indeed, I would argue probable, and it might even be the duty of the Assembly which was ordered to do something which it thought wholly wrong—to defy the Secretary of State's direction. I can envisage circumstances in which the Assembly, elected in accordance with the provisions of this Bill—and finding itself with a Secretary of State whom it thought did not understand the real problems of Wales—was in disagreement with the hypothesis contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 35(1) which, after all, are extremely vague.
      I remind the Committee of the actual wording. Subsection 1(a) provides
      "that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly".
      No measure which has ever reached the statute book can have been phrased in such an immensely ambiguous way. It is emphatically the duty of the Committee to seek to obviate this recipe for conflict.
      Let us suppose that the Assembly disagreed fundamentally with the Secretary of State. Let us suppose that the Assembly asserted that no reserved matter would or might be affected directly or indirectly. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State took it upon himself to argue that it was "in the public interest"—to use the words in subsection (1)—to give a direction to the Assembly. What power would the Secretary of State have to enforce his direction? It is all very well simply to say that a direction under this subsection shall be binding. But let us suppose that the Assembly, democratically elected, refused to do that which the Secretary of State directed it to do. Surely the Secretary of State would not argue that simply the direction without the agreement of the Assembly, would be binding.
      We are not told in subsection (5) whether the direction shall be binding with regard to the law either of this kingdom or of the Principality. The direction simply—to use the Government's words—is "binding on the Assembly". But how can we tell the Assembly that which it must do? I invite the Minister of State to consider this proposition.
      Let us suppose that we were told what we had to do by some outside body. Let

      263
      us suppose that the House of Commons declined to do that which it was told to do. I invite the Minister of State to look at his hon. Friends behind him. He cannot even tell them what to do. Mercifully that is the case. Even my right hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench—wise though they are in almost every respect—cannot direct my hon. Friends or myself what to do.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Presumably a Secretary of State might consider the Assembly to be acting like another authority ultra vires and would, if necessary, have recourse to the courts. I assume that might be the way out of the puzzling situation which my hon. Friend has described. There would be resort to the court by the Secretary of State on the ground that this decision had been binding on the Assembly.
      Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. What puzzles and perplexes me is how an order by the Secretary of State can require the Assembly to act and to vote in a certain way. As an illustration of that dilemma, I referred to the position with regard to the House of Commons. I said that even such a wise Front Bench as my own could not direct my hon. Friends. It is not possible to direct Members of an Assembly any more than it is possible to direct Members of Parliament.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is there not an analogy in that the hon. Gentleman's own party, when last in power, tried to direct the councillors of Clay Cross to carry out a certain policy which they expected those councillors to undertake?
      Mr. Gow: That is a wholly false and rather mischievous analogy. I shall not be diverted down the path of Clay Cross, particularly as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: I would in no way seek to replace my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I wish to add another dimension to the analogy that was put forward by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). Will the hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that at the time of the rebellions against the Housing Finance Act the Bedwas and Machen
      264
      Urban District Council in South Wales rebelled? Plaid Cymru promised that council its most faithful and extensive support. But subsequently, when Plaid Cymru was fortunate enough to be able to secure nearly a majority on the council, and to take positions on the council, it made no attempt whatever to alleviate the burden imposed on some of the people involved as a consequence of that rebellion. Indeed, Plaid Cymru completely reversed its word, which is entirely typical.
      Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Housing Finance Act. It was very much to my regret, if not to the hon. Gentleman's, that I was not a Member at the time that that Act was going through Parliament. I do not feel competent to be led astray down that path. I do not wish to be diverted either by the Labour Party or by the solitary representative of Plaid Cymru.
      I come back to the main problem posed by Clause 35. I invite the Minister of State, when replying, to direct himself to this question. How can the Secretary of State direct that action shall not be taken? What would happen if the Assembly declined to conform with the directive? How will the Secretary of State decide whether something is desirable in the public interest? How will he make up his mind about whether something might indirectly be capable of affecting a reserved matter? In these respects I honestly believe that we are in the world of Alice in Wonderland.
      The amendment seeks to bring us back to the world of reality. If we enact Clause 35 without amendment we can be sure, however well intentioned the burdens which will rest upon the Secretary of State, there is the prospect of continual conflict between the Secretary of State and the new Assembly, and between the House of Commons and the new Assembly, and the future is fraught with the gravest peril.
      Suppose that the Secretary of State decided that it was in the public interest that a reserve matter might be affected indirectly. Suppose that he made a direction which, according to the Bill, is "binding on the Assembly". However, subsection (6) provides that even his direction, made in good faith,
      "will cease to have effect at the expiration of a period of 28 days."

      265
      What happens if we are in recess? Are we being told that no direction can be made unless there is a possibility of the House of Commons or another place approving it within 28 days? This seems to be another aspect that we must consider.
      The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Before the hon. Member launches too far on that line of argument, I should point out that Clause 74 provides:
      "In reckoning any period for the purposes of section 35, 36 or 73 above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
      Mr. Gow: That is exactly the point. Parliament is neither prorogued nor dissolved during the Summer Recess; it is adjourned. Therefore, the Minister's point is not valid.
      Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member must have heard what I said but in case he did not I shall repeat it. I said that this applied if the House of Commons was adjourned for more than four days. This covers the hon. Member's argument. He must admit that he is on a false point on this matter.
      Mr. Gow: I readily concede that on this point the Minister of State is correct. However, that does not alter the fact that this clause, if passed unamended, will be a constitutional disaster of the first magnitude.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: I rise to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Having listened to him very carefully, I find myself in some confusion. I am not sure whether I am alone in this or whether I share it with my hon. Friend. He seemed to argue that the Bill represents nothing more than a glorified county council, and what self-respecting politician would deign to serve on a county council?
      Mr. Dalyell: No.
      Mr. Ellis: That seemed to be the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. Maybe I am misrepresenting him, in which case he will correct me, but that was the impression I got.
      266
      In the Scotland Bill debate, my hon. Friend argued that the Government were proposing to set up a Parliament which was almost equal to this Parliament and that, therefore, inevitably there would be clashes between two equal bodies. It seems that my hon. Friend is attempting to have his cake and eat it at the same time.
      Mr. Dalyell: That is not so. The argument on the Scotland Bill was in the context of the question of legislation. There are great differences between the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill. One is tempted to ask, if devolution is about good government, why the Scots should have more and the Welsh should have less.
      Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend mentions legislation, and that has added to my confusion. Clause 35 has nothing to do with legislation. It is concerned with the actions which may or may not be taken by the Welsh Assembly. My hon. Friend is pre-empting the arguments on the next clause, and this might have added to my confusion. I am dealing with the amendment relating to Clause 35 and the actions that might be taken by the Assembly.
      Some of the discussion that we have had seemed to display a failure on the part of some hon. Members to understand the very nature of the political process and, in particular, how it is changing in order to keep abreast of social changes in the latter part of the twentieth century. What is happening is a fumbling attempt by politicians to devise a political structure that is consonant with the needs of the period in which we live.
      During the period when local government organisation as we now know it was set up, conditions were static and people could take a black and white view of the picture. The local authority, whether it is Clay Cross or one of the South Wales authorities dealing with the Housing Finance Act, is strictly bound within clear-cut legal definitions. All that the Government have to do with an errant council is to ask whether it is breaking the law. If it is, clearly the Government have a policy to pursue to rectify the matter, using the whole force of the law.
      It is precisely because this Assembly is not a glorified county council that there is some confusion. Hon. Members are

      267
      desperately anxious to get this black and white static picture whereby we can frame a set of laws to constrain the Assembly that is proposed for Wales, because clearly the Assembly will be political in the full sense of the word.
      When the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked how the Secretary of State would decide whether something was in the public interest, a thought flashed through my mind about the precise meaning of the words "public interest". Which public? Is it the British public, the English public or the Welsh public? I shall not follow that argument, but obviously straight away there is a huge area of political issues arising from the simple assumption of the hon. Member that the public interest refers to the British public. It might be that in the Welsh Assembly the public interest would be that of the Welsh public. Often the interests of the Welsh public might not coincide with those of the British public, the Scottish public or the English public.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Does not the point that the hon. Member has just made demonstrate the great danger of this wording? Surely it illustrates the fact that this will not be an objective judgment about public interest but possibly a very subjective judgment by a particular Secretary of State referring to the public interest in terms of the United Kingdom or Wales alone or otherwise?
      Mr. Ellis: We are living dangerously in politically dangerous times. How can the Secretary of State actually enforce this decision to instruct the Assembly to do something or not? The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), and others gave the example of Clay Cross, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) referred to the actions of a council concerning the Housing Finance Act. These are not the best examples to give, because they arise out of the old-fashioned Victorian black and white, highly regulated approach.
      The best examples are those where the Government attempt, for example, to institute a wages policy. One must ask how the Government can actually instruct the public, the trade unions or private companies not to pay a certain level of wages. This is a problem confronting us arising out of the change from a vertically structured
      268
      hierarchical society to a laterally structured democratic society. This creates all sorts of problems. This clause is a genuine and creditable attempt to deal in a legislative way with some of these problems.
      Mr. Wigley: In alluding to Clay Cross, I was trying to draw the attention of the Conservative Party to the problems arising from this Government's difficulty in implementing that sort of legalistic approach. The whole lesson of Clay Cross, Merthyr Tydfil and Machen, of which I was a councillor—one of the 11 who took a line against the Housing Finance Act—is that one cannot legislate what people will want to do. One can erect a legalistic framework, but that is all. The Conservatives made the same mistake in relation to local councils as they did on industrial relations. I am trying to point out to them that they cannot approach such matters in this way.
      Mr. Ellis: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It may be that, if we have in mind the old-fashioned framework of local authorities and the glorified county council approach, the system is breaking down. I am giving another example, which is more vivid, on the wages front. There are many other aspects of the same problem.
      The problem is how, in a unitary State, authority can reside at the top of the pyramid in this Parliament. The plain fact is that authority or sovereignty can no longer reside at the top of that pyramid. The nature of our democracy is such that people will not accept somebody at the top telling those at the bottom precisely what to do. This is the fundamental problem with which the whole issue of devolution is concerned.
      I despair when I hear some hon. Members trying to argue the merits and demerits of this matter in a legalistic, dried-up manner. Although I can make all kinds of criticisms of various proposals, both on the Scotland Bill and on the Wales Bill, nevertheless I recognise that there is serious need which the Government are attempting to meet in seeking to devise a political structure that will be appropriate for a completely new social and political situation.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not want my hon. Friend to despair, and I do not want to try to dry him up in any way, but I want

      269
      to ask him one simple question. From his point of view and given his assumptions, how does he think that the scheme proposed in the Bill can last in terms of years—three years, five years or much longer?
      Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend in that intervention illustrates the difference between his view and mine. He is asking me essentially—I hope that I do not misrepresent him—how long this system will last, because he is anticipating that this structure will last for ever. I differ from him because I do not want it to last for ever. I see this structure as the start of something that will change into something else and then change into something else again. That will happen because it is no longer possible in changing circumstances to freeze a political structure. One might devise a political structure which might be regarded as the most perfect structure for the time being, but inevitably it will become outmoded. The one golden rule of politics is that nothing ever stays the same, because things change across the whole world of politics. The golden rule of politics is that one has to travel. One travels hopefully and hopes to arrive.
      Mr. Francis Pym: Is not the difference on this Bill that before it even starts we know that it will not work? It is all very well to say that times will change, that amendments will have to be made and new arrangements brought in. Of course they will, but I emphasise that the point about this Bill is that we know before it starts that it will not endure and, therefore, it is unsatisfactory in principle on those grounds.
      Mr. Ellis: I would not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being opinionated, but all he is doing on this occasion is stating his opinion. My opinion is that this system will work, and I say that for a number of reasons. It will work, first of all, because of public demand. The ultimate consideration is that of sovereignty. Sovereignty does not lie here but lies in the people. People vest sovereignty in a particular political structure. If the Welsh Assembly behaves itself in such a silly way as not to secure the confidence of the Welsh people, it will fail. But I do not think that the people appointed to the Welsh Assembly—the Assemblymen—will be so silly as not to appreciate
      270
      that fact. It may be that they will not be so prejudiced by the history of events as to be baffled by archaism.
      I must emphasise that I have a great respect for this place, the Mother of Parliaments, but that respect falls far short of idolatry. At the time we were sending for Sir Charles Villiers, I felt that the Serjeant at Arms should have gone on that task in his knickerbockers and with his sword as somebody representing the House of Commons in the twentieth century. The point I am making is that the whole basis of the Government's proposals is to try to devise a political structure that will cater for present-day conditions. Clearly the Government will not get the matter right first go. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] One does not reject the good on the ground that it is not perfect. When I say that they will not get it right, I am pointing out that it will not be perfect. But, even as it is now drafted, it is a far sounder proposition, than the present set-up, which involves a highly centralised unitary State.
      Sir David Renton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Assembly will have no chance whatever of getting the matter right until it has found out, with the aid of lawyers, what the Bill means, what are its powers and how those powers will work? Does he not agree that there is a strong probability that many lawyers will disagree about that?
      Mr. Ellis: Clearly, in any structure the rule of law must apply. One has to have a guiding framework. I am no lawyer and I would not like to spell out the legal technical issues. My point is that the approach adopted by the Opposition, and, indeed, by my hon. Friend for West Lothian, is profoundly misconceived. If we could start off with a different approach and then see what was wrong, we might get somewhere.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In response to criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others, will my hon. Friend point out to them that, despite all the weaknesses and failings in the appalling situations in Northern Ireland, the fact is that the legislative Assembly there lasted for 50 years and that it was not a breach of the ultra vires principle that brought it down?
      Mr. Ellis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, with his customary wisdom, has put forward a sound argument.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman point out to his right hon. Friend that on this Bill we are not talking about a legislative Assembly and that any comparison with Northern Ireland is completely meaningless? Will he go on to explain how he thinks that it can work if laws are to be made in one place but executed by the Welsh Assembly sitting in another place? Is not the system bound to fall apart?
      Mr. Ellis: I appreciate the question, but I shall not answer it now. Clause 36 deals with the law. We are now dealing with Clause 35, and I am trying to stay within the rules of order and so far the Chair has been very kind to me. We are talking about the actions of the Assembly. We can discuss the law on the next clause.
      I conclude by saying that the fact that the Government are proposing to include in the Bill some kind of provision whereby the central authority—that is to say, British Government authority—can intervene, wisely or unwisely, controversially or non-controversially, underlines the fact that what is proposed is certainly no glorified county council.
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I support the amendment moved by my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) will forgive me for not taking up all the points he made, but there are one or two matters which I shall deal with later in my remarks.
      My hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby shares with the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) the considerable distinction of being regarded by The Sunday Times as people who will be making headlines throughout the 1980s. Indeed, my right hon. Friend for Cambridgeshire was described as a country gentlemen with no doctrinal hang-ups. When one looks at the record of the Conservative Party over the past 200 years one finds this very reassuring
      272
      because we have been ravaged by the problems of country gentlemen with doctrinal hang-ups
      5.0 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Bedwellty fared even worse. He has been described as the Left-winger that every Right-winger loves. I shall not pursue the hon. Member along that avenue.
      As I heard the Minister of State delivering his interesting tribute, I had a feeling of jealousy. I am wondering why the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and myself have been excluded from this category. Here is a group which has pursued the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. All are included except the hon. Member for West Lothian and myself.
      I feel emotions comparable with those that I had at the Conservative Party conference when Mr. William Haigh tottered from his pram to say that in 30 years he would be here and I would not. I felt strongly about that because in 30 years I have every intention of being there and here, unless the grim rebuff following the lamentable example of the Lord President of the Council brings down the chopper before we have had a reasonable discussion on the matters at issue between us.
      The point made by my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby before The Sunday Times made its pre-emptive strike for a good libel lawyer, emphasised that the Bill as it stands gives to the Government the mechanism to use its override powers regardless of the House of Lords. That is the purpose of the clause and that, above all, is the purpose of Clause 73 to which the clause that we are now discussing is intimately related.
      There are no doubt arguments, from the hon. Member for Bedwellty and others, for the limitation of the powers of the House of Lords. There are even arguments, I gather, for the abolition of the House of Lords. I am bound to say that my distinguished constituents, particularly in the Newnham division of Cambridge, whose adherence to the red carpet is stronger than it is to the Red Flag, will be dismayed that these kinds of arguments are brought forward too much. Every time the hon. Member produces such arguments a thrill of horror goes through that area of my constituency. If the hon. Member continues in that way

      273
      I may rise to even greater triumphs on the argument to preserve the House of Lords. But where would Lord Kaldor have lunch?
      Mr. Kinnock: If the House of Commons persists in denying the vote to the House of Lords, it can protest as much as it likes. Indeed, I hope that in many cases my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will appoint thousands and thousands more Tory Lords, all in marginal Conservative seats.
      Mr. Rhodes James: I thought that the idea was to appoint more and more of my Socialist constituents to the House of Lords, thereby perceptively increasing my majority. The hon. Gentleman puts forward a view last heard in 1911 and put forward with emphasis at that time.
      Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman must be mistaken: 1911 was the last year in which England won the Triple Crown.
      Mr. Rhodes James: The hon. Member has the capacity to degrade the serious constitutional issues which we are debating. He is not even right about that. As I remember it was in the debate in the 1960s—
      Mr. Kinnock: The 1860s.
      Mr. Rhodes James: I wish to emphasise that Clause 73 and this clause give the Government of the day, of whatever party, override powers regardless of the House of Lords and the influence and involvement of the House of Commons. Although we may have a Welsh Assembly—I am opposed to that concept—it is ludicrous to put into the Bill a situation in which the real dominator of the Welsh Assembly is the Secretary of State and the House of Commons and another place has no involvement. This would give to the Secretary of State a power which overrides in a serious way the rights and privileges of the Welsh Assembly.
      If I were a Welsh Member for Parliament instead of being merely half-Welsh as I am, I should resent intensely this provision being written into the Bill because it is indicative of the thinking behind this Bill and the Scotland Bill. One would be half giving the principle of devolution and including in it provision to retain the reality of power in the British Government and in the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Dalyell: Were my hon. Friend a Welsh Member of Parliament, would he not within weeks of becoming one either strive for more power and blame everything that went wrong on the English or decide quickly that he would not bother to spend his life trying to be elected to that body?
      Mr. Rhodes James: I entirely agree. That is the point made also in the Scotland Bill—that either we create an Assembly with real powers or we create the present one, with very few. But if we have the latter the first thing that the Assemblies will do is to look at their powers and position and ask for a rightful place and a rightful voice in the conduct of their own affairs. That is why this Bill and the Scotland Bill are totally irrelevant to the profundity of the problems even in this nation and in Wales and Scotland.
      The dominant influence will be the Secretary of State because the House of Commons majority of the time will almost inevitably, as my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby pointed out, support the Secretary of State of the day regardless of the details of the argument. In this situation the qualifications and safeguards contained in the Bill as it stands are irrelevant. They do not match up to the scale of the problems involved and fall far short of what the Committee is entitled to expect in a Bill of this importance and what the people of Wales are entitled to see in a Bill of such critical importance to them.
      As my hon, and learned Friend emphasised, if the amendments of the Opposition were accepted it would not drive a large gap through the Bill. It would provide the House of Commons with the opportunity—I emphasise the word "opportunity" and not the word "right"—to have a say and involvement in the initiation and control of the override procedures. At a time when the opportunities of Parliament—of the House of Commons in particular—are being ruthlessly diminished and the Executive is eagerly grabbing more powers, it is absolutely essential that this modest but significant amendment against that encroachment should be written into the Bill.
      I cannot understand why the Government and the Minister of State did not

      275
      intervene at the outset to emphasise how they understood the fundamental and deeply important constitutional point which my hon, and learned Friend was making, which my hon. Friends have supported and which have been supported by the Government Benches. These are important and very significant constitutional amendments. I hope that the Government, even at this stage, even in view of its record of intransigence in the past, in the discussion of this Bill and the Scotland Bill, will change their mind. The Minister of State should rise to the occasion and rise to his build-up in the Press and accept these amendments.
      Mr. Kinnock: When I listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), I frequently think, whilst enjoying what he has to say, naturally, in a comradely style, that I am in some kind of sociological laboratory and that the House of Commons and all other democratic assemblies to which my hon. Friend belongs are mere extensions of that laboratory to permit politicians to experiment with new forms of constitution, new systems of government, and new arrangements for the levying of taxation and the expenditure of public finances so that the people, if they have relatively little confidence in the status quo, can at least be reassured that their representatives are continually prodding and investigating every possible avenue for changing the rules under which they are governed in response to what my hon. Friend frequently describes as public opinion on public demand.
      I suppose that when his other experiments come to fruition—he has already engaged successfully in one in his enthu-siam for our membership of the EEC—when the paper is lit, the water is boiled, the chemicals have mixed and an explosion occurs in the true sociological fashion, the true fashion of the experimenter and researcher, he will be able to say to the people of Wales or Britain "Well, back to the drawing board".
      The matters of public emotion, relationships between nations and how people's taxes will be spent and who will be spending them and the rules governing how they are spent go beyond the luxury of experimentation. There is no university model that can be drawn. We are not engaged in an academic exercise.
      276
      We are discussing people's lives, the way they shall live and whether they shall live in relative happiness or in disastrous un-happiness. We therefore have to get it right.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: It is not so much a question of the luxury of experimenting; it is rather a question of the luxury of staying exactly as we are. It is not a question of being unfair; it is a question of profound disillusion with the present set-up.
      Mr. Kinnock: I have at least as much enthusiasm as my hon. Friend for change, for securing, to use the words of our election manifesto, the "fundamental and irreversible change" in favour of the working people. I accept that my hon. Friend is at least as committed in that direction, unapologetically, ideologically and in practice, as I am. I am committed because I am a Socialist but also because I understand, as a democrat, that only a totalitarian system can thrive without change. Totalitarian systems of any kind commit themselves and their resources heavily to the prevention of change, even to the prevention of those who would voice the need for change.
      It is not the change that I quarrel with or even the discussion of experiments in change. What I quarrel with concerns getting the wrong changes. I say to my hon. Friend and others who support these proposals that they are supporting the wrong change. Hon. Members speak of toppling what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has described as a pyramid. They talk about removing this apex, of diversifying and devolving government. Yet they are still willing to support a Bill in which none of the effective resolutions of government or the important decisions of government are, in the words of the 1975 White Paper, "taken nearer the people". This is an exercise in misguiding the public, an exercise in the most contemptuous centralist condescension. That is characteristic of devolution.
      What we have in Clause 35 and in this part of the Bill generally is an attempt by the Government to have their devolutionary cake and eat their centralist bread. The consequence of that, if it comes about, will be a formula for conflict, with no profit to the Welsh people.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: Change.
      Mr. Kinnock: I say to my hon. Friend that the criterion I will apply to change, whether as advocated by him, by me or by my right hon. Friends, is whether it will advance the interests—democratic, political, social, economic, even sociological—of the Welsh people. If the changes proposed by my right hon, and hon. Friends cannot satisfy that criterion of advance and benefit, I say that it is the duty of hon. Members elected by the people in Wales to throw out those changes. That is why, unlike my hon. Friend, I am resolutely opposed to the proposals made by my right hon. Friends.
      By the very nature of these proposals, government from henceforth will be a cat and mouse game, a proposition through which, by default, the Welsh people can presumably, through their Welsh Assembly, fulfil their national destiny. If the central Parliament, elected in part by those same people, cannot agree with the national Assembly, presumably again articulating the national demands of the Welsh people, that democratically elected Assembly in Cardiff will be overruled and overturned, and its decisions thrown out. The best that we can have is government from the centre by default, and the worst we can have is perpetual conflict between two democratically elected assemblies, elected by the same people, conceivably at different times, coming to entirely different conclusions about what is best for the people of Wales. If there is another formula, not for change but for disarray, followed by chaos, followed by decay of the interests of the people of Wales, I believe that we should have to spend a great deal of time searching for it.
      5.15 p.m.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is welcome to conduct his experiments. My right hon. Friends are welcome to conduct theirs, just so long as they do not have a detrimental effect on the interests of the people of Wales or on the unity of the kingdom. Whereas my hon. Friend honestly says that he considers this Bill to be a start on something different, my right hon, and hon. Friends on the Front Bench say that it is an end to something different.
      My right hon, and hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not think that we shall go any further than this Bill. This Bill is here, as originally conceived, to
      278
      bond the unity of the people. It is here to meet the demand for devolutionary change in Wales which, by some remarkable feat of perspicacity beyond most hon. Members, the Government have been able to discern. I have not been able to discern this demand, and neither have most of my hon. Friends, Tory Members or my constituents. But my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and my right hon, and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are aware of this demand from Wales.
      I have to explain to my hon. Friend, on behalf of my right hon. Friends—although they are extremely good at explaining things away in the devolutionary context; they are quite excellent in all other spheres, of course—that my right hon. Friends do not intend to go any further than this Bill. They intend that the permanent relationship between the people of Wales, the central Parliament and the central Government shall henceforth be that if the Assembly wishes to do something and the Palace of Westminster does not object to that within 28 days it is all right. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on this.
      What if the proposition in Cardiff should involve, say, an industrial commission of some description? It does not have to be the allocation of a grant because the Welsh Assembly does not have that power. It may be concerned with the conveniences required for the conclusion of an important commercial decision. There has then to be a pause in the whole procedure while Parliament makes up its mind.
      We have to consider the effect on future generations because these are tablets of stone contained in the Bill—and they will guarantee that it will sink when subjected to the fresh water of public opinion. The fact remains that the proposition here is for a permanent system of government. To secure change will not require a simple adjustment of this measure on a future occasion or some well-meaning, articulate and amicable discussion in the Palace of Westminster. The next step beyond this is the usurpation of this measure against the interests of this House. The next step beyond this takes us towards not more devolution but a much harsher form of suppression of two systems of government.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: Does my hon. Friend accept that in the political process there

      279
      are no tablets of stone? In the nineteenth century, a very slow moving century, there were enormous changes. I take it from the thrust of his argument that he accepts the need for change in the political structure of this country, but rejects this set of proposals. Would he like to elaborate OP the proposals for changes in the political structure which he would like to see?
      Mr. Kinnock: With your indulgence, Mr. Murton, I should be glad to address the Committee for the next hour on the abolition of the House of Lords, the introduction of worker control—
      The Chairman: Order. The Chair has been tolerant up to now, but it cannot be as tolerant as all that.
      Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that I can stay entirely within order and answer the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham about the pace of change, since it directly involves the principle of this Bill. My hon. Friend would be the first to recognise, as an erstwhile Marxist of some description, that the pace of change of the last century was faster than that accomplished, certainly in social and political terms, in any other century in the history of mankind and that it was prompted and dictated by the incessant demands, inspired by the economic purposes, of an organised working class. That was the first time this had occurred.
      The consequence of that was that we now have a most remarkable and advanced social democracy in this country. In pursuant of economic emancipation, people understood that they had to have constitutional change and an extension of their civic rights. They fought for that. There is no economic demand inspiring the Bill and no economic response provided by it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is saying that there is nowt as permanent as change and that this is his reason for saying that there are no tablets of stone, that is fair enough. However, in the Bill and the continued professions of the Government we have an answer to the demand that my hon. Friend, and those who think like him, believe has come from the people of Wales for the decentralisation of government and devolution of decision-making.
      That is the proposal contained in the Bill and if it is calcified and turned into
      280
      stone, it is because of the Government's protest that this is not the beginning of the slippery slope but that this is as far as we are going. That is what makes the proposals tablets of stone. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I think that change is permanent—
      The Chairman: Order. I have given the hon. Member long enough to answer his hon. Friend. We are dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State and we must not go so wide as to talk about tablets of stone. The Chair is getting a little stoney hearted now and I think that we must return to the amendment.
      Mr. Kinnock: I should not like to see that hardening of the arteries, Mr. Murton.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I are at one on the need for change, but we are not at one on the need for this change or the direction in which it will take us.
      I ask my hon. Friend, the Committee and the Government to understand that some people in Wales have demands that could be answered by the separation of powers and some have demands that would be satisfied by the status quo, but none will be satisfied by the condescending powers contained in this clause to which hon. Members opposite have offered amendments.
      The simple reason for this is that we cannot have halfway houses in democracy. We cannot have a shuffling of powers and create a national Assembly with the status, pomp and apparent power endowed in that Assembly and simultaneously have a supervening, superimposing, superintendent centralist Parliament which can make up its mind, after pretending to have awarded substantial powers to the Assembly, when and on which powers it wants to withdraw the effective decision making of the Assembly.
      If we were talking about the devolution of powers throughout the United Kingdom or the establishment of a constitution on that quasi-federal basis, this argument could not arise because there would be an understanding of the relationship between the central Government and devolved government. However, the formula in the clause is a formula not for

      281
      understanding, but for frustration, misunderstanding, chaos, confusion and conflict. It should not be supported.
      Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend is making an attack on the whole concept of the clause. I shall be happy to reply to that later, but he also referred to the Opposition amendments. Does he not agree that they do not propose a radical alteration to the clause but are an attempt to preserve the powers of the House of Lords?
      Mr. Kinnock: I think that I have said enough about my general opinion of the House of Lords and I hope that, in his reply, my hon. Friend will agree with my view. Obviously any proposal for an extension or endorsement of the powers of the House of Lords, as applied to devolution or any other matter, would not have my support. The usefulness of this amendment and succeeding amendments is that they give us the opportunity to expose the dichotomy and delusion in this clause and this general area of the Bill.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) made the astonishing statement that there are no halfway houses in democracy, but surely the growth of democracy has been nothing but a succession of halfway houses. The hon. Gentleman, when arguing against the Common Market, said that our accession to the Treaty of Rome was a halfway house to the sort of Europe of which he did not approve. The entire thrust of his argument was misconceived, but at least he made no bones about the fact that he was attacking the clause because he attacks the entire concept of devolution as presented in the Bill.
      I had not intended to speak on these particular amendments, but the attacks on Clause 35, through the basis of the amendments, are virtually attacks on the Bill itself. We have heard the most astonishing arguments put forward. There has been a gross exaggeration of the chaos that will exist if the Bill becomes law and the Welsh Assembly is set up. I do not believe them for a moment.
      The British constitution would not work at all if it were not that we have evolved constitutional functions and then
      282
      paid due regard to them. Anybody who is sensible about this realises, for example, that if we have a federal constitution—and I am a believer in federalism—one of the advantages is that there is a separation of powers. Certain powers are given to the subsidiary Assembly and certain reserve powers are kept at the centre, and there is generally a constitutional court of some kind to give decisions where there is a matter of dispute.
      In the concept of devolution whereby the House of Commons and the Secretary of State devolve certain powers to an Assembly in Wales, clearly there are difficulties about the override provision. It is necessary to have an override provision, otherwise the Welsh Assembly may do something outside its powers which is undesirable in the interests of the country as a whole. There must be someone who is allowed to intervene. That is what Clause 35 is concerned with.
      However difficult it may have been to frame Clauses 35 and 36, I think the Government have made a fair attempt at it. I do not think they can be greatly improved. I can understand those people, like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who attack Clause 35 because they dislike the whole concept of devolution as expressed in this Bill. That is one thing. But when I look at the amendments and ask whether they would be an improvement on what is proposed, the answer is "No".
      In the end it depends on the good sense of the Secretary of State, the people who are running the House of Commons, and the elected Members of the Welsh Assembly. This is how we have always run our affairs. I disagree with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who suggested that in the last century everything was clear cut and was put forward in black and white. That is not my understanding as a student for some time of constitutional history and the constitutional development of this country. That is not how it happened at all. There were very often gross deficiencies in many of the Acts, yet they worked because the people democratically elected to various bodies observed conventions and evolved them.
      Compared with the amendments, the clause is a good provision for resolving

      283
      disputes that are likely to arise between the Assembly and this House.
      The critics seem to imply that the Members of a Welsh Assembly will be a lot of barbarians, anxious to break out of the United Kingdom at the earliest opportunity. Only a small minority of people in Wales want to break up the United Kingdom. The vast majority of elected representatives will want to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom; they will want the Assembly to run well and will want a good relationship between the Assembly and this House and between the Assembly and the Secretary of State. If it had been left to me, I should have abolished the position of the Secretary of State and had a much more forthright form of devolution. However, that would not have carried support in this place as at present constituted.
      We must proceed bearing in mind the insistence of the Opposition and many of the critics of the Bill on the Government Benches that the position of the Secretary of State be maintained. Therefore, it seems sensible that he is given the override provision. The only question is how he is to exercise it. The thrust of the argument of the Opposition is that the other place should be brought in. As I understand the argument, it is said that it would be wrong by means of a side-wind to alter the constitutional relationship between another place and this place. It is said that that should be done by means of a direct Bill that deals specifically with the powers of another place. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the argument advanced by the Opposition, even though I am not putting it as precisely and eloquently as the hon, and learned Member for Whitby and Cleveland (Mr. Brittan).
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Dalyell: To revert to the hon, and learned Gentleman's earlier points, they are not barbarians but people who would be extremely dissatisfied with the lot into which they had come as members of the Welsh Assembly. Short of a federal State, which is what the hon, and learned Gentleman wants, is it his idea of an Assembly that Assemblymen are to be full-time or part-time for 37 weeks or more in a year, five days a week? Are they to be full-time or are they to be parttime
      284
      with other jobs? That is the sort of earthly consideration that is rather pertinent.
      Mr. Hooson: That question has nothing to do with that which we are discussing. I reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There are Members of this place who are Marxists. There are Members of this place who believe in the separation of Scotland from England and Wales. There are Members who believe in the separation of Wales from the United Kingdom. Do they get their own way? Do they fail to obey the conventions of the House of Commons or do they observe the law, the conventions of the House of Commons and the way in which we conduct our affairs in Parliament? There is a general misconception that if we have a Welsh Assembly suddenly everyone within it will take leave of his senses. In fact, they will do what the vast majority of the British people always do: they will obey the law follow the conventions and establish a good working relationship with the House of Commons. If in future they want to improve that relationship, they will make representations through their Members of Parliament.
      Mr. Kinnock: The hon, and learned Gentleman is exaggerating and misunderstanding. The proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is not that people would become barbarians or take leave of their senses. There is no parallel with the conduct of this place. The proposition that the hon, and learned Gentleman must answer is that by the very nature of Assemblymen holding the office of representative in an Assembly in Wales their will, their hopes and their decisions will be frustrated by the blocking mechanism of central Government and they will become resentful in a way in which only minorities can become resentful They will become zealots in a way in which only minorities can become zealots. The hon, and learned Gentleman must put his remarks into a devolved context within the realities of the Bill and not base them on his imagination of what could happen in the House of Commons and draw analogies from that.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman cited the case of the Bedwas and Machen Council which disagreed with an Act

      285
      passed by Parliament. It expressed its protest by refusing to obey the law, but in the end it had to do so because that was the law of the land. No doubt those councillors would have liked the power to carry out the law as they thought it should be, but they could not do so. People accept that relationship. They accept that a council is a subordinate body and they would accept that an elected Assembly would be a subordinate body to this place. I see no difficulty in that respect.
      Mr. Pym: The debate has shown, once again, that there is a remarkable lack of genuine support for the Bill in the House of Commons. The Bill has had a certain amount of support from the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). It has had halfhearted support from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis). The hon. Gentleman linked that limited support with half-hearted apologies for the shortcomings of the Bill and forecast that it could not last long. He seemed to be saying that he wanted to change things for the sake of change. I think that that is a sort of anarchy.
      The clause relates to the override provisions which empower Westminster to override the Assembly. If that is not to lead to dispute and disharmony within the United Kingdom, I do not know what is. The hon. Member for Bed-wellty (Mr. Kinnock) thought that that would happen, and I entirely agree with him. Even the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery thought that it would lead to difficulties. Of course it will. Surely we should be concentrating upon finding a way of binding the United Kingdom together more harmoniously and not bringing forward Bills that are bound to damage the unity of the United Kingdom.
      I, too, offer my congratulations to my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I am glad that I can call him that. Although I have never been able to call him that before, I have always thought of him as that. My hon, and learned Friend concentrated on two of the main issues that are raised by the clause. There are a number of issues to which the Minister will have to reply, but surely the most important is the proposed procedure in Parliament, especially the procedure as
      286
      regards another place. That is because the power is taken in the clause to overrule not only the Assembly in Wales but another place. We come to the issue properly in Clause 73, but even then I do not think it will be the appropriate time to take up the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and to deal properly with the constitutional implications of another place.
      In Amendments Nos. 229, 233 and 234, the Opposition seek to expunge from the clause the Government's flight into unicameralism. After all, that is what it is. The Government like to make it sound innocent and to dress it up, but what is proposed is the overruling of another place should it come to an inconvenient decision. If it should come to a decision that the Government do not like, they want the power to override. They are saying "We are masters now and we shall take no notice of what another place has decided". The Opposition are utterly opposed to that attitude, Whatever changes are required in another place—and we agree that changes are necessary and desirable—that is not a change that we can possibly accept.
      However, that approach suits the Labour Party very well at the moment. In a way, I suppose that it is the beginning of its programme leading to the demolition of another place, which is what it comes to. I find it surprising that the Government should be worried in any way about the powers in another place. They are used very seldom. I suppose that that is part of the difficulty. As regards subordinate legislation, I think that it has used is powers only once, and that was 10 years ago on the Rhodesian sanctions. Its powers have been used hardly ever before or since. I do not know why the Government should be worried about needing to exclude whatever another place may decide on the basis of a whipped vote in this place.
      However, in the clause the overruling of another place would be bound to fuel the flames of controversy between the House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly. In such circumstances the other place would be supporting the Assembly against the Secretary of State. The circumstances would be that those in another place would be refusing to pass an order that prevented the Assembly

      287
      from doing something that it wanted to do, or directing it to do something that it did not want to do—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). Whatever else would be the consequence of that, it would increase the tension and conflict that will arise between the House of Commons and the Assembly.
      I regret that there has not been a proper or adequate public debate in the country about these issues and that there is a completely inadequate appreciation of the implications of the Bill. If it is passed—I hope that it is not—and if in due time it comes to a referendum, I believe and forecast that there will, even at that time, be too little public understanding in Wales and anywhere else about the true meaning and implications of the Bill.
      In the context of the House of Lords, it is wrong to play about with the constitution of the United Kingdom in the course of trying to pass a Bill dealing with the constitution of Wales.
      The second main matter dealt with by my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby was the need to give Parliament the right to express a view on these override questions and the power to initiate the use of the override provisions. In the Bill only the Secretary of State has that right. Of course, he will be subject to all manner of political pressures. All kinds of influences and considerations will be brought to bear upon him, and naturally they will have a powerful effect on his decisions.
      It seems that in future there will be nothing to stop a Secretary of State altering or expanding the powers of the Assembly without any reference to Parliament. He could do it by not exercising his powers under Clause 35. The mere inactivity of the Minister will change the powers of the Assembly.
      It appears that the intention of the clause, if passed in its present form, is that if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State—and only the Secretary of State—an Assembly action
      "would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly"
      and that action is not in the public interest, again, in the opinion solely of the Secretary of State, that action would be stopped.
      288
      It is not a question of vires. The courts cannot intervene. They have no power, authority or means of intervening. It is left solely to the discretion of the Secretary of State, because no one else can operate these powers—not even the House of Commons. We think that is wrong.
      Parliament has a say only if the Secretary of State takes certain action. It cannot have any say if the Secretary of State fails to take any action or decides not to take any action. Therefore, is it not possible in this way to change and extend the powers of the Assembly, as it were, by default either deliberately or otherwise? If the powers in the clause were not used on an occasion when many people thought that they should be used, we should establish a precedent for non-use of the powers. Therefore, there is here a great deal of anxiety. I hope that the Minister will comment on that aspect of the matter.
      A third major matter, which has hardly been touched upon in the three hours of debate, relates to Amendments Nos. 230 and 235. They are concerned with powers of override in relation to our European Community and international obligations.
      If the Government believe that the arrangements for overruling the Assembly in instances where its actions might affect a reserved matter are right, why did they choose not to use them in instances of alleged incompatibility with European Community or international obligations? Under the Bill the Secretary of State, acting on his own, will be able to veto any action of the Assembly which appears to him to be incompatible with a Community or other obligation. That does not seem to the Opposition to be a satisfactory arrangement.
      First, there is the parliamentary point. Should not the Secretary of State have to seek parliamentary approval for his decision? There is no provision for that in subsection (2). Should there not be an opportunity for Parliament to question any action of the Assembly which it believes to be potentially incompatible?
      Secondly, there is the legal point. International obligations are matters of fact and of law and, therefore, are capable of resolution by the judicial process. It seems to us that that process would be the most appropriate way of deciding whether, in the words of subsection (2) (a),

      289
      "any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would be incompatible with Community obligations or any other international obligations of the United Kingdom".
      Indeed, the Government took that view in their White Paper "Our Changing Democracy", published in 1975. That states in paragraph 91 that
      "international obligation is essentially a matter of fact and law (often involved and technical) rather than of general political judgment".
      I agree. So why not refer it to the body most experienced in making such judgments—the courts? It seemed that at one stage the Government thought that, but they have now changed their mind. I wonder whether the Government's experience in relation to their appearances in court in connection with television licences, Laker Airways or comprehensive schools has anything to do with their change of mind. It certainly seems to the Opposition that the matters referred to in subsection (2) could and should be resolved by the courts.
      5.45 p.m.
      Fourthly—I shall not dwell on this matter because of time—there is the question of enforcement, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members. It is not the same as with a local authority. The House of Commons has imposed upon local authorities duties and responsibilities which they are expected and, indeed, required to carry out. What is more, the House of Commons took powers to enforce the law in that respect and to insist that those duties and responsibilities were carried out. For example, there is the power to surcharge councillors who are found to have failed in their responsibilities. Apparently there is no machinery here to enforce that what is required to be done will be done. That point was made by a number of hon. Members of trust that the Minister of State will have something to say about that matter.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pym: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me on this occasion if I do not give way to him. I said that I would sit down at quarter to six, and I must do so in one minute to be fair to the Minister of State, unless, of course, he is prepared to give us another day or days so that we may debate these matters more fully.
      290
      The main objection must be the effect of the Bill on Parliament, and particularly on the House of Lords. We think that the seemingly innocent, minor-sounding proposals in the clause are sinister and highly significant and certainly ought not to be in the Bill. Our amendments seek to remove them.
      There is the further important point about placing sole reliance on the Secretary of State and excluding Parliament in the way proposed. Our amendments are designed to try to remedy those weaknesses and to improve the clause, with the whole of which we disagree, as the Committee knows. I hope that in that spirit, minor though in a way the amendments are but not minor in relation to the House of Lords, the Government will feel able at this stage to show a certain amount of sympathy with and understanding of our point of view, other than their own, and to accept the amendments.
      Mr. John Smith: Before I deal with the main points raised by right hon, and hon. Members, I should like to add my congratulations to the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). We always knew that he was learned, but it is nice to have that view confirmed by another body which permits us so to describe him.
      The hon, and learned Gentleman introduced this series of amendments. Having congratulated him, in the best spirit of the House of Commons I now seek to criticise him. I was puzzled why he made no reference to Amendments Nos. 230 and 235. Having dealt with some other points in his speech, the hon, and learned Gentleman left his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) with the invidious task of trying to gallop through an explanation of amendments which cover a fair part of the Notice Paper, which are very complicated and which the Opposition did not think were important enough to deal with at the beginning of the debate. It was open to the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby to address his mind to Amendments Nos. 230 and 235 as well as to the other amendments which he introduced. Indeed, it is common practice in Committee of the House, when introducing a batch of amendments, if they are of any importance at all, to refer to all the amendments so that the Committee

      291
      clearly understands what is in the mind of the Conservative Party.
      Mr. Pym: That is a monstrous complaint. Apart from the fact that we are limited on time, numerous amendments of a genuine kind from another part of the Committee will not be debated at all. If we were to take time going into the details of the selected amendments, that would delay matters even further. It is not a fair point for the Minister to make.
      Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman must know that it is a perfectly fair point. Amendments Nos. 230 and 235 must be of less importance than the other amendments or they would have been referred to. The right hon. Gentleman should not get too shirty about it. If he wants amendments to be taken seriously by the Government, he should not introduce the arguments for them towards the end of a fairly rapid speech. There was plenty of time in the debate. Indeed, he probably missed the opportunity of hearing the valuable comments of other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, because these matters were not referred to earlier.
      The main burden of the debate has been on the question of the House of Lords. There is a provision in the Bill that if the House of Commons approves an override order or direction made by the Secretary of State and the House of Lords disagrees with it the House of Commons can overturn the House of Lords decision.
      Let us examine the consequences of deleting the provision from the Bill. It means that if the House of Commons approves a resolution made by the Secretary of State and the House of Lords declines to approve the motion in that House we should have a real recipe for conflict. This Parliament would be being overruled by the unelected House of Lords. That appears to be the position that the Conservatives wish to see.
      The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) referred to the appearance of this proposition in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The hon. Member is correct to say that that provision is substantially the same as the one in the Bill. I do not follow the argument that we should preserve intact the powers of the House of Lords in this Bill until there is a
      292
      general review of the relationship between the two Houses. I do not see why, until that happens, all the privileges, justified or unjustified, in the other Chamber should remain intact, especially when we are introducing an important constitutional change which affects the relationship between subordinate Assemblies in Scotland and Wales and Parliament. This seems to be an excellent time to review the powers of the House of Lords.
      We have been accused of a flight into unicameralism. That was the description used by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. I should have thought that this was a sensible preservation of the rights of the elected House in relation to the other Assemblies. We have heard much about recipes for conflict in these devolution debates and I can think of nothing more redolent of conflict than to allow a situation to develop between the elected House and the unelected Chamber along the Corridor which cannot be resolved when they reach different conclusions.
      There are provisions in the Bill for dealing with conflict arising because of an action taken by the Assembly on a reserved United Kingdom matter. Action can be taken by the Secretary of State which requires the approval of the House of Commons.
      Once again we see the Conservative Opposition making a last-ditch attempt to try to preserve for ever and a day the powers of the House of Lords. They know that the House of Lords will always operate in favour of them. They know that the House of Lords is a check, not on them, but on this side of the Committee.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Minister does not seem to be addressing himself to the situation where the House of Commons is in conflict with the House of Lords and the Assembly.
      Mr. Smith: We are dealing here with the situation in which there is a resolution approved by the House of Commons but not approved by the House of Lords. The Bill provides that the House of Commons shall prevail. I should have thought that it was now elementary democratic politics that where there is a conflict between the Lords and the Commons the House of Commons should prevail.
      The Conservative Party is seeking not only to deny that proposition—which I

      293
      should have thought it might be moving towards these days—but to allow a situation to develop where a conflict is bound to arise and which is incapable of resolution.
      Mr. Leon Brittan: The Minister is ignoring an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). It is not a question of one's constitutional views simply as between the House of Commons and the House of Lords; one is talking about a difference of opinion between an Assembly, which is in itself an elected body, and another elected Assembly. This brings a completely new dimension into the debate. It does not automatically follow that when the will of the House of Commons is not shared by the House of Lords the will of the Commons prevails. That means that one is saying that the Welsh Assembly is not a democratic body and is one whose views can be ignored.
      Mr. Smith: I find it hard to believe that the hon. Member can seriously advance such a proposition. We are dealing with a situation where the Secretary of State has obtained the approval of Parliament for taking corrective action on something which the Assembly has done which affects reserved matters and something for which the United Kingdom Government remains responsible. We are dealing with how that parliamentary control is to be exercised.
      If we accepted the Conservative amendments there would be two forms of parliamentary control—a House of Commons control and a House of Lords control. We have a provision to resolve conflict.
      Mr. Hooson: Are not the Opposition trying to promote a potentially unholy alliance between the Assembly in Cardiff and the House of Lords?
      Mr. Smith: I thought that that might have been behind the reasoning of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby, but I came to the conclusion that he was too sensible to adduce such an argument. The Conservative Party arrives at some odd views by accident rather than by design. That might be the situation in this case.
      I was staggered at the prominence given to this amendment by members of the Conservative Front Bench. I was staggered to find that they were so uneducated
      294
      in the ways of democratic politics that they do not see the obvious necessity not only of overcoming conflicts but of securing that proper control rests with the Secretary of State and the House of Commons.
      I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby suggested that we should dispense with the House of Lords completely. There is some force in such an argument. But the Opposition have not put down such an amendment. However, the Conservatives are seeking to strengthen the power of the House of Lords in a way which we believe to be unreasonable in relation to the Bill.
      The argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire towards the end of the debate involved our international and European obligations. The Government's attitude is that we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the international obligations of the United Kingdom, compliance with which are day-to-day matters to be referred to the national courts. We believe that it would be better for the Secretary of State to make the decision about whether something that the Assembly is doing is or is not in compliance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom Government. It would be the Government's obligations that would be at issue, and we do not believe that it would be right to refer them to a national court, particularly in the way suggested in the amendment—by action instituted by the Attorney-General. If the hon. Member thought that this matter was more important, no doubt he would have addressed himself to it when he began the debate.
      Opposition Members should not feel so guilty when they find that they are caught out. Someone forgot to move the amendment and someone else had to move it later on. That is the most likely explanation and hon. Members opposite should not try to cover it up.
      Mr. Pym: That is not true.
      Mr. Smith: If that is not true, I withdraw the suggestion and I substitute the alternative charge—to which I hope the right hon. Member will plead guilty—that he thought it so unimportant that he did not address himself to it.
      Mr. Brittan: The question is incapable of being answered.
      Mr. Smith: It is capable of answer. We believe that it is more appropriate for international obligations to be decided by the Government responsible to Parliament than to be referred to the national courts.
      The other argument was that there should be an initiative in Parliament to decide whether an action of the Assembly should be overruled. A number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate greatly overestimated the powers of control contained in Clause 35. They do not entitle the Secretary of State to act on each and every occasion on which he has a disagreement about policy. Clause 35 makes it clear that any action must relate to a reserved matter for which the United Kingdom remains responsible.
      If the Assembly takes action which is contrary to a United Kingdom interest there must be control. There must be control of this type in any shared Government such as that proposed by devolution. The Secretary of State would also have to obtain the approval of Parliament. That would be a disincentive to him making frequent use of it. We do not
      envisage that the power will be used frequently, but it is necessary as a constitutional longstop.
      The opportunity has been taken in the debate to make wide-ranging comments on the whole concept of devolution. But here we are dealing with specific amendments to the override clauses. I see no merit in the proposition that seeks to increase the powers of the House of Lords beyond those contained in the Bill. The House of Lords has a role to play, but it should not be in a position to block the will of the House of Commons in this matter.
      The other matters that have been advanced—
      It being Six o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 145, Noes 170.

      Division No. 154]

      AYES

      [6.00 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Alison, Michael

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Forman, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mather, Carol

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fox, Marcus

      Maude, Angus

      Bell, Ronald

      Fry, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Benyon, W.

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Monro, Hector

      Biffen, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gray, Hamish

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Blaker, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mudd, David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Neave, Airey

      Brittan, Leon

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nelson, Anthony

      Brooke, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Neubert, Michael

      Brotherton, Michael

      Holland, Philip

      Newton, Tony

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hordern, Peter

      Onslow, Cranley

      Buck, Antony

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Budgen, Nick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Channon, Paul

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Percival, Ian

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Cockcroft, John

      James, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

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

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Cope, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Raison, Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Knox, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Dunlop, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rhodes, James R.

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Luce, Richard

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Emery, Peter

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fell, Anthony

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Sproat, Iain

      Warren, Kenneth

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Stainton, Keith

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wells, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Tebbitt, Norman

      Sims, Roger

      Temple Morris, Peter

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Speed, Keith

      Townsend, Cyril D

      Mr. Michael Roberts.

      Spence, John

      Viggers, Peter

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Grant John (Islington C)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Anderson, Donald

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Pardoe, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Grocott, Bruce

      Park, George

      Ashton, Joe

      Harper, Joseph

      Parker, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Penhaligon, David

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hayman, Mrs Helena

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Heffer, Eric s.

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hooiey, Frank

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Bates, Alf

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Radice, Giles

      Bean, R. E.

      Horam, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Huckfield, Les

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ross, Paul B.

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hunter, Adam

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Bradley, Tom

      Janner, Greville

      Sandelson, Neville

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Campbell, Ian

      John, Brynmor

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Carmichael, Neil

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Silverman, Julius

      Cartwright, John

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Snape, Peter

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cowans, Harry

      Kelley, Richard

      Stallard, A. W

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Kerr, Russell

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Stoddart, David

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lamond, James

      Stott, Roger

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lee, John

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Litterick, Tom

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Dempsey, James

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Doig, Peter

      MacCormick, Iain

      Tinn, James

      Dormand, J. D.

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Edge, Geoff

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      English, Michael

      Madden, Max

      Watkins, David

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Watkinson, John

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Weetch, Ken

      Evans, Ioan (Aberoare)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Whitlock, William

      Faulds, Andrew

      Meacher, Michael

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mendelson, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Molloy, William

      Woof, Robert

      Ford, Ben

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Forrester, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Freud, Clement

      Oakes, Gordon

      George, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Golding, John

      Ovenden, John

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Padley, Walter

      Mr. Frank R. White.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.
      Question put, That part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 167. Noes 145.

      Division No. 155]

      AYES

      [6.13 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Anderson, Donald

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bean, R. E.

      Beith, A. J.

      Hooley, Frank

      Parker, John

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Penhaligon, David

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Horam, John

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Huckfield, Les

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Radice, Giles

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hunter, Adam

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Campbell, Ian

      Janner, Greville

      Rooker, J. W.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cartwright, John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      John, Brynmor

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cohen, Stanley

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Coleman, Donald

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Silverman, Julius

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kelley, Richard

      Snape, Peter

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Kerr, Russell

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Stallard, A. W.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lamond, James

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lee, John

      Stoddart, David

      Dempsey, James

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Stott, Roger

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Litterick, Tom

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Edge, Geoff

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      English, Michael

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Tierney, Sydney

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Tinn, James

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Madden, Max

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Watkins, David

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Watkinson, John

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mikardo. Ian

      Weetch, Ken

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ford, Ben

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)

      Whitlock, William

      Forrester, John

      Molloy, William

      Wigley, Dafydd

      George, Bruce

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Golding. John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Oakes. Gordon

      Woof, Robert

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Grocott, Bruce

      Ovenden, John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Harper, Joseph

      Padley, Walter

      Harrison. Rt Hon Walter

      Palmer, Arthur

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Hayman, Mrs Helena

      Pardoe, John

      Mr. Frank R. White and

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Park, George

      Mr. Alf Bates.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cope, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Alison, Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hicks, Robert

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Holland, Philip

      Awdry, Daniel

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hordern, Peter

      Bell, Ronald

      Duntop, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Edwaras, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Benyon, W.

      Emery, Peter

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      James, David

      Biffen, John

      Fell, Anthony

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

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Jessel, Toby

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Coyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Fox, Marcus

      Knox, David

      Brittan, Leon

      Fry, Peter

      Lamont, Norman

      Brooke, Peter

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Brotherton, Michael

      Glyn Dr Alan

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Godber Rt Hon Joseph

      Luce, Richard

      Buck, Antony

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Budgen, Nick

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Channon, Paul

      Gray, Hamish

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Grist, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Cockcroft, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mates, Michael

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mather, Carol

      300

      301

      Maude, Angus

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Skeet, T. H. R.

      Mawby, Ray

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Speed, Keith

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Spence, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Sproat, Iain

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Stainton, Keith

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Raison, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Molyneaux, James

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Monro, Hector

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Stradling Thomas. J.

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Rhodes, James R.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Temple Morris, Peter

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Mudd, David

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Neave, Airey

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Viggers, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Neubert, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Newton, Tony

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Wells, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

      Percival, Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. Peter Morrison.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 4 agreed to.

    Schedule 5

      RESERVED LOCAL MATTERS
      Amendment made: No. 296, in page 63, line 34, column 1, at end insert
      'Building regulations'.—[Mr. John Smith.]
      Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 38

      INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC GUIDELINES
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 145.

      Division No. 156]

      AYES

      [6.25 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Dempsey, James

      Janner, Greville

      Anderson, Donald

      Doig, Peter

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ashton, Joe

      Edge, Geoff

      John, Brynmor

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Atkinson, Norman

      English, Michael

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Bates, Alf

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Bean, R. E.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Beith, A. J.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Kelley, Richard

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Kerr, Russell

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lamborn, Harry

      Boardman, H.

      Ford, Ben

      Lamond, James

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Forrester, John

      Lee, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Freud, Clement

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      George, Bruce

      Litterick, Tom

      Bradley, Tom

      Golding, John

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Campbell, Ian

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Carmichael, Neil

      Grocott, Bruce

      Madden, Max

      Cartwright, John

      Harper, Joseph

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Coleman, Donald

      Heffer, Eric S

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hooley, Frank

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cowans, Harry

      Hooson Emlyn

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Horam, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Molloy, William

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Huckfield, Les

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hunter, Adam

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Ovenden, John

      Padley, Walter

      Silverman, Julius

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Pardoe, John

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Watkins, David

      Parker, John

      Snape, Peter

      Watkinson, John

      Penhaligon, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Weetch, Ken

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Radice, Giles

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Whitlock, William

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Stoddart, David

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Stott, Roger

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Woof, Robert

      Rose, Paul B.

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tierney, Sydney

      Mr. James Tina and

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Neubert, Michael

      Alison, Michael

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Newton, Tony

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gray, Hamish

      Onslow, Cranley

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Grist, Ian

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Bell, Ronald

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Percival, Ian

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Havers. Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Benyon, W.

      Hicks, Robert

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Holland, Philip

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Biffen, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Raison, Timothy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rhodes, James R.

      Brittan, Leon

      James, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Brooke, Peter

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

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Brotherton, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Buck, Antony

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Budgen, Nick

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Channon, Paul

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Lamont, Norman

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Cockcroft, John

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shepherd, Colin

      Cope, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Sims, Roger

      Cormack, Patrick

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Speed, Keith

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Sproat, Iain

      Drayson, Burnabv

      Mates, Michael

      Stainton, Keith

      Dunlop, John

      Mather, Carol

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maude, Angus

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mawby, Ray

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stradling Thomas. J.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbitt, Norman

      Emery, Peter

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Temple Morris, Peter

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fell, Anthony

      Molyneaux, James

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Monro, Hector

      Viggers, Peter

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Forman, Nigel

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Wells, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Fry, Peter

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mudd, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Neave, Airey

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Nelson, Anthony

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 39 disagreed to.
      Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.

    Clause 42

      WELSH CONSOLIDATED FUND AND LOANS FUND
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move Amendment No. 239, in page 15, line 31, leave out from "Fund" to end of line 35.

      305
      The clause has something positively Biblical about it:"
      There shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund".
      One is tempted to add "and the Ministers saw that it was good, and on the seventh day they rested." But there is a good deal of labour—and the referendum—to come before they can contemplate that.
      Inevitably, the financial provisions are the centre-piece of the Bill, and an examination of them may reveal a good deal about the nature of the legislation. When, shortly, I hope, we come to debate whether Clause 42 should be part of the Bill, there will be a great many questions to be considered.
      First, however, and very briefly, we have an amendment which asks a simple question: why have two funds? We can understand that
      "There shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund."
      It is a very credible proposition that there shall be a Welsh Loans Fund. It is, of course, a distinct possibility that an Assembly should decide to have both of them. But why should Parliament insist in such stentorian terms on this particular bookkeeping exercise? Bookkeeping exercise it is, no more and no less.
      Separate funds may be created in this grandiloquent way, but at any time the Executive Committee—that is to say, the Welsh Cabinet;—it is good to be reminded so clearly by the clause of the nature of the Executive Committee—or the Welsh Government, call it what we will, can, under subsection (2) of the clause, transfer sums from one fund to another whenever it pleases. It can apparently transfer up to the full £250 million that can be advanced to the Welsh Loans Fund from the National Loans Fund. The treasurer can, if he wishes, stand in the centre of the Coal Exchange and juggle the funds—tossing money from one to the other—until committee Members feel sick at the sight of his dexterity. At least, it will be an improvement on the occupation reported in the Welsh Press on 1st April, when we were informed—admittedly, before midday on that particular date—that there would be a bilingual bingo hall in the Assembly to amuse the Members. Bilingual bingo and juggling are likely to ensure that there will be a roaring demand for membership of the Assembly.
      306
      There are, apparently, to be no controls over this switching of funds. As I understand it, the Welsh Auditor General cannot stop it. He can stop payment out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. That is provided in Clause 43. Under Clause 45, he can stop payment out of the Welsh Loans Fund. But in neither case do his powers extend to transfers between the two funds. The only explanation given to us for the creation of these two separate funds is contained in paragraph 230 of the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy", which states:
      "Capital expenditure by local authorities and by other public bodies in devolved fields will continue to be financed by borrowing. Local authorities will continue to have access to the Public Works Loan Board. Other public bodies will have access to a new Welsh Loans Fund for longer-term borrowing, financed from the National Loans Fund and controlled by the Assembly. The main condition on its use will be that on-lending should not be at a lower rate of interest than the corresponding loan from the National Loans Fund."
      Mr. Dalyell: With regard to the question of a roaring demand for the Welsh Assembly, can it be a matter of record that the roaring demand from the Labour Back Benches consists of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)—who likes the idea about as much as I do—and for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who wants something very different from the Government?
      Mr. Edwards: That is absolutely right, but that has been the position throughout the proceedings on the Bill. We have one additional Member on the Government Benches. We welcome the fact that a Treasury Minister from Wales will reply to the debates on these financial provisions. If it was not for that, the numbers attending the debate would be even thinner.
      The use of the Welsh Loans Fund is, therefore, apparently to be confined to loans to public bodies other than local authorities and is controlled by Clause 45. But, as I have already pointed out, that clause does not limit the interchange-ability of the funds—the juggling operation which the Assembly is free to carry out. It is also true that Clause 47 states:
      "Payments … into the Welsh Loans Fund shall be deemed to be advances … and shall be repayable"

      307
      and subject to interest. As I see it, we do not have to create a separate fund to ensure that certain payments into it are repayable and subject to interest. If the Minister doubts that statement—if his credit is good enough—he had better go to see his bank manager to discover whether certain payments into his current account might not be repayable and subject to interest.
      This is a little curious. I put it no higher than that. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, Ministers have lectured us on how wrong it is for Parliament to dictate to the Assembly, which is to be a free and independent body. Yet here, on what appears to be an unimportant point on a matter of administration—on a matter concerned only with the way in which it keeps its books—there is the portentous pronouncement that "There shall be two funds, not one. Man and woman created He both."
      The difference is that man and woman were not interchangeable. They both had an essential part to play. If a single fund, instead of two funds, had been created by the Bill, there would have been no difference at all. Therefore, before we get on to the major issues raised by the clause, I ask two simple questions. Why insist in the Bill on separate funds, and why be so dictatorial about it?
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Dalyell: I should like to ask two questions at this stage. The first concerns the nature of the Executive. I have regularly attended every debate on the Wales Bill. Forgive me if I am ignorant, but I am still not at all clear about the nature of the Executive—about the nuts and bolts. Indeed, we never got round to discussing the nuts and bolts of the so-called Scottish Cabinet.
      It is right that one should ask these questions of a Treasury Minister, because he has to deal with the Civil Service aspects. Is it intended that the Executive should comprise full-time Members or part-time Members? Is it at all clear whether Members of the Welsh Assembly are to be full-time or part-time? If they are full-time, what on earth are they going to find to do for 37 weeks of the year, five days a week? If they are part-time, it throws a very different light on all these matters which we are discussing.
      The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I was hoping that during the Easter Recess the hon. Gentleman would have reflected upon his interventions during these debates on devolution. He must not get annoyed, but there is no question but that what he is saying with regard to this amendment is absolutely irrelevant and is out of order.
      Mr. Dalyell: Sir Myer, I am simply asking for information about—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. But it is not appropriate to ask for it at this stage. That is my point.
      Mr. Dalyell: Sir Myer—
      The First Deputy Chairman: On a point of order.
      Mr. Dalyell: I shall be brief. Am I not entitled to ask precisely what will be the nature of the Executive that we are discussing, because it is crucial to the amendment? Indeed, the whole question of the nature of the Civil Service is crucial to the amendment. I am asking factual questions as to the nature of the Executive and whether the Secretary of State will have his own Civil Service—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the question to me. The amendment deals with the question of whether there will be a Welsh Loans Fund. That is what we are discussing. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman uses every amendment to ask questions which he himself knows are wholly irrelevant to the amendments under discussion.
      Mr. Dalyell: Sir Myer, the amendment is certainly about a Welsh Loans Fund. But subsection (2) of the clause states:
      "The Executive Committee of the Assembly may from time to time cause sums to be transferred from one to the other of those Funds."
      I am simply asking who does it and what is the nature of their jobs.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I, too, would like to ask the Minister what is the reason for having this arrangement of the two Welsh funds. I can imagine the reason for having some money dealt with by the Consolidated Fund and some money by a Loans Fund, but it would appear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said in his introductory speech that there can be a regular

      309
      movement of money from the Welsh Consolidated Fund to the Welsh Loans Fund and, presumably, back again. That really does seem to be an extraordinarily strange position.
      In each case, payments can be made out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund only in accordance with certain credits granted on the fund by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. In the case of payments out of the Consolidated Fund—the conditions are laid down in Clause 43—and in the case of the Loans Fund, under Clause 45 it is prescribed that these payments shall be granted at the request of the Executive Committee of the Assembly.
      This could be done in a number of ways. It could be done in the form prescribed in the Bill with a separate Welsh Consolidated Fund and a Welsh Loans Fund. It could be done by relying on the general Consolidated Fund for the whole of the United Kingdom and a separate Welsh Loans Fund, or it could be done with one single fund. These are the main alternatives. I wonder what reason there is for the particular formula in the Bill, because it seems somewhat cumbersome. I may be misinterpreting the arrangements, but I believe that the objective could be achieved in a simpler way.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: We are dealing with the financial provisions of the Bill and the establishment and management of the Welsh Funds. The amendment seeks to delete the second part of Clause 42, which states:
      "The Executive Committee of the Assembly may from time to time cause sums to be transferred from one to the other of those Funds."
      Before we come to the question of the functions of the Executive Committee of the Assembly, I want to raise one or two questions about the identifiable public expenditure per head that is coming into Wales. Under the present arrangements in agriculture, the identifiable public expenditure per head is £29 in Wales compared with £15 in England. Therefore, Wales is better off.
      In trade and industry and employment, the identifiable public expenditure per head is £65 for Wales compared with £30 for England. Therefore, we are far better off under the existing arrangements. Similarly, with Government lending to the nationalised industries the amount of
      310
      expenditure per head for England is minus £3 compared with £31 for Wales. Once again, we are much better off. On roads and transport, expenditure in Wales is £52 a head compared with £4 in England.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
      Mr. Evans: I shall give way to the hon. Member, but I hope that his intervention on this occasion is not as misleading as on the previous occasion. When he last intervened, he asked about the views of my council as though he had more up-to-date information than I had But as I told him on that occasion the Cynon Valley Borough Council has thrown out the White Paper on this Bill. He should apologise for his last interruption.
      Mr. Thomas: I shall not be drawn into a discussion on my previous interventions in this debate. Will the hon. Member give the per capita figures for housing in England and Wales?
      Mr. Evans: I knew that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) would come to that. On this side of the Committee we want a fair and complete examination of the proposals before us. The trouble with the Plaid Cymru Party is that its Members scrape up the worst possible statistics, whereas we like to give a complete picture. If the hon. Member is patient, I shall come to the sectors of public expenditure in which Wales is at a disadvantage. I must add that his intervention on the last occasion was completely misleading, and I thought that he would have had the grace to apologise for a wrong interruption.
      On education, libraries, science and the arts, the identifiable public expenditure per head is £152 in Wales and £149 in England. On health and personal social services, it is £131 in Wales as compared with £129 in England. On social security—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Member knows that this has nothing to do with the question. The amendment raises the simple question of whether there should be one fund or two.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Would not the points being made by the hon. Member for

      311
      Aberdare (Mr. Evans) be wholly appropriate in the next debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I agree entirely. His remarks would be more appropriate then.
      Mr. Evans: I accept your ruling, Sir Myer. I shall continue with my argument then.
      What we are debating is the fact that the Executive Committee of the Assembly may from time to time cause sums to be transferred from one fund to another. The argument I am putting forward is this. Where is the extra expenditure to come from if not from the Consolidated Fund? I suggest that we would then need to think in terms of having this Welsh Loans Fund. If the Welsh Assembly is to be limited in public spending, which at the moment is far greater in Wales than in England, it will need power to raise money. Then we are dealing with the question of whether the Executive Committee would have to transfer funds from one fund to another. That is the point I want to make. Am I in order if I proceed along those lines?
      The First Deputy Chairman: No. The hon. Member should keep it until the clause stand part debate.
      Sir David Renton: I wish to seek information about the significance of the two funds. Before doing so, I must point out that I tried to get the information from the Explanatory Memorandum, but it is remarkably uninformative. It runs to half a page for the whole of Part V of the Bill, which contains eight pages of complicated clauses on financial matters.
      I remind the Minister that the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, which reported nearly three years ago and which the Government have largely ignored, said—and both Houses accepted this—that more explanation should be given of the contents of Bills brought before the House, especially those Bills that were complicated and related to financial matters. If ever there was a case when the House of Commons deserved to be better informed by the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, this is it.
      Being unable to find an explanation in the Financial Memorandum, I must
      312
      ask the Minister whether I have understood the position correctly. I take the reference to the Welsh Consolidated Fund to mean the annual block grant and the way in which that grant is to be placed in a fund at the disposal of the Welsh Assembly. I assume that that grant will be for expenditure mainly on current account but to some extent, no doubt, also on capital account. That matter should be clarified.
      Clause 42(2) says that:
      "The Executive Committee of the Assembly may from time to time cause sums to be transferred from one to the other of those Funds."
      That provision has several implications which we should try to understand. If I am wrong in my view, perhaps I may be told where I have gone wrong.
      7.0 p.m.
      The first implication is that if the Assembly finds that its block grant paid into the Consolidated Fund is not large enough, it can get round that by getting the money out of the Welsh Loans Fund. That Loans Fund will be an indirect, perhaps surreptitious, way of topping up the Consolidated Fund and of getting money for current expenditure, even though Parliament in its Estimates when considering the amount to be paid into the Consolidated Fund has not approved that expenditure. It appears to me that that is a way of getting round the decision of Parliament.
      Let me take the converse possibility—namely, the payment of money from the Welsh Consolidated Fund to the Welsh Loans Fund. One assumes that that would occur only if rather more money than was needed had been paid into the Consolidated Fund by way of block grant and that there was some surplus cash. Those concerned would not want to part with that money and would pay it into the Loans Fund—in other words, they would make a loan to themselves.
      Why should we have such contrivances? The House of Commons is accustomed to voting large sums of money to the Government and we do so in a fairly straightforward way. The Consolidated Fund plays a very important part in the process, but we do not encourage Government Departments—which are, so to speak, under our direct supervision—to jolly things along in the way I have described. We say to Government Departments "We have approved these

      313
      Estimates and in due course they will be subject to appropriations-in-aid". If we find that there is not enough and loans have to be raised by one means or another, we do not say to the Department "Pay the money into your departmental account in the ordinary way". The loan is expected to be for some specific purpose for which the Minister is accountable to Parliament. I am not a financier—I am a lawyer—but it seems to me that the Welsh Assembly will have a privileged financial opportunity which is not enjoyed by Government Departments.
      Sir Raymond Gower: No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will have noted that by Clause 47(1) such funds are referred to as
      "such sums as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine".
      We see in subsection (4) that the sums will not exceed £250 million.
      Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, because to that extent it completes the picture, but it does not answer completely either of my two main points.
      I am very much in the hands of the Chair in discussing whether the idea of a Welsh Loans Fund should be excluded. One should be clear in one's mind how the amounts of payments into the Consolidated Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund are to be determined and by what principles. We know from later clauses and from the Explanatory Memorandum that it will be the Secretary of State who, with the Treasury's consent, will be the responsible Minister in deciding how much is to be paid into those funds. But surely we should also determine on what broad principles the Secretary of State will make this annual decision—or, in the case of loans, it may be more frequent than an annual decision as long as it does not exceed £250 million in aggregate in regard to the Loans Fund.
      Those are the questions to which we require answers so that we may be able to deal with the amendment, understand the clause and be clear in our minds about the implications of the clauses that follow. I hope that the Minister will give the necessary explanations.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to
      314
      the latter part of Clause 45(1), which states:
      "No payment shall be made out of the Welsh Loans Fund except in accordance with credits granted on the Fund by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General; but this subsetion does not apply to transfers under Section 42(2) above".
      Sir D. Renton: My hon. Friend for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has a more adventurous disposition that I have. He referred to Clause 45, and there are various questions on the implications of those provisions on which we shall ask various questions in due course. For the time being I am trying to confine my remarks to Clause 42, and it might be better if I did not answer my hon. Friend's comment now.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: The longer one listens to this debate, the more extraordinary the arrangement seems. Each intervention produces evidence that goes against the arrangement proposed in the Bill.
      Why have two funds under which money can be swapped from one to the other under Clause 42(2)? Why have two funds when, although one fund may have an aggregate outstanding which should not exceed £250 million, that fund can borrow from the other fund? Why have two funds when, under Clause 48, short-term borrowings can be undertaken and such borrowings can be undertaken by swapping from one fund to the other? It appears to me that the whole arrangement is not simply cumbersome but is much more bureaucratic than it needs to be, and that it is likely to add considerably to the cost of administration.
      Perhaps there are good reasons for this arrangement, and, if there are, no doubt we shall hear them given in due course by the Minister. If there are good reasons, why on earth are they not included in the Explanatory Memorandum? If they were included, we would not have needed this probing amendment. This is of considerable importance when we are subjected to a guillotine. With a guillotine, the argument for the Explanatory Memorandum being full and comprehensive is strengthened.
      We have been landed with this legislation but without adequate explanation. In effect, we are being told "Accept it as it is". I trust that the Minister will be

      315
      able to produce some explanation of why it has been suggested that there should be two funds. Perhaps what has been said will persuade the Minister, even if he cannot accept this amendment, to put forward later amendments to ensure that there will be only one fund.
      The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): Perhaps I may try to assist the Committee by explaining the reasons for this clause, although strictly directing my remarks to the amendment. The amendment seeks to delete everything after the word "Fund" in Clause 42. The effect of the amendment, which apparently is now a probing amendment, would be to do away with the Welsh Loans Fund. As a consequence, subsection (2) would fall anyway because there would not be any other fund into which to switch money.
      Several hon. Members have asked why there should be two funds. This point has been answered, at least by implication. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) answered the question, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The Consolidated Fund is in receipt of Government grants for capital and some current expenditure. The Welsh Loans Fund is the devolved corollary of the National Loans Fund. I am sure that Tory Members would not wish to mix up a fund which is in receipt of grants with a fund which has the purpose of borrowing money and paying interest. It is to some extent a bookkeeping exercise, as the hon. Member for Pembroke said. He described it as such in a pejorative sense.
      The Tory Party is not, apparently, interested in bookkeeping and does not want to see something done properly. It is somehow bad to have proper financial mechanisms and control. We saw what happened when the Tories were in Government. We saw their failure in financial control.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: If we are setting up what is supposed to be an independent, democratic national Assembly, why is it necessary to insist exactly upon the structure of the bookkeeping at this stage in the proceedings?
      Mr. Davies: Because it is right that the House of Commons, which is the
      316
      sovereign body of the United Kingdom, should have a say in this and that the Act which sets up the Assembly should also set up these most important mechanisms. We think that these mechanisms, dealing with the control of money, to which expenditure is to be devolved and how it is to be controlled, are important. These are matters which should be covered in the Bill and should be debated here.
      Mr. Kinnock: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's general sentiments about expenditure control. Can he tell us on what basis the Consolidated Fund is to be calculated as this seems to be a central question posed by this and subsequent clauses?
      Mr. Davies: Whether it is a central question posed by this clause I will leave to your discretion, Sir Myer. I beg to differ with my hon. Friend. It is a central question to other parts of the Bill. Here we are concerned with the mechanism. I have explained what the mechanism is. Grants go to the Consolidated Fund, loans to the Welsh Loans Fund.
      Mr. Ian Grist: I do not quite follow that because Clause 48 (2) provides:
      "Sums borrowed by the Assembly shall be paid into the Welsh Loans Fund or the Welsh Consolidated Fund."
      It carries on in that style.
      Mr. Davies: We shall no doubt come to Clause 48. That clause deals with temporary, short-term borrowing, which is different from the kind of borrowing we speak of when we talk about the National Loans Fund and its corollary, the Welsh Loans Fund. The Welsh Loans Fund has been set up because there are certain bodies which at the moment have their borrowing done for them by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury. These bodies are listed in Clause 50(3). These bodies can borrow with the consent of the Secretary of State, or perhaps the Secretary of State borrows for them, from the National Loans Fund. They then use the borrowed money for authorised purposes.
      7.15 p.m.
      Since, in future, control over those bodies listed in Clause 50(3) will be transferred from the Secretary of State to the

      317
      Assembly it will not be appropriate constitutionally for them to borrow direct from the National Loans Fund because the National Loans Fund is responsible to the House and so is the Secretary of State. Since the Assembly would be controlling the borrowing of these bodies it is necessary that the Assembly should borrow from the Welsh Loans Fund. If we follow through these clauses, it will be seen that the Secretary of State has recourse to the National Loans Fund, which is responsible to the House of Commons. Its activities can be looked at by the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General. We have a mirror image of that in the Welsh Assembly. These bodies will borrow from the Welsh Loans Fund through the Welsh Assembly which will be controlling their borrowing. The scrutiny of the Welsh Loans Fund will fall to the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I believe that the Minister of State has gone some way to explaining the situation. Would it not be preferable, if there are to be two funds, that there should not be this transferability? In other words, if the money is granted from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into the Welsh Consolidated Fund and other sums of money are transferred from the National Loans Fund into the Welsh Loans Fund, why is it necessary to have this distortion, this topping-up process as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) described it, which may arise because of the transferability?
      Mr. Davies: I am coming to that point. The hon. Member for Pembroke rightly made the point that this transfer of money was only between the one fund and the other. It will be seen that money cannot be paid out for purposes other than the original purposes of the fund. In other words, if money is transferred from the Welsh Consolidated Fund to the Welsh Loans Fund—and I will give die reason for that in a moment—that money cannot be transferred out of those two funds except for the purposes for which it was paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
      In other words, one could not use grant money for loans out of the Welsh Loans Fund because the Comptroller and Auditor General has to issue a certificate and
      318
      the Assembly has to give the authorisation. The reason why there can be a transfer between the funds, not out of the funds, for purposes different from the original purpose connected with the giving of the money has to do with simple cash flow. One fund might be in surplus while another might be in deficit. Money may have been paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund and no money may have been paid out because various authorisations were not needed. There might be a surplus in that fund and a deficit on the Welsh Loans Fund because money had been paid out and not borrowed One of the funds could go to the bank and get an overdraft to cover its cash problems.
      Clause 48 deals with short-term borrowing. It is possible for a fund to borrow by way of overdraft or otherwise on a temporary basis to meet a cash problem because payments in and out may not match each other. Contract payments may not become due. To obviate the need for that, and, I would have thought, acting on the principles of good housekeeping which the Tory Party sometimes adheres to, if there is a surplus in one fund and a deficit in the other and money is needed, instead of one fund having to go to a bank and pay interest, the surplus from one fund can be transferred so that excessive interest charges do not have to be paid.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I can understand the point about getting back into balance a fund which was previously in deficit, but the Minister of State has said that moneys can be paid out of either fund only for the original purpose for which the moneys were provided. In other words, loan fund moneys can be paid out only for loans and Consolidated Fund loans can be paid out only for Consolidated Fund purposes. In those circumstances I do not see how one can conceivably make up the deficit in the other fund, because the fact that there is a deficit means that moneys have been paid out for other purposes. What the Minister is saying now is in direct contradiction to what he said in his previous sentence.
      Mr. Davies: I am surprised at the financial innocence, if I may put it in a nice way, of Conservative Members. All I am saying is that in one of the funds

      319
      there may be a deficit and that it may have to borrow from the bank to cover the deficit on a short-term basis. Instead of having to do that, money can be put into the account which is in overdraft, which then eliminates the overdraft. The money does not go out of the fund. It is not used for any other purposes. It means that the bank does not get the interest on the overdraft. That is all.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman says that the money does not come out again having been transferred, but what happens if a positive decision is made to overdraw on the first fund so as to enable moneys from the other fund to be transferred to write off the overdraft?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is now becoming extremely clever and postulating all sorts of odd situations. Why should anybody wish to do that anyway? It is a simple proposition that here we have a Welsh Assembly with two funds and one happens to be in surplus and the other in deficit. If it evens them out, it does not have to pay interest to the bank.
      Mr. Kinnock: Are we to depend on the fortuitous event of a surplus existing in one fund, that is to say, the Consolidated Fund? I understood my right hon. Friend to say that moneys cannot be moved from the loan fund into the Consolidated Fund. It can only be a one-way flow for this evening-out, debt-avoiding and overdraft-avoiding purpose. Are we to depend upon this coincidence of a surplus in one fund occurring at the same time as there is a deficit in the other?
      Far from its being an extraordinary circumstance, does my right hon. Friend believe, against a background of today's realities, that it is likely to be a conventional situation or one which will arise with every other blue moon?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend began his intervention by saying that there could only be a one-way transfer of moneys from one fund to the other. There is positively a two-way transfer from the one fund to the other. How often this will happen I do not know. There is no way of knowing. But it is a safeguard to enable the Assembly—I am sure my
      320
      hon. Friend would agree with this—not to have to pay exorbitant interest charges that the bankers demand from time to time. It is to keep down the expenditure of the Welsh Assembly.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is it either wrong or over simplifying the matter to say that funds earmarked or authorised for one purpose are to be used for another purpose? Am I wrong in that proposition?
      Mr. Davies: They will not be used for another purpose because the moneys cannot leave the fund for any purpose other than the original one. Moneys can be used to reduce an overdraft, but that is to discharge a debt to the bank—a debt of interest. It is not a payment out of the fund.
      Mr. Kinnock: Other than when playing darts, I become confused at the mere mention of figures. As it is impossible and not tenable to use moneys for purposes other than those for which they have been allocated, can my right hon. Friend describe circumstances in which allocations made to the Welsh Assembly by the Treasury for the purpose of road expenditure are used to balance up a deficit in the loan fund simply because a road contractor has not sent in his bill on a monthly basis? Is that the situation we are considering, or is it more complex and esoteric?
      Mr. Davies: It is perhaps simpler than that. My hon. Friend should not get carried away with the specific items of expenditure. We simply have in the one fund a surplus. That may be money not earmarked for any purpose except that it is a grant from the Government. In the other fund we have a deficit, for various reasons, which is quite possible when payments are moving in and out. It does not make sense. No company would operate on that basis. If a company had two bank accounts it would not keep one in surplus and one in deficit and incur interest on the one in deficit. No company would keep the one in surplus and the other in deficit and incur interest charges. This is a normal power given to the Welsh Assembly to obviate the need to pay out interest so that the money can go to road building and not to bankers.
      Sir Raymond Gower: The Minister is saying in a very plausible way—to some

      321
      people in a reassuring way—that this is merely meant to stop an overdraft. He also made some fulminations about the bankers. But there is nothing in the Bill about overdrafts. There is nothing to say that the money is to be used only for overdraft purposes. That is merely the Minister's view.
      Mr. Davies: It cannot be used for any other purpose. There is in the Bill something about overdrafts. There is a provision which the hon. Member for Pembroke mentioned. He said that the moneys cannot be transferred from the funds; they can be transferred only within the funds. To transfer the money out of the funds would require a certificate from the Auditor and Comptroller General and authorisation from the Assembly. The Assembly cannot authorise capital moneys to be used for any other purposes.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: I shall not give way yet. I am answering the point raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). If the hon. Member for Pembroke is not satisfied he can make another intervention. The hon. Member for Pembroke said, quite rightly, that moneys cannot be paid out of the one fund without the authorisation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and, indeed, of the Welsh Assembly. This is provided for in Clauses 43, 44 and 45. There can be only a transfer between one fund and the other. Money can only be placed from the bank account of one fund into the bank account of the other. If the funds want to shift it backwards and forwards for no reason they can do it.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that if we did away with the Welsh Loans Fund we would make life difficult for whoever would be responsible for administering the finances of the Welsh Assembly? Why deny the Welsh people the right to have two funds to run a successful Assembly for the people of Wales?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. These worthy bodies have been approved by the House and they need a mechanism to borrow money for worthy capital expenditure. This clause provides them with that mechanism.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am genuinely seeking information. When I tabled the amendment, I thought that I was making a very innocent point in order to obtain information. It is in that spirit only that I intervene again. The Minister has satisfied us on all but one point, on which I still require guidance. It is a matter of interpretation of the Bill.
      The Minister has made clear that money can be taken out of the funds only for specified purposes. I understand that in relation to the money while it is in the funds, but I am not clear where the Bill states that once money has been transferred it can still be used only for the original purpose for which it was restricted in the fund in which it was first placed.
      When the money is in the loans fund, clearly it can be used only for loans fund purposes and when money is in the Consolidated Fund it can be used only for Consolidated Fund purposes. I am not clear where the Bill says that money transferred from the loans fund to the Consolidated Fund can still be used only for loans fund purposes.
      If the Minister can satisfy me on that point, I shall be fully satisfied with his explanation.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will find the explanation in Clauses 43 to 45 where reservation is made in respect of transfers under Clause 42(2). In respect of any other transfers, credits must be granted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of course the money is still the money of the original fund and not the money of the other fund. That is why it cannot be used for any other purpose. The Assembly cannot authorise it to be used for any other purpose. The moneys have to be kept separate.
      Sir David Renton: A good deal of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation appears rather more Irish than Welsh.
      There is one point on which I am still perplexed. Despite there being nothing in the Bill about overdrafts, the Minister said—and it is a reasonable proposition—that high interest charges should not be incurred. But suppose the Consolidated Fund runs into deficit. To whom is the interest to be paid? Is not the interest, in any event, to be fixed by the Treasury? If the Welsh Loans Fund runs into deficit

      323
      to whom is that interest to be paid? Will the Treasury have any say in the amount of interest that is to be charged? On what relationship to the minimum lending rate will such interest charges be made.
      As the Minister has based a part of his case on the threat of high interest charges, he should make clear what he really has in mind.
      Mr. Davies: Perhaps we should start from Clause 48. Each fund has the power to borrow if it is in deficit, which it could very well be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said. The contract payment may have to be paid when money has not come in. Normally the fund would have to borrow.
      We are concerned here with short-term borrowing, although there is a limit on the amount. If it has to borrow, then it has to incur interest charges. Rather than having to pay interest charges, which may not always be exorbitant—I accept that there are beneficent bankers—if there is a surplus in one fund, one avoids the interest payments.
      Sir David Renton: The Minister has sought refuge in Clause 48, though he told one of my hon. Friends, who relied upon it, that it was not relevant to the situation that arises under Clause 42. Clause 48 refers to short-term borrowing, and the Bill is rather more specific there than in these earlier clauses.
      Is there anything in Clauses 43 to 47 which gives us any idea as to how the interest liability will be met or of the dilemma in which the executive committee of the Assembly may find itself as a result of having to pay what the Minister described as high interest charges that bankers make? Is it not a fact that all interest charges will be under the control of the Treasury?
      Mr. Davies: No. In Clause 48 there is the power of short-term temporary borrowing, which the Treasury defines as borrowing for less than 12 months. I do not want to go into Clause 48 now. That deals with borrowing by overdraft from banks. I do not think that the Treasury gives overdrafts. To obviate the need for such borrowing, we have provided in Clause 42(2) that if there is a surplus in one fund, the Assembly will
      324
      not have to borrow by overdraft from the banks.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: Why does the Comptroller and Auditor General not have to authorise or be informed of any transfer under Clause 42(2)?
      Mr. Davies: Because it is purely a book transfer and a levelling out of the balance between one fund and another. The character of the money does not change. That character changes only when a certificate is given by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The original purpose of the money does not change until it goes out of the fund for purposes authorised by the Assembly.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: My right hon. Friend has great knowledge about this subject and this is a complex financial matter. Unfortunately, it is likely that we shall not be able to debate Clause 48. My right hon. Friend has mentioned that under that clause the Assembly may borrow in sterling by way of overdraft to meet the eventuality of its expenditure exceeding its funds. The clause mentions that the principal of sums borrowed by the Assembly shall not exceed £35 million, but how is this to be controlled? If there are special circumstances, the amount could be well in excess of that figure. Will this mean that the Assembly will have to go into the red?
      Mr. Davies: It would mean that the Assembly could not borrow any more. It can borrow up to £35 million and not a penny more. Clearly there must be financial rectitude in the Assembly, and that is why we were concerned to lay down a limit. However, this refers only to temporary borrowing by overdraft and not to borrowing for capital expenditure.
      I presume that this is a probing amendment. We have had a useful debate and I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by hon. Members. If the Opposition seek to press the amendment, I urge the Committee to resist it.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I had not intended to speak again, but when we started on this little amendment I did not imagine that it would raise so many issues or that the explanations of the Minister of State would be so unsatisfactory. I am not fully satisfied with the answer that the Minister has given to

      325
      my last question. I have read the clauses again and I am not satisfied that there is anything to prevent the funds, once they have been transferred, being used for the purposes of the new fund rather than the original fund.
      I think that the proper course is to consider carefully what the Minister has said and to leave the matter for the moment. If we are not satisfied and we find that the Minister has misled us, we may return to the matter at a later stage. I am bound to say that I am not satisfied that there is the control that the right hon. Gentleman says exists. In his explanation to me, he did not point out in either clause where the safeguard is supposed to lie.
      Mr. Dalyell: Why should the hon. Gentleman be surprised that this probing amendment should reveal these difficulties? Has not it been the story throughout the 36 days that we have considered devolution for Scotland and Wales? Whenever we have had the time to go into any detail, difficulties have arisen. Much more has been revealed when we have opened the manhole than any of us expected.
      Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has much more experience in these matters than I have. That is because he played a notable part in the proceedings on the Scotland Bill, from which duty I was substantially spared. I am sure that he is right. It is true that at every stage we have come up against matters that do not bear thorough examination. The Minister has offered an explanation on an extremely complicated set of clauses. We shall have to read in Hansard what he says and consider his remarks carefully. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage.
      Sir David Renton: Before my hon. Friend seeks to withdraw the amendment, which I presume he intends to do, I should like to ask the Minister of State if he will be so good—we realise that he has done his best—as to consider between now and Report having some amendments drafted, and in due course moving them, to enable effect to be given to the explanation that he has attempted to give to the Committee today. I do not say that such amendments should go into great detail.
      326
      However, we are dealing with public money. We are the people who will have to account to our constituents, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, for whatever money is voted for the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, I suggest that there should be a plainer statement in the statute. Normally I am against too much detail in statutes, and I am on record as saying so, but when we have public money to be voted I believe that the principle on which it is voted should be stated without going into much detail.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: I take up the point that I made when speaking on the amendment. I shall try to be brief in developing it. Identifiable public expenditure per head by programme and country according to the 1976–77 provision is better in Wales than in England in terms of agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry. The same applies to industry, employment, Government lending to nationalised industries, road and transport, education, libraries, science, art, health, personal social services, social security and other public services.
      I appreciate that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), speaking for Plaid Cymru, said from a sedentary position that the needs for such services may be greater in Wales, as they are in Scotland, than in parts of England, and that is why the present situation is as it is.
      We are talking about the financial provisions of the Bill, and I hope, Sir Myer, that you will allow some latitude on this clause as it is likely that some of the other clauses dealing with financial provision will not be reached because of the implementation of the guillotine.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Generally speaking, the Chair cannot allow clauses that are not before the Committee to be discussed because of the existence of the guillotine.
      Mr. Evans: I merely point out, Sir Myer, that the clause deals with financial

      327
      provision and that the Committee's attention is being directed to the purpose for which the funds are to be used.
      It is true that expenditure on housing, law and order and common services is higher in England than it is in Wales. However, there is a whole range of services on which expenditure in Wales is greater than in England. There are other environmental services on which expenditures per head of population are equal as between Wales and England. However, whereas in England the total identifiable public expenditure per head by programme and country for 1976–77, which is provisional, is £754, in Wales, under the existing financial arrangements, it is £875. There is a difference of £121 per head of the population between Wales and England.
      There is a good case for Wales obtaining a larger share of public expenditure. That is because of need. For example, there will be more pensions to be paid out in an ageing population. In Wales there is a need for higher expenditure than in England for a variety of reasons. The geography of an area has to be considered. Scotland gets more than Wales, and Scotland is entitled to receive more than Wales and England because of its geography.
      Mr. Dalyell: Let us suppose that in a previous incarnation my hon. Friend was the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Yardley, and Birmingham had unemployment and inner city problems. Given that the Scots and the Welsh had Assemblies of their own, for how long would my hon. Friend settle, as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Yardley, for anything other than neither more nor less strict per capita expenditure, not based on need? Once we start introducing the question of national identity, there will be others looking hawk-like at expenditure that goes above per capita expenditure.
      Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend leads me to the point that I was about to make. Everyone accepts under present arrangements that it is on the basis of need that we should make a financial allocation, but what will happen with the Welsh Consolidated Fund when the Assembly is created, or with the Scottish Consolidated Fund when the Scottish Assembly
      328
      is created? We are bound to anticipate a situation in which Members of the House of Commons who come from England will ask "How is it that the amount being given to the Welsh Consolidated Fund is so much when Merseyside, the North-West, the North-East and other parts of England have been affected in the same way by the Industrial Revolution?"
      Mr. Kinnock: An interesting sidelight is thrown on the case that my hon. Friend is now advancing by quoting Councillor Aneurin Richards, the leader of the Plaid Cymru group of my local borough council, who told the council a fortnight ago when it was considering devolution that we have to have devolution in Wales because if we do not do what the Scots do we in Wales will be paying for the Scots. That is an interesting sidelight on the fraternity of the nationalists.
      Mr. Evans: We all know what the Scottish nationalists think about the oil in Scotland. Unlike most Scottish people, the Scottish nationalists have an attitude that amounts to greed. However, the Shetlands put a spanner in the works. The Shetlanders say that the oil is theirs and that it should be shared among the people of Britain as a whole.
      There is the danger of a selfish approach to the situation. As an island, we have tended to look at the financial needs of areas irrespective of whether they are Welsh, Scottish, English or Northern Irish. Those needs have been met by the House of Commons on criteria which know no boundaries. That is the important part.
      If we create an Assembly to function in a geographical area, we shall inevitably get to a situation where in future the allocation will be on a per capita basis. It will be difficult to create a financial formula which gives Scotland more than Wales and England and which gives Wales more than England. We must address ourselves to that matter. That is the question that the people of Wales will be looking at when they vote in the referendum. The danger is that, when talking about creating an Assembly for Wales, we may give the impression that we are giving the people of Wales something without their having to pay for it in some other way.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting to the people of Wales that the Labour Government will not grant moneys to the Welsh Assembly to look after the interests of the Welsh people on the same basis as at present.
      Mr. Evans: I was making no such suggestion. At the moment, public expenditure throughout these islands is met on certain criteria which are laid down by the House of Commons. In future, if we change the method of allocating finance to Wales and to Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, there will be closer examination by hon. Members here of the allocations to those Assemblies.
      Mr. Geraint Ho wells: Why?
      Mr. Evans: Because they will be performing their functions as Members of the House of Commons. We shall then find that, instead of the allocations being based on need as now, they will be based on a per capita formula. I may not carry the hon. Gentleman with me, despite the Lib-Lab pact, but I say that it is good Socialism. It should be according to the needs of the people, not according to any geographical criteria.
      Once we create Assemblies with powers to deal with financial arrangements, I believe that there will be a close examination here. It may be that in the Assembly the hon. Member for Merioneth will make the point that Wales is not spending as much as England on housing. The hon. Gentleman nods his head. The Members in England will then give a whole catalogue of services on which expenditure in Wales exceeds that in England. That is how the argument will be put.
      Mr. W. Benyon: Surely it is more than that. Will any Welsh Assemblyman worth his salt press for an increase, not a decrease, in the various amounts?
      Mr. Evans: I shall be coming to that point later.
      The capital expenditure is explained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The capital expenditure to be incurred to establish the Welsh Assembly
      "is estimated to comprise (at November 1977 prices):
      330

      (i) about £3 million on the adaptation and equipment of the Exchange in Cardiff for use of the Assembly;

      (ii) about £1 million on the provision and equipment of office accommodation arising from the creation of the Assembly and the consequent reorganisation of the Welsh Office.

      Additional annual running costs, from the takeover of responsibilities, are broadly assessed as follows (at November 1977 prices):
      (iii) about £3 million in respect of salaries and related costs of members of the Welsh Assembly and in respect of services for the Assembly;
      (iv) about £9½ million in respect of additional civil servants in Wales, including staff of the Welsh Comptroller and Audtitor General and related costs, including accommodation costs."
      Are those running costs to come from the Consolidated Fund, or are they to be in addition to the funds allocated to the Consolidated Fund?
      If in future the amount allocated to Wales is to be on a different formula, the cost of running the Assembly will be deducted from that amount. That will be to the detriment of public expenditure in Wales. Are these additional costs to be added to the existing public expenditure allowed to Wales or are they to be deducted from it? That important question needs to be posed in determining the function of these funds.
      I fear that, as the years go by and we determine the allocations for England, Wales and Scotland, the basis will be not on need but on £X per head of the population. There is a tendency when talking of the Welsh Assembly to give the impression that Wales is getting something extra. I believe that we shall get something in place of the existing structure which financially could be detrimental. We do not know. We cannot say with certainty what the effect will be but it could be detrimental.
      What will happen if expenditure exceeds the block grant to the Welsh Consolidated Fund? What will happen if the Welsh Assembly, having spent money on certain services, exceeded the allocated amount? We know that it will be given certain powers to raise loans. We know that for the time being it will be allowed to run an overdraft. But where will that lead us? How long would it be before the Assembly sought additional taxation powers? The hon. Member for Merioneth nods his head.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas indicated dissent.
      Mr. Evans: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was agreeing. I suggest that he had better watch that matter. If, in addition to existing taxes, Wales—and Scotland for that matter—is to have additional taxes, I believe that that would have to be examined very carefully. I do not think that we shall attract industry to Wales if the Assembly is to have powers of taxation in addition to those on the other side of the boundary.
      I believe that the question of tax-raising powers has been examined by those who drafted both the Scotland and the Wales Bills. There are serious problems. Indeed, we cannot deal with them because there is no Ways and Means resolution before the Committee. Additional taxation powers would require a Ways and Means resolution. That point must be borne in mind in both Wales and Scotland. If the Assembly is not to be tied absolutely to the allocation of funds made by the House of Commons, there will be an attempt to try to bring forward amending legislation in future to provide additional revenue-raising powers. As has been said, a district council or a county council has the power to raise money through rates. The Welsh Assembly will be a purely spending authority. It will be allocated funds by the House of Commons, but it will have no power to raise its own funds.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Assembly will control the rate support grant? It will therefore be able to hold back support from local authorities, force them to raise their rates and thereby add to the total of resources available to the local authorities and to the Assembly.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Member would agree with me that the future is a little uncertain. If the Assembly is established and carries on for many years, we do not know what the future of local government will be.
      It has been said that the district and county councils will go and that new local government units will be created. This is something for the future. The county councils committee is worried that the financial provisions in the Bill will effect the present rate support grant. After the Assembly is established, the Welsh
      332
      Assembly will be able to have some say in determining what funds are to be allocated to local authorities.
      When the House of Commons has to go to the people to raise taxation, it is answerable for raising that money. However, if we create a body which is not answerable for raising taxes it will be only a spending authority. That arrangement will sow the seeds of conflict.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that Members of an elected Assembly will be responsible men. Of course they will. But, if a minority says that not enough is being spent by the Assembly on education, housing, roads and other services, does anyone believe that the Liberals will say that the Assembly is spending too much? Of course not. The situation will affect all the Members of the Assembly.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows more than anyone that the books have to be balanced and that thought has to be given to where the money is to come from.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend appears to be saying that democratic bodies should not have the power to control their own spending but that some other body should have that power.
      Mr. Evans: No. My right hon. Friend is missing the point. The Bill creates a body which is not responsible for raising money. The allocation of money will be made by the House of Commons. The only power that the Assembly will have is for spending that money. The Assembly will have to come to the House and ask for increases. All the Members of the Welsh Assembly will want to spend more money, as we want more money to be spent on Wales. That is natural. We have argued well the case for more money to be spent on Wales. Public expenditure per head in Wales is now greater than it is in England. But the Bill creates a situation in which the Assembly will not have the duty to raise revenue but will have power to spend money. The separation of the spending and the raising of money will create difficulties.
      The local government problem is different. Local authorities are given a specific grant. If they want to spend more, they have to raise their rates. The restraint on local authorities is that they must go back to the local people and tell

      333
      them that they must pay more rates, and the demand is then diminished. That will not happen in the Assembly.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend accept that this lack of responsibility for the Assembly will lead to an inherently unstable situation which is bound to lead to demands for the Assembly to have its own taxation policies, and that it proves the case that the Assembly as envisaged can only be a staging post?
      Mr. Evans: We have had these proposals from the Government Front Bench, and it is felt that they will unify the people of these islands. But I am convinced that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) said, this is only a move on the way to other things. This will not be permanent but will be temporary. The demand will be created for the Assembly to have financial powers, and we shall then move towards separatism. The purpose of the Bill is to reject that.
      The financial provisions in the Bill will create a source of conflict if the people of Wales decide by referendum to have an Assembly.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: From what the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) has said, it is clear that these financial clauses bring us to some of the central issues of the whole debate. There are to be funds and in the explanation of their nature much of the Government's intentions will be revealed.
      The clause does something important, but it tells us very little about the process of doing it. The clause is qualified or elaborated in various ways in subsequent clauses, but they, too, leave many of the questions unanswered. We have come to one of the great unsolved mysteries of the Bill. We shall have to refer in passing to later clauses because they help to explain the nature of what is happening in this clause.
      We all agree that the financial provisions are central to any structure of government, yet there seems to be a deliberate attempt by the Government to hide their intentions in obscurity. Paragraph 77 of the White Paper on finance tells us that these intentions cannot be defined in statute. Paragraph 78 says that Ministers intend to propose an approach, on
      334
      the lines set out in paragraph 76, to the devolved Administrations as soon as they are elected. But the key paragraph, paragraph 76, sets out what is described as no more than "a promising approach". It would be to relate the total of devolved public expenditure in Scotland and Wales to comparable expenditure elsewhere in the country on the basis of relative need and to express it as a percentage of comparable expenditure in the country as a whole.
      Surely, even in these extraordinary times, it must be considered a little unusual for us to be asked to pass legislation which makes no attempt to define the Government's intentions in statutory form but leaves us with writing what amounts to a blank cheque based on no more than "a promising approach" and the hope that negotiations with a future Assembly might be successful.
      The House, in considering the orders that no doubt will be laid in due course under the provisions of Clauses 46 and 47, and the Assembly, in preparing its approach to the negotiations when they take place, are surely entitled to have a concept of what Parliament intended when it prepared the legislation.
      Our Amendment No. 253, which has not been called, and later Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 attempt to spell out the "promising approach" described by the Government in paragraph 76. They would provide a minimum safeguard for the Assembly and, more importantly, for the people of Wales that, whatever formula is reached in the negotiations—which, we are told in the White Paper, but not in the Bill, are to take place every four years—each year Wales will get as much as England on a per capita basis and that, in addition, proper regard will be paid to the needs of the Assembly. As we shall see, and as the hon. Member for Aberdare has said, per capita equality on its own would not be enough.
      So modest are our Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 that if we had had the opportunity of pressing them to a vote I think that the Government would have been bound to accept them. However, we now have to discuss the skeleton of the Government's proposals. I hope that the Minister of State will spell out with greater clarity than has been done so far

      335
      exactly what the Government have in mind.
      So important are the financial provisions that it is no exaggeration to say that the success or failure of any scheme for devolution must depend on the soundness of their design. They are the linchpin of the structure. If they are faulty, the consequences must be the friction, bad government and bitterness to which the hon. Member for Aberdare referred.
      Unfortunately, as the Kilbrandon Commission told us frankly in paragraph 565,
      "Such schemes are difficult to devise."
      If they provide a substantial measure of financial autonomy for the subordinate Government, they will invite
      "a much greater degree of political controversy between regions, and between regions and the centre, than now exists."
      It goes on to say:
      "Some regional pressures are brought to bear on questions of finance under the present system, but everything is negotiated and decided within the ambit of one central government. Financial autonomy in the regions would make the debate public, and the attitudes of the negotiating parties would inevitably harden. Such a development could introduce a spirit of contention and divisiveness into British politics which would weaken the unity of the country. On the other hand people may feel that more open controversy is needed in the interests of democracy and to ensure that financial justice is being done to all regions There is some force in both these points of view."
      We are therefore warned that if the Government get this difficult business wrong we are likely to produce the increase in conflict that those of us who value unity fear and in which those who look to the break-up of the United Kingdom positively revel. As Mr. John Osmond triumphantly proclaims in his book,
      "The block grant negotiations conceived in the Labour Government's devolution policy would become a major arena for conflict between Wales and Westminster."
      Wales, for reasons that I shall elaborate later and which have been explained to us, obtains a good deal more than its per capita share because of its special needs. At the moment, this process happens without much argument and without arousing jealousy from the English regions, some of which finance the process and others of which face comparable problems.
      336
      The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred a short time ago to some of the problems of the inner city regions. That is because part of the process at present happens automatically through, for example, payments of social security or disability benefit and some of it happens because of the pressures and influence of the Secretary of State, but the debate then goes on within the Government and if a row occurs it does so within the confines of the Cabinet or Cabinet committees. In any case, the argument is conducted piecemeal, programme by programme. It deals with education, housing, roads and so on separately. In that form, the extra sums involved do not appear very large. However, the block grant will be negotiated as a lump sum. It will be a large sum—probably, by now, about £1,000 million. It will be subject to debate in the House and to a good deal of public argument in the Assembly and in the English regions. As the Kilbrandon Commission said in paragraph 595 of its report,
      "technical difficulties would inevitably arise in attempting to formalise what is now informal; and political difficulties could be expected to arise from revealing year by year what is now not merely undisclosed but largely unrecorded."
      It is a delusion to imagine that the Government could have avoided these difficulties if, instead of a block grant system—that is, the expenditure-based system—they had gone for a revenue system in which the Assembly raised most of its own taxes. The arguments against such a system seem considerable. Kilbrandon felt that for most people equity was more important than regional independence, and, therefore, opted for the expenditure basis.
      8.15 p.m.
      In the White Paper on finance, paragraph 12 points out that, because Wales needs to spend so much more than it can raise in taxes, there will have to be a topping-up process by the central Government, and there would still have to be an assessment of needs even if we approached the matter in that way. Since people want to enjoy broadly comparable standards, some kind of block grant system is almost inevitable. Northern Ireland in practice, faced by the realities of the situation, moved away from the revenue-based system that it had been given at the outset.

      337
      The complications and the potential for conflict arise not from the fact that the Government have selected from among the possible options the one least likely to succeed but because these complications and conflicts are unavoidable in a set-up in which there are two Governments in a single States, one of which is responsible for providing the money and the other for spending it. That was the point that was rightly and forcefully made by the hon. Member for Aberdare. It is the nature of the devolution scheme rather than of the financial solution which is at the hub of the problem.
      There will be two Governments, yet in "Our Changing Democracy" Ministers tell us that
      "Further study has confirmed that this is inescapable. Economic unity requires a system which considers the expenditure needs of the whole United Kingdom, including the claims of regions with special problems. This requires a decision each year on public expenditure for all parts of the United Kingdom by the Government, answerable to Parliament."
      So we have one Government deciding on public expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole and another with a completely different interest—that of maximising the expenditure in its own particular area, and maximising it for perfectly respectable and legitimate reasons.
      There is no point at which conflict is more inevitable than at this point in the Bill. There is no point at which it is more fundamental in its consequences. Even the Government admit in their White Paper that the task involves
      "judgments of grave complexity and political sensitivity."
      It is clear that the problems inherent in a block grant system are very formidable. Kilbrandon summed them up very well. I quote:
      "At one extreme there is the detailed measurement of needs in individual services, together with specific payments to match those needs; at the other extreme there is the general measurement of needs by an arbitrary formula, and the satisfaction of those needs by a block grant. The first approach allows for maximum equity. The second gives most independence. The more refined the process of measurement becomes, the closer will be the investigation of expenditure plans. The danger with a block grant formula, on the other hand, is that it will break down in practice because its measurement of needs is too rough. The poorer regions particularly would fear this danger."
      338
      The Kilbrandon Commissioners were led on to propose a solution of labyrinthine complexity involving an independent Exchequer Board which would adjudicate on the different allocations between the various parts of the United Kingdom. That scheme has been turned down by the Government on the grounds that these things cannot be done on a scientific basis and that the matter of deciding on the allocation of funds is essentially political. Yet the process to take the place of the Exchequer Board system remains obscure.
      We are told in paragraph 71 of the White Paper that it would be rather nice to have some information on which to make these political judgments. It continues
      "Studies are now being undertaken within Government Departments with the aim of collecting objective information on needs and standards of public services in all four countries of the United Kingdom. The Government hope this information will help them and the devolved administrations to make informed judgments on levels of expenditure and to explain them publicly."
      They may hope so, and we hope so too, but we would like to know how these studies are getting on. I put these specific questions to the Minister: what progress has been made, and what are the results?
      Then the Government propose establishing an independent advisory body to collect information and advise on its implications. What form is the body to take? What is to be its size? How many civil servants will it employ? What will be its costs? Are the costs and the numbers involved included in the total figures given in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill? We must have answers on these points.
      It really is not good enough to come to the House of Commons and ask approval for a scheme that in 1975–76 would have involved expenditure on devolved services in Wales of about £1,200 million, on the Government's own estimate, of which three-quarters will be paid for by block grant on a basis of pure speculation and the declaration in "Our Changing Democracy "that
      "it will be the outcome of a close and thorough process of discussion each year with the Assembly."
      That sounds to me rather as if the Government have not got a clue about

      339
      how the whole thing will work out but are simply waiting hopefully for something to turn up or for someone else to clear up the mess that they are creating.
      There is another sentence in "Our Changing Democracy" that is pregnant with implications of a disturbing kind. It comes at the tail end of appendix C, which describes the whole process to us. It says:
      "Note: Arrangements will be made during the financial year for Supplementary Estimates procedures to vote any appropriate additional finance to the devolved services."
      Most hon. Members know a good deal about Supplementary Estimates procedures in this place, and we can understand very well what is likely to happen. But what exactly is the implication? Is it that, for all the advice of the independent advisory board, and despite the close and thorough process of discussion, the assessment of needs is likely to prove inaccurate and the Assembly will come back for more, or is the implication wider and a good deal more sinister than that? What happens if the Assembly ignores the stern supervising eye of the Treasury and exceeds its budget?
      After the previous debate, I became quite alarmed at the stern eye of the Minister of State, Treasury, and we have respect for the way in which the Treasury seeks to control these measures. But what happens if the Assembly simply ignores Treasury Ministers' advice? What happens if it launches capital programmes that create their own momentum of revenue expenditure, as capital programmes are rather inclined to do?
      Mr. Dalyell: If either the hon. Gentleman or myself were an Assemblyman, would we not succumb to the temptation to have precisely such a confrontation for our own political advantage, in order to cover up our own shortcomings? It is hardly a question of "if there is a confrontation". It is a fact that people will find it in their interests normally to manufacture precisely such a conflict.
      Mr. Edwards: Of course they will. Every time a complaint is made about a hospital, a school, a road or whatever, of course the Assembly will turn round and say "It is not our fault, of course. It is those fools up at Westminster who will
      340
      not give us the money." Of course, it is in its interests to say just that.
      But what happens if this excessive expenditure occurs? Surely the Assembly will come back to the Government and demand funds to keep essential services going. Unlike the local authorities, it will not face the unpleasant discipline of raising the money by additional rates, because it has no power to do so.
      No doubt we shall be told that the Government can simply refuse additional funds. But, if that involves the closing of hospitals and schools or the sacking of staff, I wonder whether it will happen in practice. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian, let me say that, if it does, we can imagine the bitterness as the Assembly blames the disaster on the inadequate funding by central Government. The scope for conflict is obviously immense.
      I said a moment ago that the Assembly will not be able to boost its funds by increasing rates. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) pointed out in an intervention, there is, in fact, the possibility that it will be able to do just that by the back door. A very large proportion of the block grant to Wales will consist of funds available to local government by way of rate support grant. As we shall discover during our debate on a later amendment, if we get to it, the local authorities in Wales will be excluded from the process of direct negotiation with the central Government over the rate support grant. But what happens once the overall size of the rate support grant has been decided? There is absolutely no obligation on the Assembly to pass all of it on to local government.
      That is made absolutely plain in paragraph 228 of "Our Changing Democracy", which says:
      "The Assembly will decide both how much of the block grant should be distributed to local government and how to allocate it among individual authorities. In calculating the block grant the Government will in general assume that Welsh local authorities will receive, in relation to their expenditure needs and their taxable resources, provision comparable with that for local authorities in England; whether they in fact levy more or less local tax, and are assigned more or less subsidy from the block grant, will be a matter to be settled in Wales."
      In other words, the Assembly has a hidden power to tax via the local authorities. At present, the RSG in Wales stands

      341
      at about £500 million a year. Theoretically the Assembly could reduce that, keeping a sum for itself and forcing the local authorities to raise the extra money from the rates. In that way, the Assembly would be able to raise revenue without incurring any of the odium for doing so.
      So we are to have a system which is complex, difficult and obscure, which is likely to produce raging conflict and which can be manipulated to the great disadvantage of the local authorities. It is introduced by a Bill that leaves the arrangements entirely undefined and provides no safeguards or guarantees of any kind. It is a system which has to provide for a part of the country where the needs are exceptional and the resources inadequate.
      I think that I am entitled to suggest two things: first, that such a system is not likely to be of any advantage to Wales—a point already made by the hon. Member for Aberdare—and, secondly, that, if we are to have it, we should write some basic principles into the Bill with a view to safeguarding the interests of the Welsh people.
      We are told in "Our Changing Democracy" in paragraph 224, that
      "The Government's decision on the total amount for all the devolved services will not be a matter of simply imposing an arbitrary figure; it will be the outcome of a close and thorough process of discussion."
      I say that it will be the outcome of a major battle. The Assembly will inevitably blame all the inadequacies of its administration upon shortage of funds.
      But it must be said that many of the inadequacies are likely to arise from the fact that social conditions in Wales are worse than they are in the rest of Britain. Low activity rates underlie low per capita gross domestic product. We have high unemployment, more sick and disabled, more people dependent on supplementary benefit, and poor housing, poor roads and poor infrastructure. The reason why we get more than England is accounted for and fully justified by these facts.
      But the fad is that we get more funds. In 1976–77—I repeat the figures that have already been given to the Committee—we got £875 per head in Wales of identifiable public expenditure as compared with £754 in England. This is despite the fact
      342
      that we produce much less in tax—£390 per head, compared with £516 in England excluding revenue from local authorities and national insurance contributions.
      If Wales had to manage on its own natural wealth, as the nationalists would like, we should be in a desperate state. Our contribution in terms of gross domestic product per head is significantly lower than that of either Scotland or England—£1,455 per head as compared with £1,686 in England in 1975–76.
      Mr. Dalyell: Every time grant is allocated in future, if there is a Welsh Assembly, will not MPs from the North-East of England, the West Country and East Anglia, where there are low wages, be failing in their duty if they do not question why Wales should get more than its per capita share? Even if the MPs do not have the inclination to do so, their constituency associations will begin to ask questions.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Edwards: We have already dealt with that point and explained how, because these things are now clearly identified in the public eye, they will be the subject of argument and debate. English Members will undoubtedly act in this way, and Welsh Members may be in difficulties because they will have to try to get adequate resources for Wales, although they may wholly disagree with the Assembly's policies.
      There is no reason to blame the present system for our condition in Wales, because that system is taking account of Welsh needs. It is not obvious that the confrontation method proposed in the Bill—for that is what it is—will produce a better result. Our fate depends, in the Government's words, on "understanding on both sides". But it is much more difficult to get that understanding in an annual stand-up debate than it is in the discussions which go on within a single Government.
      The fact that the grant allocation will take place on a four-year basis—or so we are told in the White Paper, although this is not mentioned in the Bill—will not apparently eliminate the need for annual Votes, and, therefore, presumably annual rows, even if we do not have annual Supplementary Estimates as well.
      It is terrifying that the Government should be putting so much at risk, that

      343
      there should be so much uncertainty on matters so central to the welfare of the people and that we should be asked to pass a Bill which creates a vacuum rather than giving rights or imposing obligations. In asking us to pass this clause, the Government are taking an enormous gamble with the welfare of the people. For that reason and many others, I believe that I am genuinely justified in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: I became more and more depressed as I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). What they were saying can be summed up in one sentence, and my hon. Friend almost said that he would be appealing to the Welsh people in the referendum campaign on this basis: "Do not establish a Welsh Assembly or you will undermine our ability to get more charity from the British Government."
      Mr. Ioan Evans: It is not charity.
      Mr. Ellis: That was my hon. Friend's message—charity.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: I did not use the word "charity". That is an offensive word, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw it. I argued that the matter should be based on need. That is fully justified. My hon. Friend should use his own words in his own arguments and not put words into my mouth.
      Mr. Ellis: Put baldly, the word "charity" might appear offensive, but when I have explained it I think that my hon. Friend will see that it is appropriate. The case of both he and the hon. Member for Pembroke can be summed up in the word "need".
      Mr. Ioan Evans: It is a Socialist argument.
      Mr. Ellis: I do not question the need to deal with the matter in this way. But what exactly are the real needs? To my hon. Friend—this is where the word "charity" came into my mind—the need of the Welsh people is for more money per head to be spent in Wales than in England on health, social services, education and so on. To me, those are not the fundamental needs but consequences
      344
      of the fundamental needs. Expenditure on those matters is to me so much cosmetic to hide the fundamental needs.
      Perhaps I can explain what I mean by the real needs. I should like to give one example, speaking from memory. I will endeavour to give my hon. Friend the correct reference later. I refer to a Government response to a report by a Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The report dealt with the effectiveness of regional policy over a decade. I may be slightly wrong in my figures but they are correct within 5 per cent. The report made the point that, in the decade ending 1974, had the proportion of employment in Scotland, the North of England and Wales remained in 1974 what it had been in 1964—that is, 45 per cent, of the total employment of the United Kingdom—there would have been about 360,000 more jobs in those regions than there were. Almost all those jobs had been transferred from those three regions to the South-East and the West Midlands.
      That is an example of the real needs, as a consequence of which all the other cosmetic needs have to be met, to provide some kind of palliative to deal with critical situations. That is the nub of the question.
      It is a fundamentally misconceived and misguided policy to suggest to the Welsh people that, if we set up an Assembly, it will undermine our ability to go to the Government in Westminster for more money for the social services and so on in Wales. That is the last thing that I would dream of saying to the Welsh people.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: We all know that it is part of the history of these islands that the Industrial Revolution came to Wales and Scotland and also affected Yorkshire and Lancashire. We also know that because of the expansion of industrial development in the South-East the needs in certain geographical areas are greater than in certain other areas. My hon. Friend need not dwell only in Wales in this respect, because there are very great problems on Merseyside. Birkenhead has an unemployment figure of 20 per cent. Unemployment is higher in some parts of England than it is in Wales.

      345
      I hope that when we determine how much should be spent on education, housing, welfare and so on, the criterion adopted by this House will be that the expenditure should be based on actual needs. My hon. Friend is suggesting that if we solve the problem of unemployment we can solve some of the other problems. Of course, but the problem of unemployment needs to be solved in these islands generally rather than on a geographical basis.
      Mr. Ellis: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has just said, but he is making great play with the extra expenditure, as if it were an enormous argument against the establishment of a Welsh Assembly. I question that argument—
      Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend will not allow me to develop my argument.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: If my hon. Friend does not get this point right, he will not understand the argument. The point that we are making is a very simple one and it has been made on both sides of the Committee. As the moment the argument is based on needs.
      Mr. Ellis: I am coming to that.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: Fair enough, but my hon. Friend should not try to argue from a point which has not been made.
      Mr. Ellis: If my hon. Friend will do me the courtesy of listening to me while I develop my argument, he can by all means intervene later, if he wishes to do so.
      Education is a need which is usually met through the machinery of local government. Together with some of my friends in Wales, I am becoming seriously concerned about educational attainments in Wales. Certain information has been produced quite recently in this connection. We are particularly concerned about certain areas of Wales from which for a long time the cream—the more intellectual type of child—has been drained. In certain areas of Wales people are becoming seriously concerned that there is now an inherent and fundamental intellectual shortfall in the average attainments of children as compared with
      346
      the average over the whole of the United Kingdom. This has come about over a long time and the educational need is so crucial and so profound that it could not be met merely by the normal forms of education.
      It is in this sense that I am pointing out that these are the first and fundamental needs. Having said that, I do not advocate what the nationalists advocate. I think they are profoundly wrong to suggest that Wales on its own would be better. It would not be better. I believe that Britain on its own would not be better, let alone Wales on its own. Britain is clearly dependent on a lot of other countries. I am not saying that Wales ought to go it alone.
      I would not get up in a Parliament or in an Assembly and argue that if we had an established Assembly we should have greater and greater conflict with similar bodies such as Assemblies in Scotland, embyronic regions perhaps and the Parliament in London. If I said that, I would be saying in effect that politicians are not sufficiently responsible people to appreciate the true requirements, in the most fundamental sense, of various parts of the United Kingdom.
      The problem goes even deeper. One of the most fundamental difficulties facing the British Government is economic steering. Within that overall economic steering there is a disproportion between the regions: while we need to reflate in one region we may need to deflate in another region at the same time. It is in that fundamental sense that the establishment of the Assembly should be considered.
      I implore my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare to cease arguing that if we set up an Assembly we shall establish some kind of continuous conflict between the rest of the United Kingdom and Wales.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend is not getting the point. At present these islands are treated equally. The point I was making was that if there are needs in different parts of Britain they are met according to the criteria of need. But if we create an Assembly, instead of allocating the funds on the basis of need, as has been the case in the past, we may well have a formula where funds might be allocated per head of population. I know that this is hypothetical. I am not

      347
      saying that this will come about. The point I am making is that it might come about.
      I am saying that there might be a desire to have a formula on the basis of per head of population. But that creates the possibility of conflict. It is not a question of the people not wanting it. But if we create new financial or political institutions, certain things follow. What I am criticising are the possible consequences.
      My hon. Friend should not suggest that the people of Wales can get something without their realising that it will cost something. If it is the will of the people of Wales to have it, even if it means less being spent on education and health, for example, then so be it—
      The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. One hon. Member ought to make a speech at a time. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) may catch my eye later.
      Mr. Ellis: I have not misunderstood my hon. Friend at all. The first part of what he said can be summed up in what the hon. Member for Pembroke said. My hon. Friend said that the present system takes account of Welsh needs. That is precisely the point that I am challenging. In fact, the present system does not take account of Welsh needs. It all boils down to the definition of "needs". The regional employment premium has been scrapped. The industrial development certificate system has been emasculated. The reason for this is that there is 6 per cent. unemployment in the West Midlands. But there is 13 per cent, unemployment in my constituency, and there is probably 13 or 14 per cent, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
      8.45 p.m.
      Because the position in the West Midlands is now so serious, we cannot tolerate this business of handing out all the goodies to the regions. I challenge the statement that the present system is taking account of Welsh needs, because it manifestly is not. It boils down to a definition of the word "needs".
      Finally, in his rather long intervention, my hon. Friend talked about conflict. I do not see that. I should have liked to see regional Assemblies set up in England.
      348
      I would have welcomed those before Assemblies in Scotland and Wales because it would have kept out of the argument the emotive issues that are clouding the scene and are really red herrings. If the North-West of England is to meet its needs, it must develop a political clout vis-à-vis the Government. That is the fundamental issue. To cloud the discussion with all this talk about social security payments per head is misleading, particularly to the people who will in due course have to vote in the referendum.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I wish that I could agree entirely with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) because plainly he speaks with feeling and elan. However, he stretches his argument very far. His argument that there has been a weakening recently in the IDC system and that this is primarily due to the increase in unemployment in parts of the Midlands is taking things a bit far. Does he really suppose that if there was an Assembly in Wales this would in some way improve the position, even if there was unemployment in the Midlands or the South-East of England? Does he really believe that this would, in itself, enable Wales to have a larger share of the global resources of the United Kingdom? That argument is hard to sustain.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: I shall not pursue this now because it would be out of order, but perhaps at some other date we shall have the opportunity to put forward that very case. There are very good examples of regions with political clout making regional policy work.
      Sir R. Gower: What the hon. Member is saying is that the mere existence of an Assembly will enable Wales to have a better deal vis-à-vis the rest of the United Kingdom. I would not go along with that. Nor would I go all the way with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I cannot see that either argument is as clear as the hon. Members would have us believe.
      We are discussing the setting up of two agencies prescribed in Clause 42—the Welsh Consolidated Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund. These are the two parts of the establishment and management of Welsh funds. These are the financial provisions for the Welsh Assembly. Basically one cannot argue with the feeling

      349
      that we are establishing solely a spending agency—a spending agency of Government.
      Perhaps the Assembly will have wide-ranging debates on all sorts of subjects, but I regard it as a serious defect in the Bill that it will have none of the discipline imposed by the unpopularity which practically all Parliaments have to face when collecting money. The imposition of taxes in any form is a salutary exercise, because it is not popular.
      Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the Assembly having a tax-raising function so that it may raise its own revenues?
      Sir R. Gower: Certainly that would be preferable to the present formula. This is only one part of the normal business of any Assembly of this nature.
      Mr. Hooson: Is that the view of the Conservative Party?
      Sir R. Gower: No; I am saying that that would be preferable to the formula in the Bill. I do not necessarily put forward that view as something I would desire at this stage, but I repeat that it is vastly preferable to the system in the Bill. The sole raison d'etre of the membership of the Assembly will be to find ways to dispose of the money in the most effective way.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will it not be the raison d'etre of Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament, if these Assemblies are set up, to screw more money out of the English Treasury?
      Sir R. Gower: That also is true. The Assembly will have a certain amount of money per annum, but will have no responsibility for collecting it. Its sole reason for existence, to use the English term, will be to spend this money.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I am interested in this point. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he finds it so offensive to have a Welsh Assembly spending money but not being responsible for raising it when he and his party have consistently, over a long time, flooded Wales with nominated bodies which have spent money and have never been asked to raise one farthing of it?
      Sir R. Gower: Those are agencies of Government. The proposals we are now discussing relate to a form of government, an embryo Parliament—an entirely different matter.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman is not answering the point.
      Sir R. Gower: I am. I am saying that the two matters are not comparable. The powers may extend, for example, to the tourist agency, but that agency has a limited remit. In this Bill we are talking about an embryo Parliament. That is the context in which I criticise this set-up. It is desirable in all public authorities that there should be the salutary corrective of the unpopularity that is associated with the collection of money, the collection of rates, and so on. Therefore, I submit that an Assembly which lacks that responsibility will be defective, and will be liable in the longer term to change itself into a complete Parliament. That is why many of us are so anxious about this matter.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham made one point with which I entirely agree. Had this been carried out in a federal context, it would have been far less dangerous. The trouble is that the positions are different in Scotland, Wales and England and the situation is divisive, and I deeply regret that.
      Mr. Dalyell: I shall speak briefly. Like other hon. Members, I want to get on to other important amendments and other clauses.
      I congratulate the Welsh on something that the Scots failed to achieve. At least for the Welsh a member of the Treasury has come to answer questions. Day after day during the Scotland Bill some of us thought that the Treasury Ministers ought to be answering. So the Welsh have succeeded where the Scots have failed.
      There was a fascinating moment on which one should comment during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) when he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) from the Liberal Benches. It was a sotto voce interruption but I think it was accurate. When my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare was saying that, of course, the Welsh should expect no more than per capita treatment

      351
      and would not receive the favourable treatment that he outlined, the hon. Member for Cardigan from a sedentary position said "Why on earth should not they?" I make no complaint about the hon. Member's absence because he has attended very well. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is present.
      The answer to the hon. Member for Cardigan is that a lot of people, not only in England but in Scotland and Wales, think that people can have their cake and eat it. The idea that one can go on for any length of time having one's cake and eating it is the idea of someone living in fairyland.
      Mr. Hooson: Surely the answer to that point is that the House of Commons would be as anxious then as it is now to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. So will the Welsh Members who come here. That is why they want equality of payments and social services grants to each part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Dalyell: I wonder whether this generous treatment will continue. Once people have had an Assembly, and once the Assembly trumpets views of national identity and the idea of a separate set-up and makes claims the like of which are not made now, it is stretching the generosity of other people to expect them to behave as they do at present.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: There is the other point that, whereas at the moment there are certain criteria laid down for the whole of Britain, if we are to have a block grant system, the Assembly will be able to determine that less will be spent on education and more on something else. It is inevitable that with a block grant system there will be great disparities in future in what is spent on roads, education and other services.
      Mr. Dalyell: Furthermore, there will be occasion for this kind of dispute every time there is an estimate and every time there is a supplementary estimate. It will be a series of running sores. That is a realistic view of what will happen.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury was not entirely agreed, so let me put this proposition to him. I have been longing to say this face to
      352
      face in these debates to a Treasury Minister. Whenever anything goes wrong—any time Assemblymen find that there are houses that are not built which should have been built, whenever roads which should have been repaired are not repaired and whenever hospitals that should have been created are not created—what will happen? They will say "Of course, it is not our fault. It is the responsibility of the English." They will say that they do not have sufficient power from Westminster, and in particular, they will say that it is the fault of parsimonious English Treasury Ministers. Good Welshman as he is, the Minister will, in the popular view, be put in that position.
      9.0 p.m.
      I do not speak for Wales. It would be impertinent of me to do so. Certainly in Scotland he will be put in the position of a parsimonious English Treasury Minister—the man they love to hate. For his sake, I hope that before any Assemblies are formed he is promoted out of the Treasury to some Department of his own. In that way he will be spared the constant pillorying that will take place. This is an inevitable result of human nature.
      I want to ask some factual questions, so perhaps my hon. Friend will get his pen out. What is this Executive Committee of the Assembly? I have been here during all of these debates, and I may be thick and obtuse, but I still have not discovered who these folk are who make up the Executive Committee of the Assembly. This raises the question of the nature of the Assembly. After all those days on the Scotland Bill, we still did not know, at the fag-end of the debate, whether the Government thought that Assemblymen should be full-time or part-time.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows where this subject is in the Bill. It does not appear to be in the clause we are dealing with at the moment.
      Mr. Dalyell: This is Clause 42(2). It refers to the Executive Committee of the Assembly. I am asking what this committee is. Is it a Welsh Cabinet?
      Mr. Kinnock: Or a Welsh dresser?
      Mr. Dalyell: Is there to be a Welsh Chancellor of a Welsh Exchequer? I

      353
      do not know how decisions like this can be made unless there is an Exchequer or a sub-Exchequer or something of that nature. This raises another question—whether the Welsh Chancellor of the Welsh Exchequer will be shadowed by someone responsible, or by the Secretary of State himself.
      With all the good will in the world, which perhaps I do not have, there will have to be a parallel set of civil servants in this set-up. I do not say that every civil servant working for the Welsh Assembly has to be shadowed by someone responsible to the Secretary of State, but I ask my right hon. Friend, who is a Treasury Minister, what the arrangements for the Civil Service are to be. If we do not have two sets of civil servants, how will the Secretary of State get his advice?
      If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) was Secretary of State for Wales in a Conservative Government in London, and if there were a Labour Administration in the Coal Exchange, are we saying that the Secretary of State and the Administration in the Coal Exchange should be advised on delicate financial and fiscal matters by the same civil servants? If this is so, serious questions of loyalty are bound to arise. Every senior civil servant would have to make up his mind whether his first loyalty was to the Coal Exchange or to Westminster.
      This question as it applies to Scotland was never answered. This is a Morton's fork situation. Either there is a parallel set of civil servants or we put impossible strains on their loyalties. If we have a parallel set of civil servants, what is the extra manpower cost of all these arrangements?
      I wish to ask a question to which the Government should have an answer. Given the establishment of a Welsh Consolidated Fund, a Welsh Loans Fund and a Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General, with all the other things in this part of the Bill, what will be the extra manpower costs of this system over and above the present system which is responsible for Wales? I am asking for a fairly simple calculation.
      All the talk in Scotland is that the Government have fantastically underestimated the administrative cost of the proposals in the Scotland Bill, and I
      354
      suspect that there is the same underestimate in this Bill. If the Government say that they will use existing civil servants for both set-ups, we come back, on Morton's Fork, to the question of loyalties.
      Has the Minister of State had any difficulty in comprehending my question?
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I have understood it.
      Mr. Dalyell: Good. I look forward to receiving an answer.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: The debate has been largely devoted to the two funds referred to in Clause 42 which will provide the resources to meet the needs of the Principality. No doubt the Government will say that they intend to allocate moneys to Wales in future according to need and the general availability of resources in the United Kingdom, as they have done in the past. But need is not constant. It varies from time to time, and people's awarness of need changes.
      There is not much doubt that our needs in Wales will change. I have seen the awareness of need change a great deal in my lifetime, from the 1930s onwards. Changes in awarness reflected real changes in need. I have childhood memories of the extensive suffering caused by tuberculosis and the untold misery and devastation that it caused to many families in the Gwynedd area. That disease, which killed so many people in the prime of life, has virtually been eradicated, but there are now other health needs.
      Health needs in Wales remain great. The number of days lost from work through sickness in Wales is 209 per cent, of the English figure. Each Welsh family practitioner dispenses 31 per cent, more prescriptions per person and sees 27 per cent, more people than does the average English GP.
      The Welsh Office consultative document proposed the policies and priorities for the planning and provision of health and personal social services from 1977 to 1980 and noted serious gaps in the provision for the mentally ill, the physically handicapped and the elderly and in personal social services, but the document envisaged a standstill in health care provision. Despite the pressing need for extra resources, the Welsh share of public expenditure on health

      355
      was only slightly greater—at 101 per cent.—than the United Kingdom figure in 1975–76. In every area of Government expenditure in 1976–77, the figure per head of the population in Wales was higher than that in England—with certain notable exceptions. As a Welshman I am concerned to ensure that we do at least as well in future as we have done in the past. There have been areas of expenditure where, for various reasons, provision has been inadequate, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) said.
      The housing situation is a national scandal, as all of us know who hold surgeries in our constituencies. Nearly 10 per cent, of our housing stock is unfit for human habitation. Another 9 per cent. lacks either one or more of the basic amenities or is badly in need of repair. All in all, about half a million of our people live in inferior housing. However, Government spending on housing in Wales in 1976–77, at a provisional figure of £77 per head, was lower than that in England of £86 per head and far lower than that in Scotland at £113 per head. The number of new homes started last year was lower than in any year since 1959.
      Law and order is another area of lower expenditure per head in Wales. It is doubtful whether that should be so bearing in mind that there has been a 520 per cent, increase in violent crime in Wales since 1960, compared with a 390 per cent, increase in England over the same period. It came as a great shock to me and, I think, to the Minister of State, Home Office when I elicited that figure from him at the end of 1977.
      Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the crime rate is still lower in Wales than in England.
      Mr. Roberts: I was astonished at the tremendous increase in crime. That is the point that I am making. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows only too well that he is talking about a different set of figures. I am talking about the increase in violent crime in Wales as opposed to England. The rate may still be lower, but the increase has been greater.
      The only other area of lower expenditure in Wales than in England is under the head of common services. That is not
      356
      surprising as the services are provided mainly from London. However, the overall picture of Government expenditure in Wales is, I think, a fair one. It is 8½ per cent, higher than the per capita expenditure for the United Kingdom as a whole. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) indicated, set against our gross domestic product per head and tax raised per head, we in Wales are certainly receiving our fair share in the most generous sense of the word. There is no doubt that the general standard of living in Wales has improved since the war and will, we hope, improve still further.
      When I last spoke about Government expenditure in Wales on the first day allotted to the Bill, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) intervened to say that there was another possible interpretation of the figures. The hon. Gentleman said that I said
      "that Wales and Scotland receive more from the public purse. Is not that because Wales has more unemployment, and more poverty, and because the social services there demand more? Are not those facts the consequence of misgovernment, and is not that an argument that there is more misgovernment …?"—[Official Report, 1st March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 521.]
      If ever there were a case of putting the cart before the horse, I think that that is it. It is no wonder that the Plaid Cymru horse is a non-starter at General Elections, despite much spurring and flogging. At one moment Plaid Cymru is calling for more money from the Treasury to tackle Welsh problems, and the next moment it is saying that we in Wales would be better on our own. There is a contradiction in its statements which it resolves in Wales by misleading people, but it cannot get away with it here.
      9.15 p.m.
      Of course, Wales has greater needs than many parts of England. But, much as I should like to lay them all at the feet of this Government, I cannot in all honesty do so. However, I can press the Government to recognise needs, many of which arise from the accident of or peripheral location. I can also seek to ensure that the problems of Wales are in the forefront of the Government's mind when they are allocating resources. To do that successfully we, as Members of Parliament, realise that we must be here in the House of Commons in strength, not fighting over

      357
      the bones of a block grant thrown to an Assembly in Cardiff.
      Amendment No. 248, which I doubt whether we shall reach, seeks to ensure a basic equality of treatment with England in the event of the Bill going through. I have been talking about how well Wales has done. There is no guarantee for the future that we shall do as well as the rest of the country in terms of expenditure. The amendment implies that we may not do as well as we have done in the past in securing a share of the available resources related to our needs rather than to any other principle of distribution.
      I am convinced that we are right to try to establish this fall-back position. I have always been suspicious of the central Government's motive in pushing the Bill and all that it entails and in seeking to foist it upon the people of Wales. Time and again I have said that I believe the underlying motive for this form of devolution to be financial. The block grant system—not wholly recommended by the Royal Commission—is a powerful attraction for the central Government in that it avoids those occasional pressures and calls for more resources here and there.
      Let us not forget that the four-year negotiation has been suggested because annual negotiation would be too combative. Therefore, we are to have a four-yearly struggle instead of an annual struggle. It is a formula to provide an easier life for the central Government. It will enable the central Government to turn a deaf ear to pleas by Members of Parliament. When there is special pleading, Ministers—I can hear them now—will say "This is a matter for the Assembly. It has the resources within the block grant." If the matter under discussion is not attended to, it will be the fault of the Assembly, not of Westminster or Whitehall. I think that it will be six of one, half a dozen of the other. There will be conflict on both sides.
      Of course, we know that the Assembly will not be silent. It will say that the block grant is not enough, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, and it will build up a deep and abiding resentment in Wales against Westminster and Whitehall—a resentment which may well overflow into extremist political action.
      358
      The Government must give some guarantee for the future. If they try to pooh-pooh that as unnecessary and seek to assure us that they intend to deal with Wales as they have done in the past, the people of Wales should know that they are being quietly outflanked and out-manoeuvred in the battle for a proper share of resources appropriate to their needs.
      We have come a long way from the Royal Commission's report. In paragraph 655, it said that its
      "inquiries suggest that those people who welcome the idea of regional independence would nevertheless regard financial equity as ultimately more important."
      In paragraph 669 the Commission continued:
      "in view of the practice which has been built up for the detailed measurement of needs, service by service, it is very doubtful whether an arbitrary formula, resulting in a fixed grant for say five years, would be acceptable or indeed workable. It would be necessary to construct a more flexible system which, whilst retaining the block grant idea, would include a fairly sensitive measurement of marginal need, probably every year."
      The Commission then proposed an independent Exchequer Board. That is not what is proposed in the Bill. We do not have any really detailed proposals about how the block grant system will work. We have clauses setting out the funds and so on, but it is by no means clear how the block grant system will work. What we do know, if we may still rely on "Our Changing Democracy: Devolution for Scotland and Wales"—is that
      "The amount will be a matter of political judgment on the basis of an assessment of relative needs made jointly with the Scottish"—
      and presumably Welsh—
      "administration through close and continuous collaboration."
      The Government went on to say:
      "The task involves judgments of great complexity and political sensitivity."
      Those who have talked in this debate about political clout are absolutely right. Nevertheless, objective information on standards and needs would help those concerned with these judgments. We understand that there is to be an advisory board, but we have not been told how that objective information is to be obtained or how the grant is to be calculated. Will the information be gathered

      359
      by civil servants in London or Cardiff? Who will sift the information? To whom will it be presented? Will the Assembly have the information and base the block grant application upon it, or will the information be supplied direct to the central Government, who will then tell the Assembly what it is to receive?
      Is the negotiation—be it on a four-year basis or whatever happens—to be held in public? Shall we know about it, or will it take place behind closed doors? There is a vagueness about the financial provisions which I find disquieting.
      Mr. Dalyell: Does not the hon. Member believe that a four-year basis is wholly unrealistic in the light of post-war experience? Who would say that economic forecasting in this country is of such a kind that we can possibly do this on a four-year basis?
      Mr. Roberts: I agree. I understand that the idea of a four-year or quinquennial grant was evolved because it was expected that there would be too much conflict and argument if it were negotiated on an annual basis.
      Far from making me feel confident about the future—and I speak as a Welshman—these provisions encourage my doubts and suspicions about the real motivation behind the Bill.
      Mr. Kinnock: I shall be brief because the whole question of the block grant and the Consolidated Fund has been rehearsed frequently in previous debates and last year. However, the case is not hurt by repetition. I wish to save the time of the Committee because there are several other clauses that require detailed responses.
      I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to recall that we are talking about a country which, through no fault of its own, will for many years be, as it is now and as it has been for several years—for as long as we have had a compassionate State—in financial deficit with the remainder of the United Kingdom. That single consideration must form a great many of our attitudes to the appropriateness of the kind of financial devolution that the Government are proposing by this clause and subsequent clauses.
      360
      Therefore, we require answers about the nature of the Welsh Consolidated Fund and the powers open to elected representatives of the people of Wales to influence the resources made available to the people of Wales, with their great and growing needs, especially in the areas of employment provision, social services, housing, transport improvements and so on. All these questions must be very major concerns and must have specific answers.
      The fact is that there is a bald statement in Clause 42:
      "There shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund."
      It is a bit reminiscent of "Let there be light". But whereas in the latter case we could rely on divine intervention and the poetry of those who described the event of the manufacturer of the world, we cannot rely on that divinity to ensure that the Welsh Consolidated Fund shall be funded, let alone consolidated.
      The problem is that in none of the subsequent clauses is there a specific description of where the money will come from for the Consolidated Fund, how it will be calculated, what needs will be taken into account in its calculation, and how the Welsh Assembly can take powers from those who now have responsibility for spending the money, the local and statutory authorities, and exercise that responsibility fairly in terms of all of the interests of the Welsh people or, indeed, efficiently to the general advantage of the Welsh people.
      I think that my right hon. Friend can answer the question very simply. Without going into too much Treasury mathematics, which probably hynotise the Treasury as much as they baffle everyone outside the Treasury, he can tell us now. If he were calculating on the basis of today's needs and today's resources, he could tell us how much the Welsh Consolidated Fund would be. If it were the case that next week he and our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were introducing a Budget in some misbegotten year after devolution, what kind of figure would he be thinking of, either in the public expenditure White Paper earlier in the year or in the Budget, or in some special announcement to be made?

      361
      Would my right hon. Friend be thinking of £1,000 million or £2,000 million? How would he be calculating that? Would he be looking at the applications of the local authorities and their demands for rate support grant, the hopes that they have for expenditures on treasured projects and the expenditure that they have to undertake in order to keep the law and in order to meet their statutory obligations?
      Would my right hon. Friend be taking all these into account, adding them up all together, dividing by the parsimony of the Treasury and then making an allocation to Wales? Would he be making a calculation on the basis of demonstrated local authority and statutory body need and then making an allocation based on a calculation of that need to a Welsh Assembly which has no responsibility even for collecting rates, let alone collecting taxes, but does have the authority for the allocation and the expenditure of the block grant—the Consolidated Fund—awarded to it?
      These issues really must have more serious treatment than they have had hitherto recently or in the debates that we had last year. They are a very major consideration for the people of Wales.
      9.30 p.m.
      The objection to devolution in Wales, which is very substantial and very widespread, is based to a great degree on the feeling that we cannot afford devolution. It is not just that we have no spare resources to allocate to the petty Parliament that is proposed for the Coal Exchange in Cardiff; nor even that we do not have some additional spare capacity or resources in order to fund a parallel Civil Service, which will be necessary in order to avoid the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) of requiring honourable men and women in the Civil Service to serve two masters. That must be an unavoidable eventuality in the case of the Assembly setting a political course that diverges democratically from the course set by the majority and forming the Government in Westminster. There will not even be considerations of whether we can afford that dual outlay. The major consideration is how we gamble with the resources that we already have, awarded on the basis
      362
      of demonstrated need by centralised financial resources and centralised financial government.
      The feeling of the people of Wales is that the reaction to the new demarcation of devolution in England among the English taxpayers and the English politicians will be that those who govern themselves, or even nearly govern themselves, can damned well pay for themselves. My right hon. Friends will be as tired of hearing me say that as I am of hearing it myself. But it is a question which has to be answered.
      Here we are, a nation in deficit, dependent on the generosity—not necessarily the spontaneous generosity—of the taxpayers of the rest of the United Kingdom which, because of the deficits run by Northern Ireland and Scotland, means the generosity of the people of England, which in turn, because of the unfortunate circumstances of people in the North-East and Merseyside and of the stranded rural areas and the decayed inner city slums of much of England, actually means the people of relatively prosperous South-East England. They are not, to take the word of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), awarding us charity.
      Neither do those who make donations in the form of their taxation payments, which help us to maintain a civilised standard of living in Wales, dependent as we are on public expenditure, see it as charity. At least, they do not do so at present, but when, repeatedly, year after year and even quarter after quarter, in the House of Commons and in the Press we debate how much the Welsh and the Scots are running a deficit to a particular part of England, can we then count on people's generosity and tolerance remaining at its historically high level?
      It would not be beyond the realms of possibility that just as, for instance, Plaid Cymru or the SNP has managed to mobilise certain jingoistic resentments among a small number of people in Wales and Scotland about their status as Welshmen and Scotsmen, populist politicians in England, for the same purposes and using the same language with the same motivation, should not seek to generate the same resentments for the different purpose of excluding the Welsh and Scots in order to save themselves and their constituents considerable sums of money.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: It was my hon. Friend's use of the word "generosity"—it might have been a Freudian slip—that led me to use the word "charity".
      Mr. Kinnock: Generosity, if I may coin a definition that is not too far from the dictionary and which my hon. Friend will accept, is the act of unnecessary giving. If, however, taxpayers in England wished deliberately to assert that they did not mind what their tax was spent on as long as it was not spent in Wales or Scotland, they would not be generous. They do not do that because they know that there are reciprocal benefits in being citizens and taxpayers in the United Kingdom.
      Because of the relationships enjoyed throughout the United Kingdom, of family and economic ties which I hope are unbreakable, under one Parliament, in one State, their contribution is defensible and comprehensible to them—and also generous, in the sense that they are giving not receiving directly in material terms as a consequence. If my hon. Friend would give me his definition of charity in those circumstances, it would further clarify the situation.
      Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? Is it not likely that the generosity will wear even thinner if those who are making the generous gestures—as he says, because of the important reciprocal advantages of being part of the United Kingdom—find that, in being generous, they are also being perpetually blamed for their alleged meanness by those representing Welsh areas in the Welsh petty Parliament?
      Mr. Alec Jones: Who says that they are being mean?
      Mr. Kinnock: The Under-Secretary of State's intervention was even more illuminating than the hon. Member's question. The Under-Secretary does not say that the people of England are being mean. I do not say it. Most of the Welsh people do not say it. But the Under-Secretary will be even more familiar than I with the repetitive war cries of nationalism in Wales and Scotland about the continued parsimony, insularity and calculated insult delivered by the people of England and the Westminster Government
      364
      against the people of Wales and Scotland.
      My hon. Friend and I am familiar with the view of nationalism that, in order to justify itself, it has to blame the ills of a nation on some other nation. I resent that deeply as a Socialist, because I think that it diverts the working people of Wales from the true nature of our crisis in Wales—the way in which resources are wasted, abused and misused in a capitalist system.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Kinnock: It is no good the hon. Member saying "Hear, hear" when he destroys the very possibility of getting democratic Socialism and commanding Socialist machinery in this country by diminishing the Labour vote, as I am sure he will continue to do in his constituency and elsewhere, and permitting the triumph of Conservatism—which, whatever else it is dedicated to, is not dedicated to the triumph of Socialism.
      How is the Consolidated Fund money to be allocated? Who is to be responsible for administering it? What will be the role of the local authorities? Can they continue to receive at least the moneys they currently receive? Will there be a wedge, a new imposition of inserted bureaucratic authority, between the people of Wales as they receive the money and services of their local authorities and those who originally provide those resources through the Treasury?
      Will the Welsh Assembly, as the distributor of largesse from a Consolidated Fund, be literally a new tier of government? At present, the applications by the local authority associations, the demonstrated needs for local expenditure, whether capital or current, are the means used to secure resources from the holders of money—the Treasury or individual Departments of State secondary to the Treasury.
      Will there, between those applicants and those providers, be insinuated not the democratic tier that my right hon. and hon. Friends protest, in the form of a Welsh Assembly, but simply a totally unnecessary and unwanted additional framework for chewing over the fat as to where the money should go without generating an extra halfpenny of financial resources to meet the needs of Wales?

      365
      Is not there also a danger when we say, as the Bill does, that there shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund? There is nothing in the Bill, in Clause 42 or in subsequent clauses, which establishes how the contending claims for resources among the different parts, the different interests and the different people of Wales shall be met, arbitrated and considered in justice.
      Different areas in Wales, as all hon. Members will acknowledge, have different priorities for expenditure—the rural, the industrial, the Welsh-speaking, the east and west, the north and south. There are also those whose main problems stem from their isolation and whose main needs are for massive improvements in transport. There are others whose needs arise from the difficulties they encounter with inner city decay, as in our two or three substantial cities around Cardiff.
      The contest over the block grant, for limited resources, is on an entirely new level when we say that there shall be a Welsh Consolidated Fund, and the battle for those resources will have to be fought in an entirely different way. This is especially the case since there is not now to be a direct path, as it were, leading to the door of the Welsh Office, or to another Department of State, such as the Treasury, where the need can be argued and demonstrated, and the necessary money, or at least a proportion of it, awarded—or even a refusal. Now there will be a new authority, a new decider, a new arbitrator, and again without responsibilty for the collection of resources. It will have authority solely for asserting which of the contesting claims should be favoured in the scramble for resources out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
      I thought that devolution, however conceived—even in the distorted form that we have it in the Bill—was at least intended to promote harmony inside the United Kingdom generally, and especially within the communities that it is designed to govern. If this is the pattern that is to be established in Wales, with a Consolidated Fund and little else, with no definition, and with the hope that it might just grow, and that the Assembly can somehow hone responsibilities and fashion procedures for making these decisions—because there is no formula laid down
      366
      in the Bill for establishing those procedures—I believe that such an open-ended and incompetent proposition can have been made only in one of two sets of circumstances. It can only have been made either by people who hoped that the Bill would never become the new constitution of Wales, or by those who knew that, because of the referendum, it could never become the new constitution of Wales.
      Anyone who put forward a serious proposition concerning devolution in Wales, and who spent obviously such a short time in forming a sensible, logical, comprehensible, framework for the government of that country, must have been deluding himself even more than those who are seeking to delude the Welsh people—
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that there is no formula laid down in the Bill for the allocation of resources between competing areas. There is no formula laid down in the House of Commons for the allocation of resources. It is the Executive always which arranges the formula with the competing claimants in the country as a whole. Surely the position will be no different in Wales.
      Mr. Kinnock: Indeed, the position would be no different in Wales were it not for the fact that the Welsh Assembly will not be raising taxes as the House of Commons raises taxes. The Welsh Assembly will have to operate within a limited Consolidated Fund imposed on it from elsewhere, and not one that is voted for as it is in the House of Commons—and not, as the Welsh nationalists want, as a completely separate, self-sufficient and autonomous body.
      But—and here is the big but of devolution—it is impossible for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), as I have said to him on other occasions, to draw analogies between the practices of the House of Commons without a written constitution and sovereign unto itself and a devolved body which by its very definition is a subordinate, limited and irresponsible body that does not have to carry the can for its own actions. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that because things do not happen here, because situations do not

      367
      arise here or because problems are not encountered here they will not be encountered in the Welsh Assembly. He might as well say that because they do not happen here there is no reason to fear that they happen in the Kremlin or in the White House or in the estates general. Those Parliaments are as different in their conceptions and responsibilities as the Welsh Assembly, as conceived, with the responsibilities allocated to it.
      9.45 p.m.
      There are no analogies to be drawn in that regard. Until the hon. and learned Gentleman begins to understand that the whole nature of devolution is in essence different from the nature of sovereignty—even sovereignty as we now conceive it in the House of Commons—he is not talking about the same kind of devolution as I am talking about or about the same kind of devolution as the Government are proposing. The hon. and learned Gentleman is welcome to propose his own kind of devolution. But even if he does he still cannot draw the analogy of the practice, custom, responsibilities, representation or anything else of the House of Commons because the two institutions exist for different purposes and will exist with different responsibilities.
      Mr. Hooson: I should be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument if there were not any number of examples in the world of subordinate legislatures in relationship to the mother Parliament. Let us take our own country. For many years there was the relationship between the Northern Ireland Parliament and this Parliament. The Northern Ireland Parliament was always indebted but not because of the relationship with this country. There was the peculiar religious problem of Northern Ireland which does not apply to Scotland or Wales.
      Mr. Kinnock: During the earliest days of this debate I made an agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I did so shortly after we had seen six or seven people slaughtered in the streets of Belfast. I said that as long as he promised not to mention Northern Ireland I would not raise the matter. But, since the hon. and learned Member
      368
      for Montgomery has brought the matter up, and since I have a somewhat less comradely association with him than I have with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon, he would be the last to pretend that the experience of Stormont as a subordinate Parliament for the Province of Northern Ireland had been a success in any respect whatever. In the advancement of democracy, in the government of the people, in the assistance of economic development—whatever criteria could be established and imposed on modern democratic Government—Stormont failed.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman will say that that was because of partisan gerrymandering. If he said that, I would agree with him. But the fact was that if that excuse did not exist—if we had had a full-blown democracy or even one that bore a resemblance to the mainland democracy in this country for those 50 years in Northern Ireland—can he really pretend that with that kind of deficit Stormont would have remained unchanged for those years? Can he really pretend that if the people had had the self-confidence of not being in deficit, and had they not been distracted by the dogmatic rebellion that they conducted against themselves to divide their community, they would not have concentrated on the real economic and political issues of being subordinate to Westminster?
      Can the hon. and learned Gentleman really pretend that if that Province had been sending Members to this House of Commons of a number more than equivalent to the majority of Governments in the House of Commons over that number of years, they would have been treated with the same friendly bonhomie that they have received? Can he really suggest that they would have experienced only rarely a challenge as to their business in speaking in the British Parliament?
      Mr. Hooson: Answer my question.
      Mr. Kinnock: I am answering the question by posing more realistic questions, instead of pretending that Stormont presented the model of a subordinate Parliament that we can usefully use in these debates. The hon. and learned Member should ask himself when Stormont raised taxes or had responsibility for spending its own money. The

      369
      answer is never, and that is why the analogy falls down completely.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend concede that it would have been inconceivable not only for the Labour Government of Clement Attlee and Herbert Morrison, but for the Conservative Government of 13 years that followed, of Harold Macmillan and Iain Macleod, had they had direct responsibility for Northern Ireland, to have discriminated over housing on religious grounds?
      Mr. Kinnock: So the story continues. Perhaps we could debate the whole relevance of Northern Ireland in the devolutionary context on other occasions. I think that we have exhausted it now.
      My purpose in intervening was to try to get answers from the Minister that I have been unable to obtain in various approaches, both written and oral. I want answers about the way in which the Consolidated Fund will operate, who is responsible for spending the money, and how representations can be made for getting increased allocations out of it. My only interest is to ensure that we do not lose a brass farthing in resources as a result of this Bill. If we have to have changes in Wales, they must be changes that will be of material and social benefit. No one has yet demonstrated how this Bill will accomplish those ends.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: We have had a characteristically brilliant speech from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), and quite a lot of it concerned the subject under discussion. We are debating the interaction between the need of Wales to get what is, strictly speaking, more than its fair share of United Kingdom resources and the creation of an Assembly which has spending but no money-raising powers. We are also discussing the interaction of relations between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
      The figures available for public expenditure in Wales, both in total and in terms of income per head, show that in the period for which figures are available Wales has received a disproportionately large share of United Kingdom revenue It is no refutation of that argument to say that Wales needs a higher proportion because
      370
      the incomes of its people are so low.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) put his finger fair and square on this by arguing that a lot of the expenditure was cosmetic. He said that we had not discussed the fact that there has been a shortfall in expenditure on and investment in the things that would enable Wales to have a level of economic activity equal to that of the rest of the United Kingdom, thus diminshing the need for very large transfer payments in favour of Wales.
      Nobody is suggesting that it is any criticism of the people of Wales that they have to take more out of the pool than they put in. It is simply the fact that the figures available to us grossly understate the imbalance. The latest figures, to 1975–76, antedate the huge losses made by the British Steel Corporation, of which a high proportion must be attributable to losses incurred in Wales, if only because so much of the steel industry is in Wales. Neither do they reflect the huge sums of investment capital which was to have been poured into Port Talbot to make it into a major integrated steelworks able to compete with the giant steel producers abroad, it is true that this investment programme has been slashed. It is easy to imagine that this cruel dashing of once-high hopes will be just about the first bone which the elected Welsh Assembly will want to pick with the House of Commons.
      Mr. Wigley: Does not the hon. Member accept that the difficulties in trying to define the revenue raised in Wales and expenditure within Wales are very great indeed, if for no other reasons than that, first, the income tax that is collected from the people of Wales is collected in offices outside Wales and not in Wales as such, and, secondly, in regard to expenditure in Wales, particularly of the capital type which he described, very often the vast majority of such expenditure is incurred outside Wales? For example, the CEGB project at Dinorwig involves a figure of £240 million expenditure, only £40 million of which will go back into the local economy.
      Sir A. Meyer: It is difficult to attribute these costs and receipts with accuracy, but so many figures have been quoted in

      371
      this debate, on both sides, that I do not want to get involved in a long statistical argument or to have to return to sources and read out tables. Such tables as we have undoubtedly support the thesis which I have been putting forward, but I freely admit that there can be differences of interpretation.
      I revert to the quarrel which, I suspect, will be the first quarrel between the elected Welsh Assembly and the House of Commons—namely, over the level of investment in the steel industry. There will be a demand that the reduced investment programmes should be allowed to go ahead. A Welsh Assembly will wish to maintain a steel industry and a coal industry.
      Mr. Alec Jones: How does the hon. Gentleman think that investment in the steel industry is affected by the Bill? The subject of steel is not being devolved.
      Sir A. Meyer: I am not suggesting that steel is being devolved. I am suggesting that, because of the mechanism by which the Assembly will be responsible for spending money and will not be responsible in any way for raising it, it will inevitably become the focus of every demand in Wales that more money should be spent on maintaining a steel industry and a coal industry at a level higher than would be case if the United Kingdom was balancing its investment programmes as a whole. I shall come to the mechanisms by which this will operate in the political relationship between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament.
      Mr. Alec Jones: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that, whether we are talking about investment in the steel industry or in the coal industry, after devolution there will be no stronger pressures for investment in steel and coal in Wales than there are now. This House will be responsible for those matters, and Welsh Members on both sides of the House will be pressing as strongly after devolution as they now press for expenditure in those industries.
      Sir A. Meyer: If the Minister believes that there will be no increase in pressures, I think he will believe anything. Perhaps there will be no increase in powers, but
      372
      I shall shortly explain why I believe that those pressures will become very powerful indeed.
      The coal industry and the steel industry, both of which are vital to Wales, account for the lion's share of the financial help which Wales obtains from England. This has gone on for so long that it is taken for granted to the extent that it is not realistic to expect any elected Welsh representative to accept that any pit or steel mill should be closed down or reduced in output merely because the money to subsidise it is not available out of purely Welsh resources. I could not possibly accept the closure of steel-making at Shotton merely because the £25 million needed to equip its ageing open-hearth furnaces with tandem furnaces is not readily to be found within the investment capital available in Wales.
      10.0 p.m.
      I have no doubt that the 12 or so Wales will prove equally unwilling to accept that steel-making at Shotton should be allowed to be phased out in this way. What is more, I should expect the Assemblymen in the Swansea area to be a great deal more robust than the Secretary of State has been in insisting that the money has to be found to enable the big expansion to go ahead at Port Talbot and for the jobs so badly needed there to be created.
      I cannot imagine their behaving like those who complained that the 1973 plan for the expansion of the steel industry was too small but who now accept the abandonment of even that inadequate target. The Assemblymen of the Swansea area will not accept this. Nor will there be any incentive for them to do so. As United Kingdom Members of Parliament, we have at least to balance priorities. I am in a position to say that I want the United Kingdom taxpayer to subsidise Shotton to the extent of £25 million for tandem furnaces.
      By the same token, I am to some extent handicapped when I come to demand a cut in the level of taxation. It is a cross which I have to bear and one with which every hon. Member is familiar. A Member argues for more money for his constituency and is immediately met by a Minister with the complaint "You are

      373
      demanding increases in public expenditure." The Assemblyman will be under no such constraint. He can win votes by arguing that he wants more money spent on investment on this and that in his constituency, and he is under no obligation to defend the level of expenditure thereby involved and the level of taxation which it implies.
      374
      For those reasons, I am convinced that the Assembly will operate as a powerful irritant. I once used the word "corrosive". I stick to that word. The Assembly will operate as a corrosive factor in the relations between England and Wales. The form of financing which has been chosen in the clause is the very worst form from that point of view.
      Mr. Hooson: I have been provoked into making a contribution to the debate largely by the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He is preoccupied with his fear of nationalism. It seems to me that he sees bogymen where they need not exist.
      There are overwhelming reasons why the people of the United Kingdom as a whole and the people of Wales will want the United Kingdom to remain as an integrated whole, whether we have an Assembly or not. Every speech that the hon. Member makes is a Second Reading speech against the Bill. If we are to have an Assembly, we need a Consolidated Fund and a Loans Fund. The hon. Member was using the arguments against the clause simply as a means of attacking the Bill as a whole.
      Every debate on the Bill has been a Second Reading debate. In The Times today, there is a letter by an erstwhile Commons colleague of the Conservative Benches, Lord Hailsham, which suggests that the House of Commons has no control or very little control over the Executive and that the House has virtually become a means whereby an elected dictatorship rules the country. Listening to the thrust of many of the speeches in this debate, anybody would have thought that the House of Commons has a tight control over expenditure and that it controls the allocations of funds in this country. It does nothing of the kind.
      I have seen the formula for the allocation of funds to local authorities. It is produced by the Treasury, and because of the Lib-Lab pact we were enabled to see it. We were asked to comment on it. The Treasury arranges it. The allocation of funds is no more obscure under the provisions of this Bill than it is at present. The hon. Member for Bed-wellty knows that perfectly well.
      I gave earlier as an example to the hon. Member the worst example of a devolved assembly that I know of, Northern Ireland. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that, although the Northern Ireland Parliament was always in deficit, there was never any serious argument in the House of Commons that there ought not to be United Kingdom financing of that deficit. Consider the
      376
      subordinate Assemblies in West Germany or in Canada. I know that there the constitutions are different, but there is no precedent for this form of devolution which we are considering. We must therefore look at the relationship between such subordinate Assemblies and their mother Parliaments to see whether there have been the kind of frictions which the hon. Member suggests will occur here and be virtually impossible to solve. I do not think that a study of the many subordinate Assemblies of which we know supports that thesis.
      What the hon. Member for Bedwellty is doing is arguing "I am against an Assembly because I am afraid of the nationalists taking it over". That is his theme. He is described in today's Liverpool Daily Post as the folk hero of the North Wales Coast, the hero of all those many Left wingers in Colwyn Bay and Llandudno because of his objections to the Bill. The truth is that he is deliberately trying to create fear in the hearts of the Welsh voters, to make them think that the Bill will be a vehicle for nationalism when it will be nothing of the kind.
      Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to give that assurance. Suffice it to say that the Bill is the greatest step forward which nationalism has yet achieved, and I cannot recognise that as a victory for his point of view or for mine.
      The hon. and learned Member is putting to me the example of other subordinate Assemblies. He is asking me to believe that in Germany, for instance, there are merely the Bundestag in Bonn and, let us say, Assemblies in North Rhine Westphalia or Bayern, and that in Canada there are simply federal Assemblies in Saskatchewan and Quebec. If the hon. and learned Member will not understand that the major weakness of what the Government are proposing is that they are proposing to deal only with areas that will stick out like a sore thumb and which cannot afford to do so—Scotland and Wales—he still does not understand the Bill, in spite of my repeated instruction.
      Mr. Hooson: If I had my way, I would have regional Assemblies in England as well.

      377
      Let us deal with the situation as it is. The hon. Member is suggesting that the taxpayers of England will get fed up subsidising the people of Scotland and Wales. I do not think that anything of that kind will happen. For one thing, the taxpayers of England realise that it is to their advantage to preserve the unity of the kingdom. So also do taxpayers in Scotland and Wales. Everything else will dictate this. The conditions of the modern world will dictate this. When the hon. Member suggests that the taxpayers of England have been excessively generous—
      Mr. Kinnock: I did not.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member spoke constantly of "generosity". He used the term "generosity of the taxpayers" several times. Much of the earlier money in the South-East of England is second and third and generation money made in the industrial areas of Wales, Scotland, the North of England and the Midlands. Much of it is investment money. The hon. Member for Bedwellty is trying to use his arguments to frighten the people of Wales.
      The Welsh Assembly needs proper financial funds and controls which are no different from the sort of controls that we have in the House of Commons. I have sufficient faith in and knowledge of the Welsh people to know that they will be entirely responsible in the running of their affairs, just as they have been in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman's comments do no good to Wales or to his cause.
      Mr. Brittan: The basis of our objections to the financial provisions relating to the Welsh Assembly is simple. It is that the provisions will not improve the standard of life of the people of Wales and will lead inexorably to serious conflict between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, to the disadvantage of both.
      The question of the improvement in the standard of life in Wales can be dealt with extremely briefly, because during a fairly long debate no one has even attempted to suggest that any positive benefit to the standard of life of the people of Wales will derive from the provisions of the Bill. Not a single halfpenny extra will accrue to the benefit of
      378
      the people of Wales because of the Bill as a whole or because of the financial provisions in particular.
      We can therefore move rapidly on to our second fundamental objection to the financial provisions, namely, that they are likely to lead to conflict between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. I start with the basic fact that per capita public expenditure in Wales is, totally justifiably, substantially higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The latest estimates suggest that public expenditure per capita is 16 per cent, higher in Wales than in England. It has been explained from all parts of the Committee why that is so and why it is justified. It is because of the particular history, geographic and social needs of Wales.
      The first limb of the conflict argument is that there is little doubt that, despite the complacent words of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), a position in which we spend publicly more per head in Wales than in the United Kingdom generally will be increasingly difficult to sustain once the Assembly has been set up.
      It is one thing for the extent of public expenditure in Wales to be determined within a single Parliament and Cabinet on a piecemeal basis, but it is quite different for the matter to be determined by negotiation between two separate bodies—the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Welsh Assembly—elected in different ways and having different loyalties. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was excessively optimistic when he talked about the people of Wales being far too sensible to allow that to happen. It is not so much a question of the people of Wales being too sensible or not sensible enough as a question of the people of England continuing to be as sensible as they have been in the past.
      As the Member for an English constituency, I can give no guarantee that the people whom I represent in the North-East, who have problems every bit as great as those of the people in Wales, will continue to be as rational, understanding and properly tolerant towards the higher per capita public expenditure in Wales as they have been in the past. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery cannot give such a guarantee either.
      Mr. Wigley: As a Member for the North-East, the hon. and learned Gentleman will surely recall that last year, especially at the time of the passage of the Scotland and Wales Bill, the great fear that many hon. Members and others in the North-East had was that if Welsh and Scottish Assemblies were established they would have greater leverage and power over economic resources and would deprive the North-East of resources that it needed. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now arguing the contrary. Surely, both arguments cannot be right.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Brittan: There is no inconsistency. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes relates to fears. I am not talking about fears of what the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies will be able to do. It is consistent to fear, on the one hand, that they will succeed in getting more than their share and, on the other hand, to begrudge them even their fair share. I do not regard that as inconsistent. I regard the risk of that as being typical of the sort of danger that one faces by setting up an arrangement of this sort. That is precisely the point that I was about to make.
      On the one hand, the people of the United Kingdom are likely to be very much less ready to accept the proper degree of expenditure for Wales. On the other hand, there will be pressure in the opposite direction, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) observed. There will be pressure from the Members of the Welsh Assembly in demanding increasing sums from the Treasury as a whole and to regard every deficiency in the needs that should be met from public expenditure in Wales as being the fault of a mean British Exchequer, which will be regarded, as the hon. Member for West Lothian has repeatedly said, as the English Exchequer.
      The basis for such claims on the part of the Welsh Assembly will start in the first instance because of the problem of calculating what the block grant should be, even if there is good will on all sides. As has been said, the Government in their White Paper, in bringing devolution to Scotland and Wales, recognise that the calculation of the block grant is not an easy matter. According to paragraph 100 of the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales", it is a task which involves
      380
      "judgments of great complexity and political sensitivity."
      In the first year it may be that there is a possible basis for the calculation of the block grant. In the first year, in which the history behind both parts of the United Kingdom is one in which needs have been calculated on a common basis, it will be possible to extrapolate further forward social changes and to say that the needs for the United Kingdom will be X and that the needs for Wales will be Y. However, as the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) remarked, once the Assembly comes into existence the whole essence of devolution involves that the Assembly will be able to decide to spend more on one devolved area and less on another. In other words, it will be able to use the block grant according to its own sense of priorities.
      It may be that the Assembly will decide to spend comparatively more on housing and comparatively less on schools. The comparison will be with what the Secretary of State for Wales, as a member of a United Kingdom Government, was spending within the Principality in the year before the Assembly came into existence. Once that happens, standards will instantly start to vary. The standard of services between England and Wales will start to diverge. They may be better in certain respects in Wales and better in other respects in England.
      When the block grant comes to be negotiated again, whether it is after one year or four years, I do not believe that those who are complaining in Wales because their schools have fallen behind the standard of provision of schools in England will be satisfied when the Exchequer blandly says "Your schools are not as good as the schools in Cambridge, Cleveland or North Yorkshire, but that is because the Assembly has decided to spend more of the money allotted to it on housing."
      The idea that that will be an acceptable answer that will allay the claims of the Welsh Assembly and the claims of the people in the Assembly, whose business it will be deliberately to foment disagreement and hostility between England and Wales, is ludicrous. It has only to be posited for it to be seen to be an unrealistic expectation and as wildly optimistic as the expectation of the hon. and

      381
      learned Member for Montgomery in another context.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in many federal countries—for example, the Federal Republic of Germany—disparity exists between one service and another, and the Federal Republic of Germany is a far more cohesive country even than the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Brittan: I know that the hon. Gentleman supports federalism. He has right on his side in the sense that, within a federal structure, this kind of difference is more sustainable. But, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) pointed out in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the position is very different when one is not setting up a federal structure but singling out two parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales—not the basis of differing needs but because it is felt that there has to be a response to the clamour from nationalism in those two parts of the United Kingdom.
      In those circumstances, one has not a reorganisation of Government to distribute power to the regions on a federal basis in which it is understood that standards can vary but an ill-thought-out response to nationalist pressures. In that event, the situation will be very different. As the standards vary between Wales and England because of the exercise of the devolved powers, and as the claims that the areas which have had less money spent on them have become inadequate compared with England not because of the freely-chosen decision of the Welsh Assembly to spend less money but because the British Exchequer has been mean in the block grant, conflict will grow, and is bound to grow, because there are people who will deliberately foment it.
      The Government made a spurious attempt to defuse that issue by putting forward the bogus proposal that there should be a four-yearly allocation of the block grant and an independent board to set up objective criteria.
      It is significant that the board is not mentioned or created in the Bill. The answer that was given in previous debates relating to Scotland—that this should be arranged between the Assembly, when elected, and the United Kingdom Government
      382
      —was unconvincing. If the final arrangement ought to be negotiated between the devolved Administration and the United Kingdom Administration, that will not absolve the Government from setting out the general outline for such a board in the Bill. Instead, it is left completely empty.
      As has been pointed out by Labour Members, the idea that we shall achieve less conflict and more certainty by attempting to create and determine a block grant over a period of four years is farcical when we consider the vicissitudes in the British economy over periods far shorter than four years. It is not a credible proposition that this will reduce conflict or bring about greater stability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) pointed out, it is designed to make life easier for the central Government. But my prediction is that, if the Bill ever reaches the statute book and reality, the central Government will not find their position eased.
      I ask the Minister of State, in replying to the debate, to answer a question which was posed repeatedly in the Scottish devolution debates by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison): what will happen if, in the course of one year or of four years, the Government of the day decide that the economy requires massive cuts in public expenditure? How will such cuts in expenditure be achieved in Wales, or in Scotland for that matter? Will there be an ad hoc conference between the Welsh Assembly and the United Kingdom Treasury at which the Treasury will say "Under the order before the House of Commons, tranches of money are to come your way. Will you agree that the tranches should be reduced?" That is a genuine problem. It is one that arises from the block grant system.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Can the hon. and learned Member say how that problem is resolved for the county councils?
      Mr. Brittan: The difference is that at the end of the day the political pressure on the county councils is different from that which is bound to occur with the Assembly. County councils may make representations individually or collectively. That is right, but they do not have the authority to speak for a nation

      383
      in the way that an Assembly will. If right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench think that it will make no difference at all when there is an Assembly which purports to speak for a nation and which has been elected on that basis, they have another think coming. A county council is an administrative body which is set up to administer certain services within an area which is chosen on a particular basis. One cannot say that about a Welsh or Scottish Assembly, because if that were so there would be Assemblies in all the regions of England.
      The decision of the Government to ignore all the questions that were asked in their Green Paper on devolution for England and to do nothing at all about England is the plainest indication, if any were needed, that this reform—if it can be called a reform—has absolutely nothing to do with improving the government of Wales or Scotland and everything to do with responding to nationalist pressure.
      In an intervention, the Minister referred to nominated bodies. He said that nominated bodies also suffered from the same objection as we raised—namely, that the divorce within a unitary State between a body that spends money and a body that raises it is inherently unhealthy and is likely to lead to conflict. A nominated body, because it is a nominated body, is chosen to spend money for a particular purpose. The members of that body have no authority whatsoever to speak for anybody at all. They are simply given the power to discharge responsibilities and spend certain moneys.
      How can one compare such a body with an Assembly which is not only directly elected but is directly elected on the basis of a national unit of administration and on the basis that it is supposed to reflect the aspirations and sentiments of the nation? There is all the difference in the world between two such bodies.
      That does not mean that revenue-raising for an Assembly would be more of an attractive proposition that should be followed. The reverse is true. The Government cannot find a way of doing it, and I doubt whether the provision of revenue-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly would raise devolution from its present nadir of unpopularity in Wales
      384
      to something more acceptable or more popular.
      Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: What is the basis for the hon. and learned Member saying that this is the nadir of unpopularity in Wales, apart from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) says?
      Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Bedwellty is an extremely reliable source on this matter, if not on other matters. I am not seeking to take a poll through the hon. Member for Bedwellty or others. My argument simply is that even if I am wrong and the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is wrong and everyone in Wales is screaming for devolution—
      Mr. Hughes: It is a curious way of doing it.
      Mr. Brittan: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to me. I have given way to him twice. I ask him to do me the courtesy of listening to the answer that I am giving. I am not concerned to make a point about the popularity of devolution in Wales. That will be determined in due course.
      Mr. Hughes: Answer the point about the nadir.
      Mr. Brittan: The point I am putting, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me—
      Mr. Hughes: Answer the question.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman seems to like asking questions but not to receive the answers. He is not listening. If he insists on intervening from a sedentary position again, I shall not bother to answer him at all.
      My point is that, if revenue-raising powers were granted to the Assembly, that would not increase its popularity but would achieve quite the reverse. The Government have not favoured giving revenue-raising powers. There is an illogicality in dividing revenue spending and revenue raising in the way that it is done. We are led to the conclusion that the scheme is divisive in concept, uncertain in execution and dangerous in implementation and that it should therefore be rejected.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I thought that this clause dealt with various technical aspects of the Bill, and not having sat through these debates as often as some hon. Members I naively assumed that it was the kind of clause that a Treasury Minister could wind up a debate on. It merely establishes splendid Welsh institutions such as the Welsh Consolidated Fund, the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and the Welsh Loans Fund. But having sat through the debate and listened to some of the splendid speeches I now recognise that these debates are basically Second Reading debates on the principle of the Welsh Assembly.
      The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), from his great knowledge of Welsh affairs, which we all recognise, said that the Bill would not lead to an improvement in the state of life for the people of Wales. That was an a priori statement that he was unable to back up with any evidence. He said that the people of Wales received a higher per capita level of revenue than the people of the North-East of England. I should like to see his evidence for that, because one of the problems—
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Tell us the figures for the North-East.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman was listened to in silence by my Front Bench and I would hope for the same courtesy from him.
      One of the problems of these debates is that we do not have a reliable break down of the per capita expenditure in the regions of England, and without this we have to compare the whole of England with the whole of Wales—
      Mr. Brittan: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. and learned Gentleman must learn to contain himself. He read out a very long speech.
      So we do not have reliable figures. Comparing the whole of England with the whole of Wales and the whole of Scotland is not comparing like with like, because with the enormous service sector in the South-East of England there is a wholly different situation from that in the North of England, Wales and Scotland. Thirdly, the hon. and learned Gentleman
      386
      said that the popularity of the Assembly had reached a nadir in Wales. He had no evidence to back up that proposition, either. He treated us to the kind of arrogant Tory speech to which we in Wales have become used over the years, which is why we have always rejected the Tory Party.
      Mr. Brittan: It may suit the right hon. Gentleman's purposes to be vituperative, but surely he would not wish to misrepresent what I said. He will find from reading Hansard that I said that the per capita expenditure in Wales was higher than in England, and that if that continued after the establishment of the Welsh Assembly the people of the North-East of England, which has problems as great as those of Wales, would object. I did not say that the per capita expenditure in Wales was higher than in the North-East. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, wish to accept that that is so, if he wishes to maintain the standards to which he aspires rather than the low standards he ascribes so readily to other people.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is getting more and more pompous. The people of the North-East would react in that way only if they did not have proper figures. In fact, the hope must be that we can provide a regional break-down for England. Then we can see what the per capita income is for the North of England and compare like with like, instead of comparing two areas which are not similar.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised two points with which I should deal. He asked, first, about the Executive Committee. Clause 19 defines the Executive Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend would prefer it to be called the "Cabinet". That would add a certain strength to the kind of emotional arguments that he puts forward in these debates. Nevertheless, it is described as an Executive Committee. It is quite clear what it is. It is set out very clearly in Clause 19.
      My hon. Friend then asked about the Civil Service and what kind of loyalties—divided loyalties, so he alleged—the Civil Service would show. He will know that the Assembly civil servants will service and be responsible for giving advice

      387
      to the Assembly, and the Secretary of State's civil servants will give advice and be responsible for that advice to the Secretary of State. They will all be members of the Home Civil Service. They will not be any different from the Department of Employment civil servants, primarily responsible to that Department, or from the Treasury civil servants, whose primary responsibility is to that Department. Therefore, I do not see any bogy here for my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Dalyell: May we first establish a fact? Does it not mean, therefore, that there will be significantly more civil servants doing the same jobs as is done at present? Is that right or wrong?
      Mr. Davies: It may be half right and half wrong. There certainly will be more civil servants. I come to the question that my hon. Friend asked. He need not have asked the question, because in this case the answer is set out clearly in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which says that there will be needed
      "about £9½ million in respect of additional civil servants in Wales, including staff of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and related costs, including accommodation costs ".
      We do not dispute the fact that the Bill will mean more civil servants. They will not be doing the same kind of work. The Welsh Assembly civil servants will be advising the Welsh Assembly. The Secretary of State's civil servants will deal with the added responsibilities and the other responsibilities that the Secretary of State has which are not to be devolved to the Assembly.
      Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the example that he gave of civil servants now having a primary responsibility to the Department to which they belong but still a profound general loyalty and responsibility for all of the Government and all the Civil Service is distinctly different from the situation that we shall have after devolution? That will be that in the case of there being two different Governments of two different political colours, the civil servants of the Welsh Assembly must have not just a primary but a total responsibility there, and that means a different Civil Service.
      Mr. Davies: Not unusually, my hon. Friend is playing with words again.
      Mr. Dalyell: No.
      Mr. Davies: My experience of Government is that in the main, civil servants, in practice, see their primary responsibility as being to fight the battles of their Department. I should have thought that the Welsh Assembly civil servants would operate in exactly the same way. I do not see any problems here. My hon. Friend is seeing bogies again.
      Perhaps I may return to the main point of the debate—the fear that, somehow, things will be so terribly different, in relation to the Welsh Assembly acquiring its block grant, from the present position, in which the Welsh Office, through the Cabinet and through arguments with the Treasury, secures a sum of money which is spent exactly on these devolved services in Wales.
      The reality of the situation is that there may be different mechanisms of government and a different way of doing it, but the battle for public expenditure, the battle for the block grant for the Welsh Assembly, will be fought basically and fundamentally in the same way as battles for public expenditure are fought now. They will be fought through the annual public expenditure exercise and in the Cabinet. The Secretary of State for Wales will make the case for financial resources for the whole of Wales. Indeed, he will have the Welsh Assembly at his door, pressing for increases in the money spent in Wales. But the fundamental choices on priorities will be made in exactly the same way as at present.
      So I see no basic difference, except in the mechanism. I do not think that there can be a difference, when we maintain the unity of the United Kingdom and when the Government, the Executive and the Treasury are still responsible for general economic and financial management.
      Mr. Wigley: Since we now have a Secretary of State for Wales arguing our case in Cabinet, and in future we shall also have an Assembly arguing our case, is it not true that Wales can only have a stronger voice to argue for the resources that we need?
      Mr. Davies: I accept that pressure from a democratically elected Assembly must be greater than less cohesive pressure from different parts of Wales, but basically the elected Government will have to

      389
      decide. The best safeguard for the people of Wales getting the resources they need is a Labour Government at Westminster and not that lot sitting on the Opposition Benches.
      But the difference in this Bill lies not in the initial allocation of resources but in how those resources are to be distributed and on what priorities. At the moment, once the allocation is made, and despite the fact that Ministers are responsible to this House, it is then an executive act which determines priorities, whether in the Welsh Office, between the Welsh Office and the Treasury, or among other Departments. Although these decisions are taken by Ministers, they are largely debated in the Civil Service, in Whitehall, behind closed doors.
      If the Bill goes through, the difference is that that debate will take place in the open. The debate about the £876 million of devolved expenditure will then take place not in the Welsh Office, the Treasury or the Department of the Environment, but in the Cardiff Assembly, among the elected representatives of the people. Some hon. Members may not like it—perhaps at the end of the day their decisions and priorities would be different—but if we believe in democracy, in the fact that people have the right to control their own destinies in an imperfect and difficult world, we must believe that the elected representatives of the people have the right to debate the allocation of moneys of that kind.
      Mr. Kinnock: My right hon. Friend is playing with words, especially since he is a Treasury Minister speaking for a Department in which Ministers have been known not even to give evidence to a Select Committee, let alone debate things in the open. Fine words about the necessity for public debate do not come too well from a Treasury Minister, although I know my hon. Friend's commitment to openness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] It is no good saying, "Come on." These things have to be examined. Commitments to being against the Common Market, for instance, have to be examined; commitments to open and free expression about the allocation of resources have to be examined. We shall examine all these things in due course in the open, as it should be. My
      390
      right hon. Friend understands that. May I put it to him—
      10.45 p.m.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has made a number of speeches today and his views are well known to the Committee. I think that the Minister should be allowed to continue his speech.
      Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. First, I am not seeking to teach you your business, but this is the Committee stage. Second, I have a specific question to ask. Third, the length of my remarks has been due entirely to the interventions of my hon. Friends, and they deserved and needed an answer.
      The Chairman: Ask the question.
      Mr. Kinnock: Even though I applaud openness of debate as much as my right hon. Friend does, I point out that we have got more in Wales than the £876 million. Even if we had only the £876 million, would the sums awarded from that £876 million to local and statutory bodies be more or less equitably distributed as a result of their being debated in the fashion that he wants?
      Mr. Davies: The answer to both questions is that I do not know. I do not know whether we would get more in Wales if we had a block grant system. I do not know whether there would be more than the £876 million. I do not know whether the Welsh Assembly would be as wise as my hon. Friend in distributing this kind of money. Perhaps the Members would be very foolish people and distribute it very inequitably. I agree with my hon. Friend's commitment to open government. I should like to see greater control, through Select Committees, of what goes on in the Executive. But how can my hon. Friend, with his commitment to democracy, say that it is better for the Executive to distribute the £876 million than it is for the elected representatives of the people of Wales, many of them from his own constituency and many of them from his own local party? Is he saying that they are not wise enough to do the job properly, or that they are too foolish to distribute this kind of money? I do not believe that that is

      391
      his view. Knowing him, I am very surprised that he has put forward that kind of argument.
      Mr. Kinnock: Would we get more?
      Mr. Davies: That is not the language of Socialism. We are concerned, surely with the priorities in terms of expenditure. I think it is better that those should be determined, as I have said, by the elected representatives of the people of Wales than in the way they are determined at the moment.
      I turn now to the point, also raised by my hon. Friend, about how the moneys would be distributed or decided upon. In Clause 46 it is made quite clear that the Secretary of State brings forward an order to this House, which is then passed by affirmative resolution—or not so passed—determining the amount of block grant, the amount of money that goes into the Welsh Assembly. I ask my hon. Friend again to consider whether that is not a better procedure than we have at the moment, with a public expenditure White Paper voted upon en bloc, in one piece, without any attempt to consider the different areas of expenditure? Here we are putting forward a greater measure of parliamentary control, and I should have thought he would wish to have this
      The Secretary of State for Wales has to come here and argue his case and get an affirmative resolution through the House of Commons as to the amount of money—after the Government have determined it, usually through Cabinet—that will go to this elected body of the Welsh people. I should have thought that was preferable to the kind of system that we have at the moment, with too much power put into the hands of the Executive and too little in the hands of the House of Commons, and nothing at all in the hands of the people of Wales, who should be allowed to distribute this kind of money.
      Mr. Kinnock: Will it be more?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is very keen on getting more. I am sure that those from his area sitting in the Welsh Assembly would do their best to get more for Wales and for his own locality.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I put some specific questions to the Minister. Will he answer them before he concludes his speech?
      Mr. Davies: I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I think that he asked a specific question in relation to the independent body as he liked to call it. He will have read the White Paper and seen that it is stated there quite sensibly, that it may very well be necessary to have a forum whereby needs can be determined. But this will not be the kind of body which I think he was envisaging or that is set up to determine and assess needs. It is the kind of body that is needed for research purposes in order that we can see the best way of allocating resources.
      I come back to the point that I made at the beginning. At the end of the day this money will not be allocated by bodies, civil servants, studies or anything else. It will be allocated through the normal procedure of government—through the public expenditure review and through Cabinet and departmental Ministers arguing the case. In that respect nothing has changed in the Bill.
      What has changed is that we have a better system of determining how these resources will be distributed—given the special needs of Wales, the special needs of different areas and the need to have these matters debated in public instead as of at present in the main behind closed doors.
      I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Dalyell: Normally we would have proceeded to a vote, but there are some hon. Members who feel that crucial questions have been put and that no kind it detailed convincing answers have been given.
      I want to be fair to the Minister of State. His opening remarks were very revealing. He said that he had come to the Committee thinking that this was a simple clause, which the Treasury could easily answer. I expect he was under the impression that he could wait here for half an hour, have some kind of polite debate, and then go on his way and get back to Treasury business.
      For some of us, this is day 36 of the argument. My right hon. Friend has been spared 35 days of it. That is precisely what concerns many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. So far, the argument on the whole has been conducted by a comparatively small group

      393
      of hon. Members. In the heat of the day the burden has been borne by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith). He has answered almost every debate, especially on the Scotland Bill.
      Some of us feel it high time that other Departments and other Ministers were brought in to hear what is going on. The truth of the matter is that the more one learns what is going on the more doubtful one becomes.
      Mr. Tom Ellis: No.
      Mr. Dalyell: That is the truth. I shall not name my hon. Friends or embarrass them, but some of them who have voted for this measure have said "Of course, we do not want to know about it". It is high time that other Ministers in key Departments like the Treasury tumbled on to precisely what was up.
      Had he been present day after day, as some of us have, my hon. Friend the Minister of State would not have made the crude speech that he has made.
      Mr. Alec Jones: There is no need to be so damned rude.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am not being rude.
      Mr. Caerwyn Roderick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister of State's only misfortune was not to be in lime to get his name printed in The Sunday Times Colour Supplement?
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), who is now a Minister, used to make eloquent Back-Bench speeches on devolution. My right hon. Friend's speech was a crude one, because of the references to the Executive. Whenever I ask questions about the Executive's operations I am quickly referred to Clause 19, which says:
      "One of the committees appointed under section 18 above shall be known as the Executive Committee and shall consist of the leaders of the other committees so appointed and no greater number of other members than one-third of the number of those leaders;"
      Quite frankly, that is an answer that does not get us very far
      In the Scotland Bill we never got around to the nuts and bolts of the situation. We are still unclear about this Executive. Is it a Cabinet or not? Will the Welsh Assembly consist of full-time
      394
      or part-time politicians? I shall give way to any Minister on the Government Front Bench who will inform us about this. Are the Members of this Assembly to be paid as full-time or part-time politicians? We should know the nature of the organisation that we are discussing. It is indicative of the situation that when I ask a simple nuts-and-bolts, down-to-earth question about the way in which this organisation will work, the answer is the proverbial lemon.
      I repeat, will it be in the form of a Cabinet or just a glorified county council? Many people who have spoken on this matter have been forthcoming. On one level they have said that of course the Assembly will be obedient, and that just like a county council it will know its place and take directions from Westminster. Yet on another level they have said that the Assembly will meet the aspirations of the people of Wales. They cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The important thing is not what this committee is called, or whether it looks like a Cabinet. The important consideration is the power of the Assembly, and these are very clearly defined in the legislation. The other important consideration is where the money is coming from, and that is also clearly defined. It does not matter what one calls the various committees.
      Mr. Dalyell: There has to be some kind of Welsh Treasury. Unless we have that, I do not see how the mechanism will operate.
      Mr. Raison: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is making some pertinent points. The real tragedy is that the Minister of State in the first appearance by the Treasury has not talked about matters of absolutely crucial importance. For example, he has not told us how an incomes policy fits into the concept of this Bill, or how the economic strategy in Wales will be managed. Over the years we have been told that the Treasury must have power over the building programmes, and so on. All this has now gone with the connivance of the Government. It is pathetic that we have been told nothing of this.
      Mr. Dalyell: That point was made about six hours ago, when we discussed the interventions made on 9th March by

      395
      the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who asked how one Parliament could give instructions to another Parliament or Assembly about what it would and could not do. Here again is an unanswered question.
      I see the Assistant Chief Whip here, and I know that he wants to vote tonight. But these are very important matters, and this debate must continue tomorrow. I shall be on my feet until 11 o'clock, because there are many critical unanswered questions.
      There is the issue of the Civil Service. One cannot just say that this is covered by the £9·5 million. The questions of the parallel nature of the double loyalties of the Civil Service has not been
      answered. I ask the Minister of State for the Civil Service tomorrow morning to discuss with his coleagues in the CSD, and others with whom he discusses these matters, the answer to the questions that have been put.
      I know that the Whips, possibly on both sides, want some kind of vote, but there are critical issues involving the loyalty of the Civil Service and important matters to be discussed on other clauses.
      Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The Commiteee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 125.

      Division No. 157]

      AYES

      [11,00 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Penhaligon, David

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Ashton, Joe

      Grocott, Bruce

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Harper, Joseph

      Radice, Giles

      Atkinson, Norman

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Bates, Alf

      Hooley, Frank

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Bean, R. E.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Beith, A. J.

      Horam, John

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Huckfleld, Let

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Boardman, H.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hunter, Adam

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Bradley, Tom

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Janner, Greville

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

      John, Brynmor

      Spearing, Nigel

      Carmichael, Neil

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Cartwright, John

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Cocks Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Stoddart, David

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Stott, Roger

      Cowans, Harry

      Kerr, Russell

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Lamond, James

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Dempsey, James

      Madden, Max

      Watkins, David

      Doig, Peter

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Watkinson, John

      Dormand, J. D.

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Weetch, Ken

      Edge, Geoff

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mendelson, John

      Whitlock, William

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Woof, Robert

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Ford, Ben

      Moyle, Roland

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Forrester, John

      Oakes, Gordon

      George, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Golding, John

      Padley, Walter

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Gourlay, Harry

      Palmer, Arthur

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Park, George

      NOES

      Alison, Michael

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Anderson, Donald

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

      Benyon, W.

      Grist, Ian

      Percival, Ian

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Biffen, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Body, Richard

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Holland, Philip

      Raison, Timothy

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hordern, Peter

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Brooke, Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rhodes, James R.

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      James. David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Buck, Antony

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

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Budgen, Nick

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Carson, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Channon, Paul

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Knox, David

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Cope, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Luce, Richard

      Silvester, Fred

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      McAdden, sir Stephen

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Speed, Keith

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Spence, John

      Dunlop, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Sproat, Iain

      Dykes, Hugh

      Mather, Carol

      Stainton, Keith

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Tebbitt, Norman

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Temple Morris, Peter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Forman, Nigel

      Mudd, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Fox, Marcus

      Neubert, Michael

      Wells, John

      Fry, Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr Spencer Le Marchant and

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Mr Peter Morrison.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 121.

      Division No. 158]

      AYES

      [11.13 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Edge, Geoff

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Anderson, Donald

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Kerr, Russell

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Atkinson, Norman

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Bates, Alf

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lamond, James

      Bean, R. E.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Beith, A. J.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Ford, Ben

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Forrester, John

      Madden, Max

      Boardman, H.

      George, Bruce

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Booth. Rt Hon Albert

      Golding, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Bradley, Tom

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Carmichael, Neil

      Harper, Joseph

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)

      Cartwright, John

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Coleman, Donald

      Horam, John

      Moyle, Roland

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cowans, Harry

      Huckfleld, Les

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Padley, Walter

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Park, George

      Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)

      Hunter, Adam

      Penhaligon, David

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Janner, Greville

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dean, Joseph (Leads West)

      John, Brynmor

      Radice, Giles

      Dempsey, James

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Doig, Peter

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Stoddart, David

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Rooker, J. W.

      Stott, Roger

      Whitlock, William

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tierney, Sydney

      Woof, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Watkins, David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Watkinson, John

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Weetch, Ken

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      NOES

      Alison, Michael

      Gray, Hamish

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Grist, Ian

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Benyon, W.

      Harrison. Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Biffen, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Raison, Timothy

      Body, Richard

      Hicks, Robert

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Holland, Philip

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hordern, peter

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rhodes, James R.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hutchison. Michael Clark

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Brittan, Leon

      James, David

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Brooke, Peter

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

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Jessel, Toby

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Buck, Antony

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Knox, David

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Carson, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Shepherd, Colin

      Channon, Paul

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Silvester, Fred

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Luce, Richard

      Speed, Keith

      Cope, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spence, John

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sproat, Iain

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stainton, Keith

      Drayson Burnabv

      Mather, Carol

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Dunlop, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbitt, Norman

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pemoroke)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Temple Morris, Peter

      Elliott, Sir William

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Viggers, Peter

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Forman, Nigel

      Mudd, David

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wells, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Neubert, Michael

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Fry, Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Gow. Ian (Eastbourne)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Percival, Ian

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      It being after Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].
      Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (VIEWDATA AND TELETEXT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
11.25 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Tonight I should like to raise the subject of Government support for the Viewdata and Teletext projects. These are means of transmitting information by both television and telephone to the public, industry and the community. They are brilliant British inventions. I think that they rank with the inventions of the jet

401
engine and radar in this country and that they are superb examples of British technical genius in action. Of particular importance is that they are two years in advance of any foreign rival. They are now on test and are not only proving that they work but that with good will they will meet the great expectations of the engineers who have developed them.
I have nothing but praise for the way in which a dozen British companies, including the Post Office, have worked together in harmony but quietly in developing these new communications systems. More is the pity that in the quietness of the House we shall be told a story of British achievement, bearing in mind that the House is so often filled to hear the story of a British industrial disaster. Perhaps it is a reflection on all of us that we have become too used to failure and are not used to success when we see it.
Our need tonight is to talk of the way in which we can bring this project, which is on the threshold of success, to the reality which I am sure both sides of the House want to see.
I particularly praise the inventor of the system, Mr. Sam Fedida, who was once in the Post Office, and also the entrepreneurial style of Sir William Barlow and Dr. Alex Reid, who in the Post Office have shown a vigour, enthusiasm and entreprenuerial style which has been too long invisible in the Post Office. Praise also goes to those who worked on CEEFAX and ORACLE in the IBA and the BBC, who in parallel are leading the world—and my superlatives are carefully gauged—in this "first" in information technology. As a technologist myself, from what I have seen to date I believe that we have here a brilliant system, which will be a winner.
The problem to which I wish to address myself tonight is the role that should now be played by the Government to ensure that the systems developed to date achieve the success that they deserve. For too long this country has failed to harvest the fruits of its own technology. For too long we have suffered industrial policies which have subsidised failure rather than stimulated success.
The beauties of Viewdata and Teletext are that they are simple and will help
402
all the people of this country, and I hope, the world to gain a new freedom of access to information, not only across their own nations but across the frontiers of the world. They can be signal contributions to understanding between peoples.
The clever parts of Viewdata and Teletext are translations of the concepts that started off as thoughts, drawings and views in the minds of people which now have been translated into systems that are proving that they are real and reliable. They are—I hope that the Government will recognise this—the first recognition in this country that a world information revolution is upon us. They are both systems which are built by venture capital from private industry and from the Post Office. Ranges of work have been done by companies such as Mullard, GEC, ITT, Rank, Decca—a dozen companies which make up the forefront of British communications technology.
I have no doubt that the Minister will dispute my view, but I must say that I am delighted that the heavy hand of Whitehall has not been on the motive power of the project. On the other hand, I will be the first to say that if any Government are needed in an industrial project their presence in specific areas where help is required needs to be timely and of sufficient strength to complete the job properly.
I should like to propose certain ways in which the Government could and should now help. The first is to endorse the systems as viable ways in which information can be conveyed between people. This may sound an unusual proposal to put before a House or to a Government—that all they have to do is to shout "Hurrah"—but this is such a wonderful invention that an endorsement by a British Government would be tremendous, timely and completely fair and reasonable.
Secondly, I believe that the Government should give leadership in establishing that the viable and reasonable international standards for all these systems can be achieved.
Thirdly, I ask that the Government should recognise that these systems are means of improving the process of government at all levels of government in the United Kingdom, whether it be at

403
national, county or district level, or within the national corporations of the State.
To enlarge briefly on each of these proposals, taking endorsement first, a public expression by the Government of good will towards the project would not only be a spur to those who have quietly given so much of their time and their effort but also would be a tremendous help, I understand, to export sales projects. Be fore I came to the House, I knew what it was like to try to sell electronic goods in a very competitive market in the United States and the difference it makes or does not make to have the support of a British Government. I did not have it and it was like going up the north wall of the Eiger. Why not give these people the chance of a smoother ride round the softer side?
I understand that the Post Office export division is all ready to go. I think that it should be assisted.
We must also, I hope, look to the Government to ensure that any necessary legislation—this needs to be examined—is on line on time.
On the question of leadership, to put it bluntly the French came in two years after we had started, and now, as is too often the case with our French allies, they are unwisely, from a technical viewpoint—I do not think it is my place in the House tonight to give way any technical secrets to which I might have become privy—trying to force through international specifications in favour of their equipment without the authority of technical backing which they should have.
The Government could give leadership and I believe should give leadership in the relevant international authorities such as the Conference of European Posts and Telecommunications to make our systems and their systems acceptable rather than to find a situation where the French are trying to make our system unacceptable and theirs acceptable. We must speak through the Government with one authority for telecommunications and broadcasting at the debating tables where these international standards are agreed.
Thirdly, I think that the Government should explore immediately, in collaboration perhaps with the central computer authority of the Civil Service Department which I recognise is another Department
404
from that of the Minister who is kindly replying to the debate tonight, the use of this breakthrough in information processes to improve the process of government. I have absolutely no doubt that the Viewdata and Teletext could bring to the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Trade, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Minister's own Department, new ways in which information could be gathered and exchanged.
I hope that it would help the market surveys of the Department's own requirement boards, which, I was told in a parliamentary reply, are unable to carry out their own surveys through a lack of expertise. I hope it would help the Foreign Office in the United Nations debate on direct satellite broadcasting, because these systems provide a means of supporting the British contention that we can supply world-wide freedom of access to information across frontiers.
However, the Luddites are at work, and it is not unusual with new technologies to find people speaking sourly of something that looks like progress. I understand that the National Union of Journalists is already in dispute over one of the systems about who should get the jobs involved. But this is a new project which offers more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone should welcome the chance of many more jobs. I hope that all the unions will look upon this development as an opportunity for new employment.
I understand that the Advertising Standards Association feels that someone should censor what is available. The deputy director of that authority believes that Viewdata could become
"a haven for all sorts of crooks and misleading advertisers who could not find a home in the existing media".
That Luddite attitude must be dismissed rapidly, so that it does not present an obstacle to what should be a great British venture. To achieve that I should be happy to give Mrs. Whitehouse the chance of acting as a temporary censor.
In this century we have seen two great revolutions in communications. The first was that of the Wright brothers, who opened the door to Concorde, by which

405
the world can be spanned in a day. The second has been the revolution in communications by which we have literally moved from smoke signals to Viewdata and Teletext. We have changed communications so that instead of people having to travel to find facts they simply use television and the telephone. It would not be going too far to say that here for the first time in 20 or 25 years since the world first saw the computer we can look to a new world of communications which is dawning before us.
The systems are a world of enterprise for industry. New jobs will replace old and more jobs will be waiting. We are only one year away from the systems being available in the High Streets of Britain, yet their names have never before been mentioned in Parliament. We now need a combined effort by industry and Government to reach out for the international success that these systems truly deserve, and I look forward to the Government tonight meeting me in that request.
11.38 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I thank the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) for raising this important subject tonight. The CEEFAX and ORACLE systems of the BBC and the IBA respectively, and the Viewdata system of the Post Office, mark important advances in communications. I commend the hon. Member for the constructive way in which he made his points. He quite rightly commended the organisations concerned and their staffs directly concerned with the projects. These are fine British achievements, which have given this country a world lead, and on behalf of the Government I offer my congratulations to all concerned. I shall certainly pass on to Sir William Barlow and his staff the hon. Gentleman's very kind words of praise.
The hon. Gentleman has gone into some of the differences between the two systems, but I know that he will understand that the BBC and the IBA come within the areas of responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I am sure will take very careful note of what he has said tonight, particularly in relation to the CEEFAX and ORACLE services. My own Department is, of course, responsible for the Post Office and for the well-being of British
406
manufacturing industry in general. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I tend to concentrate a little more on Viewdata and the set manufacturers, though I assure him that I shall attempt to cover the CEEFAX and the ORACLE aspects in my remarks as well.
Let me make it clear that the setting up of the Viewdata service and its running come within the operational powers of the Post Office, as defined by the Post Office Act 1969. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is kept very closely informed of progress.
As the hon. Gentleman says, the French authorities are developing their own teletext system, ANTIOPE, which, together with an associated system, is planned to provide services comparable with Viewdata and CEEFAX and ORACLE. I understand, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the technical specifications are rather different.
The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred to the Post Office's embarkation on a public trial for the Viewdata service in June this year. Some 1,500 subscribers in London, Birmingham and Norwich will take part. Over £8 million has already been invested by the Post Office in the project, and in February it announced that it had brought forward by one year the start of a full Viewdata service to the first quarter of 1979. It is allocating a further £18 million for the service in 1979 alone, which is, I think, a reflection of the confidence that the Post Office has in its system.
By comparison, I understand that the French are not quite as advanced in setting up the commercial version of their ANTIOPE service.
On the matter of exports, Viewdata has already achieved a major break-through by the sale of Viewdata know-how to the German Post Office. I believe that this should provide an important bridgehead into establishing Viewdata with foreign telecommunications administrations.
There have also been a number of private demonstrations abroad, as well as seminars and public demonstrations at fairs and exhibitions, the latest of which have been in Zurich and Hong Kong. As a result, a number of countries, including European countries, have shown a great

407
deal of interest in purchasing the Viewdata software. In the United States, the New York offices of Insac Data Systems Limited, which is a subsidiary of the National Enterprise Board, already have an operational Viewdata terminal, which is linked to the computer centre in London, for demonstration purposes. The Post Office hopes that an agreement will be concluded in a few months' time for Insac to market Viewdata in the United States of America, where there is already a considerable amount of interest being shown. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, therefore, that these opportunities are also holding great promise for British television set manufacturers and are very encouraging for them.
On the question of international discussions, to which the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred, the question of standards for Viewdata-type and CEEFAX and ORACLE systems is already under discussion. The Post Office has informed me that it and the German Post Office are already in touch with the French authorities for ongoing discussions on the matter of standards to see what common areas exist between the Viewdata and ANTIOPE systems.
On the multilateral level, the question of harmonising Viewdata-type services is being examined by a study group within the Conference of European PTT Administrations, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of which the Post Office is an active member. The international telegraph and telephone consultative committee of the International Telecommunication Union is also turning its mind to this type of wired service, as well as the broadcast teletext services.
In fact, the ITU's international radio consultative committee, on which the Home Office, BBC, IBA and the set manufacturers are represented, has been discussing the broadcast teletext services for some time and it is now coming together with the international telegraph and telephone consultative committee to take the discussion further. Although that committee's interest lies mainly in line transmission standards and alphabet standards, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Post Office will take a very active part in the work concerned. Certainly we in the Government will keep a
408
close eye on the progress of such international discussions to ensure that should any Government-to-Government intervention appear helpful, such opportunities will be grasped firmly.
Mr. Warren: I should like an assurance that the Minister understands that at the moment there are two authorities speaking in these international conferences on behalf of the United Kingdom, whereas the French speak with one unified voice. But they are trying to make the running with a system which is later than ours and which has major problems which they are glossing over.
Mr. Huckfield: I am very much aware of what the hon. Gentleman says about the activities of the French, and we shall take it to heart.
It would probably be helpful if I explained that the Post Office has made it clear that it will maintain the current Viewdata standards for the foreseeable future. At the same time it recognises that there may eventually be a need for a second generation of Viewdata service, at which time matters of compatability both for the television set manufacturers and the information providers will have to be considered.
The hon. Member mentioned that there was some concern among the manufacturers that there should be closer co-operation among the various parties concerned on the line to take in international discussions. The Post Office assures me that it is fully seized of the need for very close co-ordination on this. It points out that, through the Viewdata liaison group, which comprises representatives of the Post Office, set manufacturers and information providers, the British Radio Equipment Manufacturers Association study groups, which include Post Office, BBC and IBA officials as well as the set manufacturers and its bilateral discussions with the BBC and IBA, it strives to present the most convincing and co-ordinated case in the various international discussions.
The Home Office, which also takes part in international discussion on this, keeps closely in touch with the British parties involved. It does all it can to promote the British system vigorously in the international forums to which it is a party.
As for the Government's attitude, the fact that the Post Office is prepared to

409
commit funds now to a public Viewdata service, and bring forward the start of the service by one year, demonstrates the Post Office's confidence in Viewdata and in the ability of all concerned to market it effectively. The Post Office is not in need of, and has not asked for, financial support from the Government to run the Viewdata programme; but my officials are in discussion with it to see whether there are any ways in which the Government can help.
I noted what the hon. Member said about the industry's desire to improve its promotional activity for Viewdata in Europe. I ask that representatives of the industry—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has contacts with it—make contact with my officials in the Department through the normal channels so that we may consider how the Government might lend support. I should perhaps mention that, through the micro-electronic support scheme, my Department is providing financial support totalling about £300,000 to two British companies involved in the manufacture of semiconductors to assist them in the development, production and marketing of custom-designed integrated circuits for Viewdata and broadcast Teletext. So there is some activity in that area. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to use his contacts with the representatives of the industry to ensure that we have more.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has authorised the broadcasting authorities to continue the development of their broadcast Teletext services. My right hon. Friend, while recognising that the development of Teletext raises a number of other important issues—particularly the implications for other communications media, particularly the newspaper industry—has made it very clear to the manufacturers that in his view the Teletext services are here to stay and has expressed his hope that that indication of the Government's attitude will encourage the industry to provide the necessary equipments at a price which will bring them within the reach of the public at large. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, if we are to get this system accepted widely in public, we have to concentrate particularly on bringing down the cost of the receiving sets.
410
I should like to deal with two points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the first of which was the idea that the Government should demonstrate their support of the Viewdata service by placing substantial orders for receivers for their own use. The Post Office and the set manufacturers are already in touch with those responsible for the procurement of communications equipment for central Government, and introducing them to the potentialities of Viewdata in an office environment. Clearly, the Government's own procurement decisions must be guided primarily by efficiency and economy in carrying out their functions, but I am sure that Viewdata is being evaluated with a sympathetic awareness of its national importance. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the right quarters.
The hon. Gentleman's other point concerned doubts raised recently about the maintenance of standards by advertisers using Viewdata. The Post Office is conscious of this problem and is discussing with the Advertising Standards Authority ways in which it can be tackled. The Post Office has adopted a policy under which editorial control rests firmly with the information providers, and matters of advertising standards have to be considered against this background.
Finally, I once more thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what I think is a very significant British achievement. He sought the Government's endorsement. I have tried to give him the Government's endorsement tonight. I gladly, willingly and joyfully give it to him. I take this opportunity to reassure all concerned that it is the Government's view that the standards presently being used for the Viewdata, CEEFAX and ORACLE services are effective and well proven. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government give their full backing and encouragement to the promotion, within Europe and elsewhere, of the international acceptance of these British standards.
We have a great British achievement. We can be proud of that achievement. We want to extend that achievement elsewhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  CANNOCK CHASE
  CANNOCK CHASE
  WEST YORKSHIRE
  WEST YORKSHIRE
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PARIS
  PARIS
  NORTHWICH
  NORTHWICH
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
  AFRICA (SOVIET AND CUBAN PRESENCE)
  AFRICA (SOVIET AND CUBAN PRESENCE)
  CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF
  CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF
  EAST LONDON
  EAST LONDON
  USSR
  USSR
  PAYMASTER GENERAL
  PAYMASTER GENERAL
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Emergencies)
  Police (Emergencies)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Community Relations Councils
  Community Relations Councils
  Firemen (Trainees)
  Firemen (Trainees)
  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Films (Licence Fees)
  Films (Licence Fees)
INDUSTRY
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Dispersal
  Dispersal
  Clothing (Grants)
  Clothing (Grants)
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Clothing Industry Productivity Resources Agency
  Clothing Industry Productivity Resources Agency
  Hivent Limited (Shares Purchase)
  Hivent Limited (Shares Purchase)
EMPLOYMENT
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Training (Skillcentres)
  Training (Skillcentres)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Coal and Petroleum Products, Chemical and Allied Industries
  Coal and Petroleum Products, Chemical and Allied Industries
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Departmental Organisations
  Departmental Organisations
  Lonrho Group (chairman's Salary)
  Lonrho Group (chairman's Salary)
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  South-East England
  South-East England
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Psoriasis Sufferers
  Psoriasis Sufferers
  Health Services (Cost)
  Health Services (Cost)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Elderly Persons (South-West England)
  Elderly Persons (South-West England)
  Mobility Allowance (Blind Persons)
  Mobility Allowance (Blind Persons)
  Varicose Veins
  Varicose Veins
  Regional Health Authorities (Revenue Allocations)
  Regional Health Authorities (Revenue Allocations)
  Primates (Experiments)
  Primates (Experiments)
  Cigarette Advertising
  Cigarette Advertising
  Benefits (Immigrants' Dependants)
  Benefits (Immigrants' Dependants)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
ENVIRONMENT
  Pollard Park Estate, Bradford
  Pollard Park Estate, Bradford
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Clemens Kapuuo (Assassination)
  Clemens Kapuuo (Assassination)
  Romania
  Romania
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
TRADE
  Tanker "Amoco Cadiz"
  Tanker "Amoco Cadiz"
  World Trade
  World Trade
  Mauritius
  Mauritius
  Peachey Property Company
  Peachey Property Company
  Cotton Yarn (Imports)
  Cotton Yarn (Imports)
ENERGY
  Miners (Pay Policy)
  Miners (Pay Policy)
  Coking Coal
  Coking Coal
  Portavadie (Oil Platform Site)
  Portavadie (Oil Platform Site)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Tax Thresholds
  Tax Thresholds
  European Community
  European Community
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Civil Servants (Northern Ireland Office)
  Civil Servants (Northern Ireland Office)
  Mortgage Interest (Married Couples)
  Mortgage Interest (Married Couples)
  Personal Taxation (Married Couples)
  Personal Taxation (Married Couples)
  Income Tax and Sex Discrimination
  Income Tax and Sex Discrimination
  Investment Income (Married Couples)
  Investment Income (Married Couples)
  World Trade (United Kingdom Share)
  World Trade (United Kingdom Share)
  Tax Allowances (Children Overseas)
  Tax Allowances (Children Overseas)
  PAYE
  PAYE
  Royal Annuities
  Royal Annuities
TRANSPORT
  Severn Bridge (Repairs)
  Severn Bridge (Repairs)
SCOTLAND
  Firemen (Working Hours)
  Firemen (Working Hours)
  Homeless Persons (Housing Code of Practice)
  Homeless Persons (Housing Code of Practice)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

UNCTAD GENEVA MEETING
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 conclusions were reached at the UNCTAD meeting at Geneva on Third World debts.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with permission, and for the convenience of the House, I am publishing in the Official Report the operative paragraphs of the resolution adopted by the Geneva meeting. A significant agreement was reached on two important issues. On aid, we and other developed countries joined in an undertaking to seek to adopt measures to adjust the financial terms of past aid, or other equivalent measures, for some or all poorer and least developed countries.
2
We are now urgently examining how best to follow up this undertaking. Agreement was also reached on four basic concepts in relation to the debt problems of developing countries. Further work in UNCTAD will take account of these.
Following is the text referred to:
"Operative paragraphs of the Resolution adopted by the UNCTAD Trade and Development Board meeting
Questions 38 and 43, Monday 20th March 1978. A:
1. Members of the Board considered a number of proposals made by developing and developed market economy countries.
2. The Board recognises that many poorer developing countries, particularly the least developed among them, face serious development problems and in some instances serious debt service difficulties.
3. The Board notes with interest the suggestions made by the Secretary-General of UNCTAD about an adjustment of terms of past bilateral official development assistance (ODA) in order to bring them into line with the currently prevailing softer terms.
4. Developed donor countries will seek to adopt measures for such an adjustment of terms of past bilateral ODA, or other equivalent measures, as a means of improving the net ODA flows in order to enhance the development efforts of those developing countries in the light of internationally agreed objectives and conclusions on aid.
5. Upon undertaking such measures, each developed donor country will determine the distribution and the net flows involved within the context of its own aid policy.
6. In such a way, the net flows of ODA in appropriate forms and on highly concessional terms should be improved for the recipients.
7. The Board recommends that the fifth session of the Conference should review measures taken in pursuance of the above.
B:
1. In accordance with resolution 94(IV), the Board has reviewed the intensive work carried on within UNCTAD and other international fora on the identification of those features of past situations which could provide guidance for future operations relating to debt problems of interesting developing countries.
2. Notes with appreciation the contributions made by the Group of 77 (TD/B/670, Annex II) and by some Group B members (TD/B/L.498).
3. Common to the varying approaches in this work are certain basic concepts which include inter alias

(i) International consideration of the debt problem of a developing country would be initiated only at the specific request of the debtor country concerned.

(ii) Such consideration would take place in an appropriate multilateral framework consisting of the interested parties, and with the help as appropriate of relevant international institutions to ensure timely action, taking into account the nature of the problem which may vary from acute balance-of-payments difficulties requiring immediate action to longer-term situations relating to structural, financial and transfer of resources problems requiring appro- priate longer-term measures.

(iii) International action, once agreed by the interested parties, would take due account of the country's economic and financial situation and performance, and of its development prospects and capabilities and of external factors, and bearing in mind internationally agreed objectives for the development of developing countries.

(iv) Debt reorganisation would protect the interests of both debtors and creditors equitably in the context of international economic co-operation.

4. The Board requests the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to convene a meeting of an Intergovernmental Group of Experts to recommend to the tenth special session of the Board prior to the fifth session of the Conference detailed features for future operations relating to debt problems of interested developing countries taking into account the above-mentioned concepts and in the light of proposals made on this issue."
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask whether she would not agree that, on the whole, this conference, by its results, was a failure and followed failures by other conferences? Considering the contribution which Third World countries have
4
made to this country for two centuries in cheap foods and cheap raw materials, and considering that a lifting of their standard of life would mean new markets and the easing of unemployment in this country, cannot our Government follow the example of Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland in cancelling the debts of the poorest countries and in easing those of others?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend's belief that this conference was a failure. Indeed, 1 think it is generally agreed that it was a distinct and most useful advance in the relations between the North and the South. That was agreed by the developing countries as well as by the developed ones. With regard to Sweden, Switzerland and Canada, of course we have taken note of their action in cancelling debts, and the precise way in which we shall implement our undertakings will, I hope, emerge from discussions in the next few weeks. But each country has agreed to implement these things in the best way that it can.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the United Kingdom, along with other European Community countries, has already done an enormous amount to help Third World countries through the European Development Fund and through the Lome Convention? Is not this a more practical way of helping these countries?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I entirely agree that we have done a great deal and not always with encouragement from everywhere else.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could the noble Baroness tell us whether Her Majesty's Government have any inhibitions about lending taxpayers' money for bad risks?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have far more inhibitions than my noble friend.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in considering practical ways of dealing

5
with this problem, is not the solution to incorporate the debt problem with a much more comprehensive trade agreement, which would replace the International Monetary Fund by a world central bank, and to pass the distribution of oil and other surpluses to the recognised international agencies?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as usual, my noble friend very much takes a global approach to these matters, but I must emphasise that I feel that the way we are doing it, case by case where it is appropriate, is a more practical way. In any case, our aid policy is more for the poorest countries and for the poorest people in them.

PUBLIC UTILITIES: ACCURACY OF BILLS
2.42 p.m.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will emphasise to the nationalised industries the need to examine demands for payment carefully before sending them to old people to avoid alarming or injuring them with very high and irrational demands.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the nationalised industries are mindful of the need for care in preparing and submitting bills to all their consumers. Her Majesty's Government do not believe it necessary to raise the matter with the chairmen at this time.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he really believes that the situation is adequate? Is he aware that at the moment I have in my hand a bill for electricity for £506 in respect of a house whose quarterly bill ought to have been between £30 and £40, with a demand that it be paid within 10 days? Is he aware that, luckily, this was sent to me, whereupon I was able to laugh at it very heartily, but that I stopped laughing rather suddenly when I realised what would have happened had this been sent to an elderly person?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am not aware of what the noble Viscount carries in his hand, but if he has any specific cases perhaps he would let me know. With regard to the general point, I do admit there are occasional errors, mainly due to a computer; but we must remember that there are 17 million electricity and 12 million credit gas consumers.

DISABLED DRIVERS' CAR BADGES
2.44 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: 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 steps they are taking to ensure that only those disabled drivers who are entitled to do so use the orange car badge.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government consider that the essential first step is to seek to ensure that badges are not issued to people who do not qualify for a badge under the regulations. To this end, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced in another place on 21st March that a standard form of medical certificate has been devised to be used when applying for a badge. The Health Departments for England and Wales are asking local authorities to recommend doctors to use it. Use of an orange badge by an unentitled person constitutes a traffic offence for which the police can prosecute.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very helpful reply. Is she aware that there is great consternation, to put it mildly, among able-bodied people—perhaps out of jealousy—when they see other able-bodied people using orange badges, and disabled people who are unable to park because able-bodied people have taken their place? Do the Government think that, in the foreseeable future—say, within two years—it might be possible to change the fundamental background colour of these badges and start again, because there is now a vast proliferation?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, something like 200,000 of these badges have already been issued. The point which the noble Baroness has made, about changing the colour of the background to these badges, is not, so far as I know, one that has been considered by my right honourable friend, and I will certainly draw his attention to it.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has said, and say that many severely disabled people who need parking places are not able to get them, because able-bodied people are taking the spaces meant for them, and that the disabled are extremely worried about it? Disabled passengers—not drivers—are also issued with an orange badge, which they are able to leave on the car of an able-bodied driver. Can the Government see that the name is written on the badge, and that it is an offence if able-bodied people drive a car which has a badge of whatever colour?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is now an offence for someone who is not entitled to do so to make use of the orange badge. But I will certainly bring the suggestion of the noble Baroness to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Scotland the name is required to be on the badge?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. The Scottish Office are at present also looking at our proposals for the int' oduction of the medical form to see whether they can produce something in line with that.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as this is a well-known abuse, is it not possible for the Government to encourage traffic wardens to look at the people getting into cars using this badge?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, far be it from me to suggest that traffic wardens should do more than they do at the moment. But it is an offence, and traffic wardens have authority to ask people to move on if they are wrongly
8
using a disabled badge, and, indeed, to institute proceedings if they are doing so.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that disabled people to whom I have spoken have expressed the highest satisfaction about this scheme, and about the lack of formalities associated with the applications which they put in for the badge? Will she take care, in any amendments that are examined, not to impose enormous barriers on the issue of such badges to disabled people which would make it any more difficult for them than it is now?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we know how much this badge has been appreciated by those who really need to use it. What we are concerned about is that a very small handful of people are using badges when they are not entitled to do so, and are thus preventing disabled people and severely disabled passengers from making use of the facilities available. We certainly do not want to do anything to make it less easy for really worthy people to get a badge, or for disabled people to take advantage of the facilities.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be agreeable to considering some relief in law for the relatives of the disabled, who are running errands for them, which they could not run unless there was some economy of time by the use of the disabled drivers' badge?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that raises a rather wider question. I would rather take advice on it and write to the noble Earl.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that she has the sympathy of a great many of us in this House in the positive steps which she announced in her response to the Question? Will she also accept that there has been an abuse of this badge system which has worked to the disadvantage of those who are so greatly benefiting from its introduction? Also, does she hope, with me, that this Question which has been put before the House may lead those people who are abusing the system to realise that, in cheating on it, they are degrading the system and debasing the badge itself?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, time and time again in this House, we have decried from all sides of the Chamber the abuse of the use of the orange label, and I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will continue to do so. There is just one point which I should like to make in mitigation. From time to time, we get allegations that unentitled people are being issued with orange badges. But some of the rules require medical judgment to be exercised in deciding whether disabilities meet the criteria, and a layman may sometimes conclude, quite wrongly, that a badge has been improperly issued. However, in spite of that, we still deplore anyone taking advantage by having on a car an orange label to which he or she is not entitled.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, could the Minister tell us what are the existing criteria?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it might be easier if I said that I will let the noble Baroness have a list of all these things.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: But perhaps, my Lords, it is too long.

LOTTERIES: MANAGEMENT
2.50 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the lotteries organised by local authorities in the United Kingdom are promoted on their behalf by firms of turf accountants or similar bodies.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I understand that the Gaming Board for Great Britain are aware of 15 local lotteries being managed by a firm which also engages in bookmaking, and of a further 61 being managed by firms which also engage in running football pools.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, and accepting that the bookmakers may do an excellent job in running these lotteries, may I ask whether he can say what percentage of the total ticket revenue is paid to the bookmaker promoters? For example, what amount is paid to the lucky lottery investors?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the two points which my noble friend has raised. On his first point, I am aware that in the recent past some anxiety has been expressed about the use of agents. The Act is silent on this point. It is difficult to give a very clear answer to my noble friend's second question. So far as the cost of running a lottery is concerned, the expense is controlled by the Statute. As a result, it is impossible to give a precise answer to the question which my noble friend has raised.

DINNERS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I remind Peers that dinners are available this evening.
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I very much regret that Members of the House have suffered inconvenience due to some delays in the publication of certain papers. I fully realise that this can cause problems for noble Lords in the conduct of the business of the House, and of course we are doing all we can to ensure that the present difficulties are overcome. Until the difficulties are resolved, it would he of great assistance both to Members of the House and to the staff if noble Lords would try to ensure that Amendments to Bills are put down not later than Thursday when they are to be considered on the Monday or Tuesday of the following week.

STATE IMMUNITY BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the State Immunity

11
Bill, I should like to express my gratitude for the assistance which the Government received to ensure the speedy passage of the Bill through the House. While its provisions are very technical—and it was accordingly most helpful to receive the assistance of the noble and learned Lords who took part in the debates on the Bill—nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothhury, stressed its great importance for our country's commercial interests. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for her assistance. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SCOTLAND BILL
2.54 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): May I draw the attention of the Committee to the note in heavy type at the top of the Marshalled List. This refei s to a new system of marshalling Amendments which has been adopted to avoid the cumbersome series of letters which were sometimes necessary under our old system. Under the new system, any Amendments tabled after the first Marshalled List has been printed will be numbered consecutively, following on from the last number used. This is a little complicated, but I think it will be readily understood if I explain by an example.
There were 220 Amendments tabled when the list was first sent to the printers, so the next Amendment put down was number 221 although, as your Lordships
12
will see, it is in fact the third Amendment on the Marshalled List. I believe that the new system will be a considerable improvement on the one that we used before.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Assembly]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Convention").
The noble Earl said: In moving the first Amendment, I am sure that the Committee will have been very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that this Bill required consultation and co-operation. No doubt he will endorse what his right honourable friend the Secretary of State said: that it required common sense and goodwill. This is even more necessary because, so far as 1 am aware, no single Member of either House has so far endorsed without qualification this Bill. I doubt very much whether many noble Lords will express a paean of praise for the quality of draftmanship, and I shall be surprised if some at least do not say that it is rather difficult to follow exactly how the Bill is proposed to be worked out. We shall therefore hope to have from the Government a practical demonstration of common sense and co-operation. It is with this hope that I beg to move the first Amendment on the Marshalled List.
In leaving out the word ,"Assembly", I do so for the best possible reason: that already in Edinburgh there is an organisation called "The Assembly". To use the same name for two places less than a mile apart would cause great confusion, and confusion lends itself to friction. There already exists the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which has had, and still has, a deep significance in the life and the history of Scotland. Indeed, it is part of the life of Scotland in a way which is perhaps difficult for some English Members wholly to appreciate. The General Assembly is part of the calendar. One can say, "I will meet somebody in Assembly Week". It is part of the language. One can ask anybody, "Are you a member of Assembly this year?" It is reported, for people say, "Have you read what the Assembly has stated on this particular point?"
Although we call it the "Scottish Assembly" here, it is quite clear that, if we use the word, it will be known in Scotland as the "Assembly". There will certainly be, in the jargon, an adjective added to it. It is not for me to say what that adjective may be. It might be called the "New Assembly", "the political Assembly", "the Parliamentary Assembly", "the legislative Assembly", or simply "the Royal High School Assembly". Obviously, some adjectives of that kind will be used.
May I go a step further and say that in Scotland the General Assembly is essentially an indigenous institution which has taken root in the soil of Scotland. In that body there is represented every parish in Scotland, and it has played a dominating and considerable part in the history of Scotland. The only comparable influence in England is that of Parliament. The new Assembly has been devised by a Committee on the shores of the River Thames and will certainly be regarded as a new organisation.
It is very important that the relationship between these two bodies should he harmonious. They will need to be very closely watched. Again, may I say that if there is confusion here it may very well lead to friction. There is a further point. For a very long time the General Assembly has been extremely closely connected with the Sovereign. There have been times in history when the Assembly has bullied the Sovereign; there have been times in history when the Sovereign has bullied the Assembly. Now they have reached an agreement whereby the Sovereign does not summon the Assembly as he did once and the Assembly does not meet without the presence of the Sovereign in person or of her representative.
This raises an interesting point. There is one assembly—the General Assembly—which has a personal relationship with the Sovereign and none with Parliament and the other assembly which has a close relationship with Parliament and none with the Sovereign. This is a delicate situation which might lead to a much more difficult situation. There are some who say today that these religious organisations do not matter and that now we have "one man one vote" and majority rule this kind of consideration can be superseded. I doubt whether this House
14
would lend much currency to such a theory and I believe it to be wholly irrelevant.
I suggest the word "Convention", and I should like to say straight away that my mind is fairly open as to what word should be used as a name. All I would say is that the confusion of using the same word as one which exists should be avoided; this is in the true interest of the new organisation which we arc setting up. There is absolutely no political connotation in this whatsoever; it is simply in the interests of the organisation.
The word, "Convention", has been used for the Scottish Parliament. It was the word originally recommended in the first examination of this matter; my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel used the word "Convention" in his report and the only organisation I know of which can be in any way compared to this is the Convention of Local Authorities which I believe has now been in existence for two years, since the new Local Government Act, and has taken the place of the Convention of Royal Burghs, which has ceased to exist. This is not a statutory organisation; it deals primarily with the exchange of relations with local authorities as such and, while I would not say that it is not important, I do not think it would ever go by the name of "the" Convention. Therefore, in my opinion "Convention" is quite a suitable name, although I would not say it is the only name that can be used. What I do say is that "Assembly" as a name is quite unsuitable and cannot be accepted.
If noble Lords do not agree with this, why do we not go straight for it and say "the Scottish Parliament"? I think I know the answer to that: they are frightened of being confused with the Westminster Parliament and I think that is a perfectly sound reason. But for the success of this Bill it would be quite wrong to have a confusion which might lead to friction, and therefore I consider it would be both foolish and quite unacceptable to agree to this name. I beg to move.
Lord BALLANTRAE: I wish to support briefly what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, but I cannot help commenting that he seemed to me to stop short in his selection of the adjectives which might be applied to the new Assembly. I speak

15
as one who frankly hopes that this whole measure will fail. The referendum is the point—and certainly not your Lordships' House—at which to decide whether or not the measure is to go through. The referendum must be the eventual battlefield. If it does go through, then I and everyone else who hopes that it will fail will then support the measure to the full. We shall buckle to and make it work as perfectly as is possible.
One of the advantages of it could, I hope and pray, be to de-politicise the debates of the General Assembly. For want of a Scottish Parliament for 270 years, the General Assembly has been tempted, for obvious reasons, to depart from confining itself to matters which would normally be considered to be the concern of the Church, and has embarked on many things which many of us think are "outwith its remit"—if I may use a Scotticism—especially the Church and Nation Committee which has sometimes paddled in very deep water.
We have become used to the word, "Assembly", in all the discussions we have had on this measure. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, in the committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Home, was chairman and of which I was one of the four non-Party members, we discussed the present problems and the Convention at some length, but the word "Assembly" crept in and has stuck; and I share the hope of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that we might get rid of it. It is confusing. As the noble Earl said, the General Assembly has been an institution for so long that "the Assembly" tout court in Scotland means "the General Assembly". I am one of two Members of your Lordships' House who have had the great honour of being Lord High Commissioner at that Assembly, as the brother of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the late Duke of Hamilton had on, I believe, four occasions. It is a very specialised institution, and I do not think it is too late to substitute the word "Convention" for the word "Assembly". The word "Convention" has a long and honourable history. I believe it would be accepted in Scotland, and most Scottish Members of your Lordships' House would agree with that. Beyond that, it would be otiose to add to what the noble Earl has said.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that if we were to change the name it should have been changed to "the Scottish Parliament". I see no reason why it should not have been called that; but we have called it "the Assembly", and I am afraid it has been accepted in Scotland as "the Assembly", and to change it again to "Convention"—to which I have no great objection—would not help the Bill which, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, I want to see go through to the Statute Book.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland stands on its own feet. I do not think that anything we do with a political assembly can harm it or indeed confuse it in the minds of the people of Scotland. It is known always as "the General Assembly", "the Assembly" for short, and it is firmly fixed in the minds of the people of Scotland and I cannot see any real confusion arising. In my view to call the Assembly after the General Assembly is a compliment: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I and my noble friends on these Benches think that it would be a great pity at this stage to change the name to "Convention".
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: In effect the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said that it is too late to change; and if that is his point of view, then I am not quite sure what this Committee is doing. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that confusion about the name will lead to friction; I say that it will lead to ridicule. The very proposal that the Scottish Legislature should bear this name proves one thing beyond anything else—that the Bill was drawn up by Englishmen with no knowledge of Scotland or Scottish sentiment. It is a term that usurps one deeply venerated for more than 400 years. It affronts a body whose origins go much further back—more than 700 years. I am referring to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland, which is the Established Church.
The General Assembly is sui generis. It is distinctive in a number of respects. only some of which have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. For nearly three centuries it has been the

17
people's only voice outwith Westminster. Its relationship with the civil power is exceptional; it always meets in the presence of the Sovereign or his or her High Commissioner. For more than four centuries, except for two quite short gaps, it has always met in the presence either of the Sovereign or of his or her Lord High Commissioner. The erstwhile National Synod, from which the General Assembly claims lineal descent, from 1225 onwards always met in the presence either of the Sovereign or of his or her High Commissioner. The General Assembly opens with an Address either by the Sovereign or his or her Lord High Commissioner. Until the Disruption was healed it was the Sovereign who always appointed the time and place of the General Assembly's next meeting. When the Sovereign is represented by a High Commissioner he arrives for opening and closing the Assembly with the maximum panoply of State, attended formally and in solemnity by the Lord Lyon and his entire Court. For close on 150 years, whenever the Sovereign could not attend in person, his High Commissioner resided at the Palace of Holyrood House and held court there in the Sovereign's name.
I personally do not adhere to the Presbyterian. Church of Scotland; I am a member of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and thus a non-conformist. But whatever our Church allegiance in Scotland. Scotsmen know the General Assembly, Scotsmen love the General Assembly, Scotsmen revere the General Assembly. When they say "Assembly" they mean the General Assembly; they mean something historically their very own. Protests at the threatened usurpation of this name were voiced in a formal resolution passed by the General Assembly on 25th May 1976. It is all in the public record and should surely have been known to those who drafted this Bill—that is to say, if the drafters had any greater interest in Scottish affairs than a tidy concern for their imagined electoral advantage.
How, then, should this subordinate Legislature be named? There are three historic alternatives to hand. The first is the term "Convention", which we have used in this Amendment. The second is the term "Estates", and the third is a combination of the two, a "Convention of the Estates". The term "Convention" has always in the past had a political
18
connotation. Back in the 13th century, before the Scottish Parliament even took shape, the Convention was used for the gathering of the Royal Burghs meeting to legislate, and, may I add, meeting to legislate on trade and finance. That was the origin of the Convention of the Royal Burghs. In the 16th century the term was used for the Convention of Estates. The Convention of Estates was a Standing Committee of the Scots Parliament with legislative and fiscal functions, something not very greatly different perhaps from the Legislature which is now proposed.
Since the Union of the Parliaments the term "Convention" has been used in three connections, all of them political. It was used for informal gatherings—which I am sure my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie would have joined enthusiastically had he then been alive—to express radical sentiments in the 18th and 19th centuries, and I am happy to say that was a temporary phenomenon. The latterday Convention of Royal Burghs was set up in relatively recent years, during this century, and was abolished with the last reform of local government.
The present Convention of Local Authorities is but two years old. It is a non-statutory body, as has already been said. It was formed not to legislate but to look at legislation. It is a body whose operations are purely contingent and advisory. It will doubtless be said from the Government Benches that if we call this new Legislature a Convention we clash with the Convention of Local Authorities. If so, we clash with a non-statutory body which could quite easily change its own name, say, to "Association"; there would he no great difficulty about that.
So, the term "Convention" clashes only with a body two years old which could change. "Convention of Estates" clashes with nothing. "Estates" clashes with nothing. So here are three alternatives. When there are three historically plausible names available, why, oh why, affront national taste and custom by usurping the General Assembly's status, by trying to steal the General Assembly's prestige in defiance of that body's expressed wish? Devolution is sometimes presented as a liberation of our people. If any Parliamentary Act could accomplish that, if there be any purely legislative path towards Scotland's renaissance of heart

19
and regeneration of spirit, which I beg leave to doubt, surely a colossal historical howler is scarcely the way to begin.
3.17 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: I thought that, as the other side had had a good turn, I might offer a few observations. What does it really matter what title you apply to this organisation? What does matter is what powers are to be vested in this organisation. In my experience, this is the worst case of putting the cart before the horse that has been exhibited for some time. The first thing to do when you create an or ganisation is to decide what it is for. Is it to be an organisation vested with powers and with authority, or is it to be an organisation which is restricted at every turn, subject to the powers vested in the Secretary of State at Westminster, subject to this and subject to that? What kind of organisation is it, and does it really matter? So it all comes down to this: what is most suitable for the people in Scotland who are enthusiastic about devolution?
We got an example from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. He would like it to be described as a Parliament. If it were to be described as a Parliament we should he going a bit too far. This would be resented not by the English and the Welsh but by a very large number of people in Scotland. In any event, it would mean that it must be invested with full authority; otherwise it would be no Parliament. We have had this example in the case of the EEC, which has been referred to frequently. Those Members of your Lordships' House who have been "promoted" (that term can be used) are from time to time transported at the tax-payers' cost—or is it at EEC cost? I am not quite sure, but it does not matter very much, it is a mere trifle—to what was called an Assembly, though some have described it as a Parliament.
It is all a question of prestige; if you belong to an Assembly it is not as important as belonging to a Parliament. Indeed I would go so far, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—to whom I always listen with keen interest because he speaks with great and remarkable logic—as to ask what, after all, is a "Convention"? The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, spoke about the
20
Convention of Royal Burghs as if the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland had been vested with remarkable powers. It had nothing of the sort. It was a purely advisory body. It had no power to initiate legislation, but it could recommend and advise.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for giving way. The original 13th century Convention of Royal Burghs had legislative powers. As the noble Lord has said, the modern Convention of Royal Burghs has none.
Lord SHINWELL: The Convention of Royal Burghs never initiated a piece of legislation which it could carry through—it depended on whether Westminster would accept it. I, like the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, have a fair bit of experience of Scottish politics and I remember that this Convention was regarded pretty much as a title conferred on a number of people as a matter of prestige—it was a type of honour. However, as regards real authority there was nothing of the sort.
I shall not argue the matter at great length, but it is really a question of what is more suitable to the people in Scotland. The term "Assembly" has been used. A large number of people in Scotland want devolution—as I have said, the principle is the important consideration—and would prefer the term "Assembly". If we say "Convention" they will think that we are running away and seeking to depart from the principles which for them are of fundamental importance. Quite frankly, to me it does not matter whether there is an "Assembly" or a "Convention". I think that the whole business is a lot of nonsense, and I am quite serious about that.
If I may refer to the Second Reading debate, I endeavoured, perhaps not with much success, to convince my colleagues in your Lordships' House that what we had to decide was not the details of devolution, once the principle was accepted, but whether we believed in the principle of devolution at all. Apparently, a majority in your Lordships' House does. However, when it comes down to the brass tacks and the details of the powers to be vested in this body, then we are up against a whole series of problems.

21
We shall find that situation in the course of our Committee stage, Report stage and so on, and we shall find it when we refer any of our Amendments to another place.
Perhaps I may digress for a moment on what might be called a Second Reading aspect. If it had been left to me, I should have created a body out of the regional authorities that were established under the last local government transformation. They are very important—for example, there is Strathclyde and various others. Very important people are associated with these organisations. They are vested with a measure of autonomy and they can introduce legislation, but it is true that they do so subject to Westminster. Nevertheless, if they had been brought together in some kind of body—call it an Assembly, a Convention or a Parliament—it would have been quite enough, for there would have been an election of a great many people who would be in conflict with the people at Westminster.
The whole thing is a piece of tarradiddle and should never have been started at all. Anyway, now we have it and we must make the best of a bad job. I suggest that the best way of making the best of a bad job is to succumb to the somewhat moderate enthusiasm that is now manifested in Scotland about this issue and the even more tepid enthusiasm on this side of the Border and let them have their Assembly. Let them have something out of it. At the end of the day, they will have precious little out of it, but let them have a name.
3.24 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: At the earliest moment it should be made clear that we are not leaving this Bill entirely to the Scots. The Bill affects the United Kingdom. At the earliest minute we who are not Scots must stake our claim to have something to say about it, even about a matter as minor as this first Amendment. If there is any damage to be done by this Bill—and I think that there is a lot—it will not damage just Scotland; it will damage the United Kingdom. Let us begin by recognising that fact.
We have heard excellent speeches from four Scotsmen. I think that the "Clyde-side" association of the noble Lord,
22
Lord Shinwell, brings him into that category. I hope that during this Committee stage other Members from other parts of the United Kingdom will give their attention to try to minimise the dangers that may flow from this Bill. I think that my noble friend made a very good case in terms of his Amendment. There would be a clash. "Assembly" is known to mean something else, and it would not be possible for this new Assembly to be able to take over the mantle that is already very clearly on the shoulders of the other Assembly.
I do not like "Convention". With all the historic background that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale gave to it, the reaction to "Convention" is not what it may have been in the 13th century. When we talk about a Convention today the first thing that springs to mind is the American Convention, and we know what that means. All sorts of things flow from that. Therefore, I do not think that either "Assembly" or "Convention" would really fit in with what the people behind this Bill intend to mean. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, cannot have a Parliament. This Bill does not give the powers of Parliament. One of the problems is that if, as the separates wish, it is going to do any good at all it ought to have the powers of Parliament, but that would cause great clash and even more damage as far as the United Kingdom is concerned; or, in terms of Westminster, it ought to have less power than it has now. They have too many Members.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Will the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, remember the Parliament at Stormont which was constantly referred to as the Northern Ireland Parliament?
Lord HA RMAR-NICHOLLS: The Northern Ireland Parliament was known as Stormont. It was not referred to as a Parliament nor did it act, in the sense that we are discussing, as a Parliament. I do not think that we ought to be purely negative on this issue. The point is made very clearly that it ought not to be an Assembly because, as my noble friend has said, there is a clash. It is most interesting that almost the first word in the discussion during the Committee stage of this Bill on a matter as minor as

23
this has been "clash"—a clash because of the name of the title. I think that it will be full of clashes all the way through the Committee stage, and if the Bill ever becomes a Statute I think that the clash will he even bigger and more dangerous.
However, if we are proceeding on the basis that something might happen, the suggestion I should like to make to my noble friend is that we do not call it an Assembly or a Convention, but a Moot—a Scottish Moot. If we want an historical base for justifying that then I can give your Lordships a very clear one. Indeed, it may well incorporate what my noble friend has in mind because the dictionary definition of a "Moot" is:
"An assembly of people".
Therefore, the dictionary definition of a Moot would fulfil the present "Assembly"name that is given to it without it having the clash and the problems that may arise out of another Assembly.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Of course, the word "Moot" will clash with the word "Mod" because they are the same word.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I have not finished with the word "Moot" in terms of the dictionary.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Is it not possible that the whole of the noble Lord's idea is "re-moot" from reality?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I do not think that that is worthy of your Lordships' House. I am very seriously putting forward the word "Moot" if it is any justification for what has already been said by my noble friends. If there is to be a clash or uncertainty as regards the way this is accepted, and if neither "Assembly" nor "Convention" can meet the need, then we must think of something else and "Moot" is a word that, in terms of developing into full Parliamentary Government—if I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—is the very basis of it all. The dictionary also says:
"In the Anglo-Saxon moots may be discerned the first germs of popular government".
Therefore, if this is only at the very beginning of what the people who want
24
separation have in mind—and indeed they have—it could well be that "Moot" would be a better title to give to it, with the historical background and the knowledge that it can eventually grow into a full Parliament. Therefore, it may very well meet what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has in mind too. I noted also that in the dictionary "Moot hall" is described as:
"The hall in which the assizes are held at Carlisle, still goes by the name of the mote or moot-hall".
The name of Moot may well meet all of the points made by noble Lords who have already spoken, and at any rate Carlisle has some sort of Scottish influence to find that it might meet that need. It could well be that when we reach the Report stage we shall find that the Moot of Scotland may be more acceptable and more truthful than the Assembly of Scotland or the Convention of Scotland. Whether your Lordships think it is a good or a bad idea, at any rate it is a suggestion that comes from England on a Bill that certainly affects England as much as it affects Scotland.
Lord KENNET: If the noble Lord is prepared to go as far as to impose the Anglo-Saxon name "Moot" on the poor Scots, would he not go one further and impose the Viking name and call the thing "a Thing"?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Perhaps that is an alternative that the noble Lord will put up when he comes to speak.
Lord HALE: May I put one point? The noble Lord mentioned the American Convention and forgot to mention the National Convention which ruled as a Parliamentary Government for less than five years, was responsible for the execution of the King, the Queen, the whole of the Girondins and many prominent members of the Convention, and the end of Parliamentary Government, and the ultimate restoration of dictatorship and establishment of Empire.
Lord MORRIS: May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that in modern usage the word "moot" means a mock trial?
3.33 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: It is quite obvious that your Lordships

25
are full of bright ideas and bright thoughts, and as this is the first Amendment on the first clause of the Bill it augers well for the future. I am sure we can make amusing and entertaining and, I have no doubt, highly constructive suggestions. I have not got any alternative name which I want to put forward, but I want to support those people who are against calling this meeting place an Assembly. As the wife of the Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly, I spent two years of my life, 1956 and 1957, in the Palace of Holyrood House taking part in the General Assembly. The Assembly was always alluded to as the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and nobody ever thought of anything else.
When I first heard that the suggestion was to be taken quite seriously I wondered who would protest most hotly because I thought the suggestion was quite wrong. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is wrong when he says that this has become an accustomed word. What is accustomed in Scotland is the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which meets in May. It is to meet this year in May, and the Lord High Commissioner, the very distinguished Member for Kilmarnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland for many years. I think it would be the greatest possible error of judgment and would cause muddle in the minds of the people of Scotland if this suggested meeting place were called an Assembly. I use the word "if" because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that this is all still somewhat speculative, and if we do have this meeting place it should not be called the General Assembly. I should be quite happy to call it a Convention. I should also be quite happy to ask the Government to think again, to see what suggestions they can make. Failing all else, I would support the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in calling this meeting a Convention and not an Assembly.
The Earl of DUNDEE: May I briefly express agreement with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in what he said a few minutes ago. He told us that in his view the designation "Assembly" was rather like the kind of thing that an Englishman would call a Scottish legislative body. I should like to be a little more precise. I think it is more like the sort of thing an English civil servant would call a Scottish legislative body. I think the religious
26
body, which at present holds that title, would be deeply hurt and exasperated by it. Like my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, I am not a member of the Presbyterian Church. My family, like his, has always been Episcopalian, but all of us in Scotland have a deep love and regard for the Church which is the Established Church. We all hope that some day, perhaps, Christian reunion will be reached all over the world. Meanwhile it would certainly cause them a great deal of pain and annoyance if this name were taken.
As for the alternative, a great many suggestions could be made. The word "Convention" at least has the advantage that the old Scottish Parliament was usually referred to as the Convention. According to our ideas it was rather a distinguished and unusual body. All the commoners, those from the counties and burghs, sat in it, and in Episcopal times all the bishops and all the Peers from every part of Scotland sat with them as one legislative chamber. This is not in accordance with our modern democratic ideas, and I am not suggesting that we should try to resuscitate this kind of legislative assembly in Scotland. I think we should find the term "Convention" a perfectly good one. I am not trying to insist on it. It has not only been applied in historical times to the Scottish Parliament hut has also been used by historians and by poets like Sir Walter Scott, who wrote
"To the Lords of Convention 'twas Claver'se spoke:
'Rouse, Gentlemen all, it's high time you awoke'".
I think it is high time that we tried to find some more suitable title than "Assembly" for what we are now proposing to set up.
Viscount THURSO: It is difficult to find a word for this body which we are to set up which is not either archaic and ridiculous, inappropriate or already in use. I think we should discard instantly the archaic and those titles which are not going to be readily understood in a modern context. As an Elder of the Church of Scotland I shall have no difficulty in telling the difference between the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Assembly. I shall be able to tell the difference between the things that are Caesar's and the things that are

27
God's. That is all one needs to know. I do not think it is in any way an insult to the Kirk.
"Assembly" is a word which people understand. It is a word that is in common use today, which has a modern meaning; it is not a word like "Convention", which has an archaic ring to it. If one goes past "Convention" and comes to things like "Estates","Moots" and "Things", one goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. So I think we must come back to the really possible alternatives: "Convention", to me is slightly archaic and smacks of the Convention of Royal Burghs, a body that I knew, and which has passed its mantle on to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Then there is the possible use of the word "Parliament", which I accept that this body will not be in a true sense and therefore should not be used, and the word "Assembly", which has already begun to be used by people throughout Scotland and by the Press in everyday discussion. I think we should stick to the word "Assembly".
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I think it is interesting to note that basically this is a Bill which nobody wants, yet the first thing we discuss is the name by which this body in Scotland, which nobody really approves of, should be called. To me this is a slight indictment. While my noble friend Lord Lauderdale was speaking—and I say this in no unfair sense to him—I whipped out to consult the Shorter English Dictionary in the Library in order to discover what other Assemblies there have been. The Achaean Assemblies were summoned by trumpets—did that insult the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? Mirabeau thundered to his French Assembly—did that insult the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? There was an Assembly in Pennsylvania—did that insult the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? What it is called is surely a matter of relative unimportance. It is a bad Bill, with a bad Assembly with bad powers. What it is called does not matter—I shall not say "one hoot", I will say "one moot."
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Although I am not a member of either
28
Kirk or Church, I support this Amendment. There is much validity in the criticism of the proposals directed by the noble Earl but I shall not elaborate upon them. However, perhaps the Minister who is to reply will tell your Lordships whether confrontation took place with the Church on this matter. One would have thought that before calling this meeting place an Assembly at least for a Scotsman with any knowledge of his country's history this would have been an obviously necessary precaution. Therefore, could the Minister tell us whether consultation with the Church took place and, if so, what was the outcome? If not, perhaps he could say why not. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in effect asked: What is in a name? What does it matter? There is no point in causing offence unnecessarily. I support the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like briefly to endorse the point which my noble friend Lord Selkirk has raised, that there could be the danger of serious ambiguity and mistaken identity between the two Assemblies, as they would be known in Scotland. As noble Lords have already said, there is the Assembly in Scotland now. It is not an assembly; to most people it is the Assembly. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will not make any mistakes about the differences between the two bodies when he attends one and possibly reads about the other. But when people in Scotland in ordinary conversation are talking about the Assembly, mistakes will be made because there is already the Assembly.
For those who live South of the Border may I say that it is a body which comprises many laymen as well as ministers of the clergy; much has been said about it and the role it plays in life in Scotland. I would only say that on the first occasion when I addressed that august body I felt a certain nervousness—even more than that which I experienced on the occasions when, with all respect, I made maiden speeches in both Houses of Parliament.
Those who have represented the Assembly have certainly made statements saying that they hope that, if the new body is to be established under a Bill of this kind, it will not be called an Assembly.

29
I should also like to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in asking the Minister who will reply what representations have been received. I understand that about two or three years ago, when devolution was being discussed and considered in Government circles, the General Assembly asked that the word "Assembly" should not be used. The word "Convention" has a Scottish history. However, I understand the difficulty which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in a powerful speech, that it was taken two or three years ago by the new body which represents all the Scottish local authorities in Scotland—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, COSLA for short.
If the word "Convention" is accepted as being a better word in Scotland in order to avoid confusion with the Assembly which already exists, then I would agree with my noble friend that COSLA could be asked to become ASLA—the Association of Scottish Local Authorities. It was made up of the four bodies which represented the four types of local authorities; they were associations and only one was a Convention.
I ask the Government seriously to consider this question of confusion and also the possibility of using another expression. With no commitment to it, but merely for consideration along with others that the Government may have received, I put forward the term "Scottish Congress". In ordinary discussion in Scotland I do not think that that would be confused with the United States Congress; nor do I think that it would be confused with the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, because they are always known respectively as the TUC and the STUC. However, it is important that we have some term which cannot be confused with the Assembly that already exists and which has existed for many years. I think that many of its members would be offended if the word "Assembly" is duplicated in the Bill.
Baroness EMMET of AM BERLEY: Could not a compromise be reached by having a double-barrelled name, such as "Representative Assembly", and not simply "Assembly"? That would impart the idea of Parliamentary representation, and so on.
3.47 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: I rise to support this Amendment. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I should like to say how sorry he is that he cannot be present, but he is temporarily indisposed. However, he wholeheartedly supports the Amendment.
A great deal of heat can be engendered in our debates on the Bill. I fear that if this heat is unduly engendered by us here—and this is the House in which it should not be engendered—the reaction will be strong in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked: Who wants this Bill? At least 75 per cent. of the voters of Scotland want it. That is the trouble.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he really imagine that anything like 75 per cent. of the people of Scotland have studied the provisions of the Scotland Bill?
Lord BALERNO: If pronouncements are made like those of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, then I can assure noble Lords that there is no doubt that more than 75 per cent. will vote "Yes" in the referendum. It is undoubted that opinion in Scotland has hardened in favour of the Bill as discussions have taken place in England.
The suggestion of "Convention" is probably the most respectable one, if not the only one. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has suggested "Representative Assembly". A "House of Representatives" would be a very good suggestion. So far as I can make out, the only confusion arising over the word "House" would be in connection with a college at Oxford, and they are far enough apart. "Convention" is an ancient Scottish word, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, pointed out, it has been important in the history of England. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said that a Convention could carry nothing through. It can carry through the execution of a king; it can carry through the restoration of a king; and it can carry through the abdication of a king. The English Conventions have managed to do that in the past; so they did have powers, and there is no reason why they should not have powers in the future.

31
But the essence of the historical use of the word "convention" is that it is subordinate to the full Parliament. That is how it has been used in Scotland. Therefore, it is not at all an unsuitable word to use in this instance. In the Oxford English Dictionary "Convention" is defined as,
"an assembly or gathering of persons for some common object; especially a formal assembly met for deliberation or legislation on important matters".
To my mind, that goes a long way to justify our use of the word "Convention".
One noble Lord wanted to know what the Church of Scotland had done in representation. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale has already referred to this. In recent years, the General Assembly has on more than one occasion passed a Resolution—they call it a Deliverance—to the effect that they seek a form of devolution within the framework of the United Kingdom. The precise Motion that was carried at the General Assembly of 1976, to which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale referred and which was formally sent to the Scottish Office—so it cannot possibly be said that those who were drafting this Bill were unaware of the opinion of the Church of Scotland—is in the following words:
"The General Assembly, recognising the historic identification in Scotland of the word 'Assembly' with the Supreme Court of the Church, urge that the proposed new legislative body be known not as the Scottish Assembly but as the Scots Parliament or by some such other suitable name".
That is what is behind us in moving this Amendment. It is an historic name and the Church of Scotland wants it.
Lord BALLANTRAE: In passing, may I say that I am not as agile as my noble friend Lord Wilson of Langside, and I was obviously more taken by surprise than he was by what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said. But I trust that, as this debate continues, no noble Lord, or anybody else, will start making assumptions about what the people of Scotland think. We simply do not know that, nor shall we know that until the referendum happens.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Will the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, elucidate his remark that discussion in England has hardened Scottish opinion? Is he saying, or imply-
32
ing, by that that the English, who make up the vast majority of the United Kingdom, have no right to discuss this Bill and no interest in this Bill, and that it is only something to do with the Scots? I think that that is an unsound doctrine, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord whom I call my friend.
Lord BALERNO: In reply to the noble Earl, I would say that we in Scotland certainly appreciate that this is a United Kingdom matter. You can get that from the Deliverance of the General Assembly, which I quoted. They sought a form of devolution within the framework of the United Kingdom. That goes for us all in Scotland, but we want devolution to give us a greater freedom in attending to our own matters. I would particularly recommend him, if he did not hear it, to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on Second Reading.
3.53 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I ignore all the irrelevancies which have crept into the discussion of this quite short and limited Amendment. I have never doubted that it was perfectly possible to make out a respectable and stateable case for the name "Convention" or for some other name. But all these names were considered by Ministers. This name was not inserted into the Bill by an Englishman, or a committee of Englishmen. It derived from one of the most distinguished Scotsmen of his generation, who is sitting in this House and moved ruefully when the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, spoke: namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. It was considered by Ministers, including a number of Scots Ministers—for instance, the Lord Advocate and myself and the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. William Ross—and the decision was taken that it was the most suitable name to describe the concept of a legislative and deliberative body.
It is significant that in another place no one sought to remove this name and replace it with the name, "Convention", and no one suggested that there would be confusion with the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I need not refer to dictionary definitions. Let me

33
try to answer briefly the points that have been made by those who have spoken in this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said that there was an attempt to steal the prestige of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. That is nonsense. It was answered clearly by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who spoke as an Elder of the Church. I would have said, although it is a matter of one's own impression, that people in Scotland refer to that body which meets in May in Edinburgh each year as the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It is known as the General Assembly, and it is so described. There is no possibility of confusion between that body and the body provided for in this Bill.
Secondly, let me inform noble Lords who do not know that, at the very time when that body meets, there are other General Assemblies of other Churches in Scotland meeting both in Edinburgh and in the North of Scotland, and, in order to distinguish the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from the other General Assemblies, they are described by reference to the name of the particular Church. I should have thought that the argument about the possibility of confusion is one which was not acceptable.
If there is to be confusion, then the word "Convention" itself could, as has been suggested in the debate, give rise to confusion because of the existence of a body now well-known in Scotland and which has been referred to a number of times—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
Lord BALERNO: Will the noble Lord allow me to refer to his allusion to the fact that other Churches use the words "General Assembly" for their annual meeting? That derives from the fact that they all left the Church of Scotland, and therefore took their form of service and the name of their organisation from the Church of Scotland, and as they come back into the Church of Scotland they are quite at home in the matter. It is for historical reasons that those Churches should use the words "General Assembly."
Lord McCLUSKEY: I entirely agree with that, but it is entirely beside the point. The point is that you do not confuse the
34
one with the other; you call them by their respective names. This body meeting once a year in May in Edinburgh will not be confused with the Assembly to be set up under this Statute.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: If there would be no confusion between those two, then equally there would be no confusion between the Convention of Local Authorities and the Convention. The argument cuts both ways.
Lord McCLUSKEY: What I think I said was that, if there is the possibility of confusion, it is just as great with "Convention" as with "Assembly." I think the confusion argument is really a shadow argument. It has no real substance.
Reference has been made to historical matters going back as far as the 13th century. I do not want to follow into the realms of history noble Lords who have the advantage of me in these matters. The historical precedents are perhaps not too inviting, but I can assure noble Lords who have not yet studied the devolved matters that the execution of Kings is not a matter to be devolved under the Bill.
The strongest argument—and I think it was foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—is that the people of Scotland, whether they are for devolution or against it and whether they want an Assembly or do not want one, would think that we in this House had gone mad if we were suddenly to abandon, after years of public debate about an Assembly and after almost as many years of prolonged Parliamentary debate, the word which is central to the whole debate for reasons which I think would be seen to he flimsy and unconvincing. I suggest that the ordinary public in Scotland would feel that they had been robbed of a term and a concept that they had come to understand. They might even feel that they had been robbed of some of the substance as well.
I remind your Lordships that there was proposed under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act a Northern Ireland Assembly. There is proposed under the Wales Bill an Assembly for Wales. The arguments deployed today in relation to Scotland would not apply to the Wales

35
Bill. Are we then to find that Wales is to have an Assembly and Scotland not to have a body called the Assembly? I urge upon the Committee that the public would simply not understand what had been done today if we were foolish enough to vote for this Amendment. I urge my noble friends and others to reject this Amendment.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him if he will answer the question which he was asked by one noble Lord as to what was the view of the Church of Scotland?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for reminding me of that. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in substance, answered it. What happened was that the Church of Scotland made a submission in relation to the November 1975 White Paper. Subsequently the Church and Nation Committee of the General Assembly suggested alternative titles and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to one of them. Scottish "Parliament" was rejected, for reasons which, I think, will be understood. Ministers—when I say "Ministers" I mean Ministers of the Government—met representatives of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland on no fewer than three occasions. At the last meeting they suggested either the name "Convention" or "Legislative Assembly". So there was full consultation. Their views were taken into account, plus other views. For the reasons which I have outlined, the Government have decided—and I urge the House to accept—that the proper name here is "Assembly" and that the possibility of confusion is one which does not exist.
Earl FERRERS: I wonder whether I could just ask the noble and learned Lord this question: I came here with an open mind on the subject. I should have thought that the one thing that is quite clear is that there is confusion. There is confusion over the word, "Assembly". There would appear to be confusion over the word, "Convention". The noble Lord said that it was a shadow argument. I would submit, with the greatest respect, from what has been said so far, that it is not a shadow argument. There is substance in the fact there would be confusion.
36
I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider the word, "Legislature". This does not detract from the word, "Assembly". An assembly is after all a gathering of people. "Legislature" might be a rather more substantial word. It might appeal more to the Scots. At least it is in no way confusing. It describes the work that would be done. Would the noble Lord be kind enough to consider that?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I have already indicated that the Government gave consideration to a number of names. We selected the name which commended itself to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and those who assisted him in preparing the report. I think that the difficulties that would arise for the people of Scotland if we now abandon the name, "Assembly", would arise with whatever other name it was thought fit to put in its place. I cannot elaborate this argument. The point is relatively minor. I would submit that, for the reasons that I have given, your Lordships should reject this Amendment.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he does not think that some of the confusion has arisen because noble Lords, and he himself, have referred to the word "Assembly"? Is it not a fact that the Church body is the General Assembly and that according to Clause 1 of the Bill the Parliamentary body is to be called the "Scottish Assembly"? We are not referring to the "Assembly", but to "General Assembly" and "Scottish Assembly". Does he not think that the Scottish people would take great pride in pronouncing that word "Scottish" when they refer to a Parliamentary institution?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am indebted to my noble friend. If one looks at Clause 1(1), one sees that that is exactly correct. The body will be known as the "Scottish Assembly" and the Church body, which has been referred to by those who support the Amendment, will be referred to as the "General Assembly".
4.4. p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I must say that the speech to which we have just listened seems to me to bode ill for this

37
Committee stage. It was totally uncompromising and totally unconvincing. If I may say so, the people of Scotland honestly do not know what we have been talking about in Parliament. They have no idea what has been going on. I cannot agree for one moment with the noble Lord. Lord Mackie of Benshie, in saying that the people know or accept what has been decided.
The noble Lord said there was no confusion. When I first made my remarks. I made no remark about insulting anybody. I have actually in my own way, consulted the Church of Scotland, quite informally. I do not pretend otherwise. I am clear about the views of the people concerned, who are highly representative of every parish in Scotland, in that they do not like this word. The Government said "What do they matter? They do not matter that much. We have made up our minds. We are going to push it through at any price". This is not a very happy way to start.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. We want something that the people of Scotland would like, and what is suitable to them. What I thought of was the confusion. It is no good the noble Lord talking about the General Assembly, on the one hand, or the Scottish Assembly, on the other. Everybody in Scotland knows that it is "the Assembly". Everyone knows that the other will be "the Assembly". We do not talk about the Scottish Assembly when we are in Scotland: it is "the Assembly". It is quite wrong to say that there will be no confusion.
May I put a question straight to the noble Lord? Has the noble Lord not heard the statements by the Free Church of Scotland which have been confused with those of the Church of Scotland, to the detriment of the Church of Scotland? Everyone knows that these events take place from time to time: very vigorous statements which the Church of Scotland would not express and which many of us in Scotland rather regret having been made. This confusion is frequently taking place, very unfortunately. The noble Lord said that Scotland would be robbed. Scotland is not aware of being robbed of anything yet. The great majority just do not know what on earth is happening.
38
When it is said that we cannot use this word because Wales does not like it, this shows the thorough emptiness of the arguments which the noble Lord has used this afternoon.
I should like to have left the Government to think. We all hope that the Government can think. We all very much hope that the Government's mind is not utterly lost to every consideration. I am not pretending that this is vital. I moved this Amendment for the convenience of the people of Scotland. There is nothing political about this. It is just what would be helpful and, as such, I moved it.
May I ask the Government whether there is the remotest chance that they would think for a moment, consult the people in Scotland, and find a little of what has been done?
I do not know whether the noble Lord is right about the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. I am bound to say that I thought he said that he would leave it to the Assembly to choose its own name. I may be wrong. I shall withdraw readily if I am wrong about that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is more or less correct, as I recollect it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I regret to say that I have not verified the point. I really do not think that one single argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord carries one pound weight. I am sorry to put it this way. That is in fact, the case. I do not want to start at this Committee stage, when we have so much to do, with a Division against the Government. I would so much rather that the noble Lord would say that he would give a little consideration to those points, which I think really are worth while.
Noble Lords have expressed their views. I thank them for doing so. It is the convenience of the people of Scotland that I have in mind. I believe this is a very good point. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would reconsider the matter?
Lord SHINWELL: Before the noble and learned Lord comes to his conclusion, may I ask him this question? Have the people of Scotland more concern about the name than about the powers that are

39
going to be vested in this body? Surely this is where the confusion will come. Is the noble and learned Lord's capacity for logic not failing a bit when he makes such a hullabaloo about the name, when we all know in our hearts that what the people of Scotland will be quarrelling and wondering about is not the name so much as what powers will be vested in this important body?
The Earl of SELKIRK: I agree with the noble Lord. I would have been hopelessly irrelevant in speaking to this Amendment if I had started talking about powers. This happens to be the first Amendment. I thought that I was putting a simple, straightforward proposition. I thought that the Government would be reasonable and at least think about it. As the noble Lord said, this is a matter for the convenience of the people of Scotland. I think it is a perfectly real point. If the Government will say that they will give the matter a moment's consideration, I shall willingly withdraw the Amendment. I would rather not go to a Division at this early stage.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I regret if the noble Earl thought that my approach to this matter was uncompromising. What I said on Second Reading—and I repeat—was that the Government would try at the earliest possible stage to give a clear indication of what their view was, so that the House would not be misled into thinking that matters would be reconsidered when they were unlikely to be reconsidered, and therefore they could dispose of them on the first occasion instead of returning to them on Report or Third Reading. That was why I made my position plain.
Secondly, I regret the suggestion that the Government should give a little consideration to this matter; the Government have given immense consideration to it. I outlined the fact that we had three meetings with representatives of the Church of Scotland and I mentioned that all the alternatives were discussed. I cannot say, after this word has become central to the whole debate about devolution, that the Government are going to offer to depart from it.
Earl FERRERS: What the noble and learned Lord said was rather serious. He repeated what he said on Second Reading; namely, that the Government would let your Lordships know their view at the earliest opportunity—and that slightly raised the idea in some of our minds that perhaps the Government had a closed mind. I hope the Government do not have a closed mind because if we are to discuss this Bill, 60-odd clauses of which were not discussed at all in another place, and the Government are going to have a closed mind to all suggestions, that bodes ill from the start. My noble friend Lord Selkirk put down this Amendment—which he described as a totally non-Party non-political one—as a constructive idea to see whether it was possible to improve the Bill. The noble and learned Lord may think it would not improve the Bill, whereas many who have spoken have thought that there would be confusion if the wording were left as it is.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will not be quite so inflexible as to say, "We have made up our minds. We have no intention of considering the matter at all, irrespective of what anybody says". To say that would not bode well, not on the first Amendment to a complicated and difficult Bill. If this is something about which the Government intend to be inflexible, one is bound to say, "Heaven help us when we come to some of the more detailed provisions." Even now, to avoid any confrontation between people at this stage, at the very beginning of the Committee stage, I hope the noble and learned Lord will be kind enough to say, "I do not think we can change our minds, but we will certainly consider the arguments that have been put forward". Surely the noble and learned Lord will not say that he will not even consider them. Otherwise the Committee stage will be wasted and we shall end up by being on what we do not want to be; namely, on confrontation courses which are unnecessary.
The Earl of SELKIRK: To give the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey a moment to think about his reply, perhaps I might read a passage from the Kilbrandon Report which is directly relevant to this issue:
"It would be for the Scottish and Welsh people to decide on the names for their assemblies.

41
The term 'convention' seems to find some favour in Scotland, and 'senate' has been suggested for Wales".
Those are the words of the Kilbrandon Report which the noble and learned Lord himself called in aid.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I was asked whether the Government would give consideration to these arguments. The position is that the Government have already given consideration to all these arguments. There is no argument which I have heard today that has not already been considered by Ministers.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, aware that he has used an argument that does not make sense? He said there was no confusion between "Assembly" and "General Assembly" and then he said there was confusion between "Convention" and "Convention of Local Authorities". Those two arguments do not go together. Surely he will look at his own logic if he will not look at ours.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: In Parliamentary terms, surely the noble and learned Lord sees the difficulty in which he is putting noble Lords. He said the Government could not consider altering this because detailed thought had already been given to it. I trust that detailed thought has been given to the whole of the Bill by the Government and that no part of it has come before us without detailed thought having been given to it. If the noble and learned Lord's argument is that, because prior detailed thought has been given to it, there can be no element of give at any point, then I believe the term "collision course" is very well phrased.
The Earl of ONSLOW: When I began to listen to this argument I thought the whole thing was fairly irrelevant, but in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, if this Amendment is forced to a Division I should now be happy to vote for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, not because I believe there is any great force in their argument but because I believe there is a great deal of unattractiveness—I say this with great respect to Lord McCluskey—in his attitude, which is, "I will not give at all under any circumstances. I will not listen. It
42
has been disposed of and has all been handed down by diktat". We may be an unrepresentative Chamber and we may not have a great deal of force behind us, but I hope we are entitled to slightly greater respect than Lord McCluskey appears to be giving us.
The Earl of PERTH: I feel, with many other noble Lords, that this is not a matter of major importance. However, I should have thought it was open to the Government to say what they have been asked to say, taking into account the fact that there certainly have been arguments advanced today which must be new to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and his colleagues. If that is the case, then to do what has been requested by several noble Lords in the most conciliatory spirit would be well taken by one and all. If, on Report, the Government were to say, "We have considered the arguments which noble Lords have adduced but we stay where we are", that I would understand. But to say now, "We have already considered all the arguments", when they have been advanced by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee cannot be right and I therefore hope the noble and learned Lord will think again.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, I will bring the arguments of the Committee freshly to the attention of Ministers in order that the next time I appear before your Lordships in relation to this matter it might be quite clear what the Government's view is in the light of all the representations and the feeling of the Committee.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that comment, and in all the circumstances I have much pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.17 p.m.
Lord KILBRANDON Lord KILBRANDON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act".)
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: Looking at the history of the progress

43
of the Bill and making such estimates as one can of its future prospects, I believe the quality in what I have to say that would be most acceptable to your Lordships would be brevity. I certainly have no intention whatever of delivering a debating society address on the advantages or disadvantages of proportional representation. Noble Lords are already very well acquainted with what is to be said both for and against it and I am particularly anxious to avoid generalities. I therefore emphasise that the proposals in this Amendment, and of course in the consequential Amendments which follow it, are deemed by their supporters, who I understand are drawn from all political Parties, to be appropriate to the only elected body in which they are intended to apply; namely, the Scottish Assembly, if I may give it that name in the meantime.
Nothing I say is intended to be construed more widely than that. I do not wish it to be inferred that in my opinion these proposals or any other system of proportional representation could with advantage be introduced into the system of elected Members to the United Kingdom Parliament. Their suitability to Scotland alone is the case I have to make, and so I would not hesitate to solicit the support of noble Lords who are opposed to any such reforms at Westminster. There is no question here of the thin end of the wedge. If the Committee is satisfied that the situation in Scotland calls for proportional representation, that will provide no analogy whatever for its introduction elsewhere.
I have no doubt that it was the classic argument for proportional representation that influenced the Royal Commission on the Constitution in recommending its adoption, and I remember that this was not only the view taken by the majority but that my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt, in his Minority Report, made strong representations in the same sense. The problem which PR seeks to solve being a continuous occupation of the seats of power by a Party, which equally continuously polls a minority of the votes cast for it at a General Election; then, apart from this being, as it were, an arithmetical negation of democracy, the frustrated victims may, as the noble Lord put it in his Minority Report, be forced to take to the streets in often violent
44
direct action, instead of seeking to achieve their ends through peaceful constitutional processes.
The situation, as it was seen by the Royal Commission, and as it was impressed upon us by numerous witnesses, was the commanding position of the Labour Party. Indeed, there were witnesses who, rather poor-spiritedly, as I must say I thought, regarded this fact as an insuperable objection to the whole idea of the Assembly, whatever the virtues of devolution might be. I would not, I think, now he prepared today to certify that the danger arises from the same Party, but if it is from any other Party the problem is exactly the same.
There is nothing more boring, or more difficult to follow, than viva voce statistics, but I must use a very few in illustration of the fortunes of the political Parties as they were displayed to the Royal Commission, and in justification of the assertion, which is the rationale of the Amendments, that the dangers, as they appeared then, are still threatening today. Let me take first 1959, the year of a notable Conservative victory. Over the whole electorate the Conservatives, with 49·4 per cent. of the poll, gained 58 per cent. of the seats. I know that this is the kind of evidence which is used for the general support of proportional representation, but that is not what I am using it for. am using it for the purpose of comparing with Scotland. There, as perhaps tradition would have led one to expect, the Conservatives attained only 47 per cent. of the poll, which gave them 44 per cent. of the seats. Labour, on the other hand, also attained 47 per cent. of the poll, but that was enough to give them 53 per cent. of the seats. So, even in a year of British victory, the poll level in Scotland left the Conservatives far behind in representatives. The Liberals, of course, with 4 per cent. of the poll and 1 4 per cent. of the seats, were used even worse. I should say that I am giving very round figures for my purposes.
But the state of Parties in Scotland has changed very much since 1959, and I should like to look at what happened at the last General Election. There were—and I think one must take it that there still are—three, not two, powerful Parties, and the Liberal Party did over twice as well as it did in 1959. It seems, however,

45
strangely, that the splitting of the available votes between four Parties makes the result less, not more, equitable. The Labour Party percentage of votes, as compared with 1959, was down from 47 per cent. to 36 per cent., yet the seats obtained went up from 53 per cent. to 58 per cent.
The Conservative Party, however, which suffered a fall in votes from 47 to 24½per cent., experienced an almost exactly proportionate fall in seats from 44 to 22½ per cent. The Liberals again were far out of proportion, with 8½ per cent. of the votes, but only 4 per cent. of the seats. But the experience of the Scottish National Party was the most remarkable, with 30½ per cent. of the votes compared with Labour's 36 per cent., and 15½ per cent. of the seats compared with Labour's 58.
Of course, these figures would not be surprising to advocates of proportional representation who are, what I might call, connoisseurs of electoral anomalies, but may I again emphasise that I am not using them to support a general case, but a particular case. In the state of Parties in Scotland, which is entirely different from that of the Parties in the United Kingdom, and in the state of emotional unrest, which is almost certain to be found at any juncture of constitutional change, there is, I am sure, a highly special case for ensuring that, whatever may be the composition of the new Assembly, it is based, so far as that can be provided for, upon the consensus of a majority of the electorate. Under our standard electoral system that would be absolutely impossible.
The case is, I believe, special in another sense. I should have thought that, applying the principles which must have been held to have justified the introduction of the Bill, it is for the Assembly to determine what its own system of election shall be. I think that it is plainly right that proportional representation be introduced at the earliest possible moment, so that the decision to keep it, to abandon it, or to alter the method of it, may be made by an Assembly in which the voting power reflects the will of a majority of the electors.
Perhaps I ought to mention in passing that PR is not a total stranger to Scotland.
46
From 1919 to 1930 there were, in Scotland, education authorities which were independent of the local authorities, and their members were elected by a system of the single transferable vote. When I was an undergraduate, politics being one of the subjects for my degree, I contrived to get employment at one such election as a polling clerk, so I have some personal recollection of the experiment. It ceased because the ad hoc education authorities ceased themselves, but I cannot remember that there was anything unworkable or undesirable about it.
Your Lordships will have observed that the STV, as it is called, is not the system which these Amendments provide for, although it was the system recommended by the Royal Commission. There are many different formulae for electoral reform, each one of which has defects which are emphasised by the advocates of every other system. If these defects were more grievous than those observable in the first-past-the-post system, the present Amendment would not have seen the light of day; but they are not.
It is, I think, not necessary that I should say anything about the detailed operation of what is called the additional Member system, which is the system proposed. The principle is this: voters elect constituency Members in just the same way as they do now. This accounts for two-thirds of the membership of the Assembly, but they also indicate which Party they vote for, and these votes are used in order to calculate the number of additional members to be allotted to each Party in order to bring, so far as one can, the Party strengths in the Assembly into line with the Party strengths in the constituencies. This accounts for one-third of the membership.
I am sure that there are noble Lords who have the working of the system at their fingertips, and that they will deal with it and trace its parentage. There are only two general observations I should like to make. First, the criticism that certain members of the Assembly have been appointed and not elected, I believe to be invalid where, as here, a unicameral legislature is concerned. Secondly, this is the only system which can be brought into immediate operation. No changes in constituency boundaries are called for. Speaking as an ex-chairman of the

47
Boundary Commission for Scotland, I can assure the Committee that that would be a most formidable and time-consuming business. Those are the reasons, put as briefly as I can, why I recommend that the members of the Assembly should be elected by proportional representation, and I beg to move accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I feel it a privilege to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, on this Amendment. As the very distinguished Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which toiled for so long and produced such a massive and powerful report, his words are bound to carry great weight with your Lordships. As he said, what we are discussing on this Amendment is whether or not we should have a system of proportional representation; and it is an all-Party Amendment. What I shall attempt to do first is to say why I regard the principle of adopting a proportional representation system of the kind proposed in this series of Amendments—the additional Member system—as right for the Scottish Assembly, and then briefly to outline the proposals in perhaps a little more detail than the noble and learned Lord has so concisely and precisely given. I shall do that because I feel it would be wrong to ask your Lordships to consider an Amendment of this character without some idea of how the additional Member system would work. When we come to Schedule 1, we can discuss the system in more detail. In fact, we shall be able to do that when we come to Amendment No. 33, with which are linked the new Parts V, VI and VII of Schedule 1.
An election is thought of by most people in this island as a series of local races held all over the country, all starting and finishing on the same day. What more natural, then, than that the winners of the various races in their own localities should each be awarded the prize of a seat in Parliament as the representative of his constituency! The Amendment does not change that at all: but, if nothing more than that is done, the outcome for the voters and for the Parties for which they vote can be, and very often is, to say the least of it, unrepresentative, as the noble and learned Lord has already demonstrated. Does this
48
matter? Over the years, the system has worked, has it not? Has it not resulted, at least until recently, in a majority in the Lower House on which a Government could rely? And could it not do so again in the future so long as there are two dominant Parties competing for the spoils of office?
However, that is not the situation—the scenario, to use the modern jargon—that we are discussing in this Bill. Wishful thinkers may imagine and hope that it is, but the signs are that there will be at least three Parties in the running; and there is at least one more, possibly two, which is likely to put up candidates in all or most of the constituencies in the first election. On a first-past-the-post system, we might get an even more rather than a less unrepresentative result.
It is of course true that, in the past, the British House of Commons has created in its own image a host of legislatures all over the world, though many have not maintained that image for long; but most of these legislatures have, with the principal exceptions of the Provincial and State Governments in Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, been designed to exercise sovereignty. That is not so in the case of the Scottish Assembly: we are creating an Assembly of a quite different character, with restricted legislative powers and without a vestige of sovereignty. Surely we ought to devise a system which is apt for the functions it will have to perform—and this was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was making in the debate on the previous Amendment. There can be no excuse for devising a system which is palpably unfair in these circumstances.
In considering which electoral system will be most suitable for Regional Assemblies, including a Scottish Assembly, the Royal Commission, in paragraphs 778 to 788 of its report, looked at many possible systems and picked out three for special consideration, all of which are in use in some part of the world: first, there was the relative majority or first-past-thepost system; secondly, there was the alternative vote system; and, thirdly, there was the single transferable vote system. The Commission then came down in favour of the single transferable vote system, mainly on the grounds that it regarded ensuring the proper representation of minorities in Regional Assemblies

49
as an overriding requirement. Of the three, STV is the only one which aims to give Parties representation in proportion to votes received. They made it crystal clear that they were not talking about elections to the United Kingdom Parliament, and that the objection to STV that
"it tends not to give any one party a majority in the Assembly would be less substantial as the government was to be concerned with decisions on domestic policy only…".
However, the disadvantage of STV is that it needs large multi-Member constituencies. That would seem to run counter both to the aim of bringing representation closer to the people and to the practice in Great Britain in the past 100 years or so. It is partly for that reason and partly because of the convenience of having the same constituencies for the Assembly as for the United Kingdom Parliament that we are putting forward this compromise in the form of the additional Member system, which builds on the existing system.
The additional Member system is based on the system preferred by all but one member of the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Blake, who I am glad to see here today; it is a system which owes much to the West German system, and that system, in turn, owes much to our existing system. It resembles closely, but is not identical to, the Mackintosh-Rifkind Amendment which was debated and rejected in the Commons. Where it differs most is in the allocation of additional seats on a regional and not on an all-Scottish basis. This means that the additional Members will represent groups of constituencies. It is, so to say, a supplementary benefit to the existing system.
Now, if your Lordships will bear with me, I shall briefly outline the proposals in this series of Amendments. The Assembly would consist, as in the Bill, of around 150 Members, of whom 100 would be directly elected constituency Members, with 50 who would be added as Party Members. Initially, 42 of the existing 71 constituencies would elect one Member each and 28 would elect two each. This follows in the Amendment which we shall be considering under the name, curiously enough, of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The two components of the remaining constituency, Orkney
50
and Shetland, would each elect one Member, as in the Bill. (Incidentally, I shall not be moving Amendment No. 3.)
The constituencies which elected two Members each would be those with more than 110 per cent. of the average electorate—that is in Amendment No. 11—and that figure is calculated with a view to producing the 100 constituency members. The 50 additional seats would be allocated on a regional basis—that is in Amendment No. 21—constituencies being grouped into eight regions, so that the total number of seats in each region for each Party which secured more than 5 per cent. of the total number of Party votes cast in Scotland would as nearly as possible correspond with the proportion of votes cast for that Party in that region. This so-called 5 per cent. threshold is designed to prevent a multiplicity of Parties in the Assembly; and this sort of system has certainly not created a multiplicity of Parties in the West German Chamber.
Amendment No. 33, which would add Parts V, VI and VII to Schedule 1, describes how the additional seats would be apportioned. This is based on the so-called "largest average" formula invented by d'Hondt. I am told that in West Germany the calculations are made by computer; but, given a regional basis for Scotland, with only between four and eight additional members in each region it involves a straightforward and not too lengthy piece of arithmetic which can be contained on one side of a foolscap sheet of paper. Even though some may find the calculation rather complicated, the actual voting from the point of view of the individual elector is very simple. All that is needed is for the elector to give two votes: one to the candidate of his choice—the constituency candidate—and another to the Party of his choice. Of course in a two-Member constituency he would give three votes—two constituency votes and one Party vote.
The voting paper would provide for this by setting out the constituency candidates on the left and the regional list or Party nominees on the right. The regional list would show, Party by Party, the names of the Party candidates from whom the additional Members would be drawn. Each Party would draw up its own regional list on whatever basis it

51
chose, provided that the basis was democratic. Regulations made under the Bill could take care of that. Each Party list could not contain more names than there were additional seats to be filled in the region.
That is a summary of the system, and if it is not entirely clear to all members of the Committee at the moment I hope that noble Lords will find it clear when they come to read Hansard in the morning. 1 shall leave other noble Lords to speak about the distinctive contribution that additional Members could make to a Scottish Assembly. Such Members should have been carefully chosen perhaps as possessing distinction and experience of the kind that we are wont to observe and welcome in newly-created Peers. As the noble and learned Lord said, since the Scottish Assembly is to be a single Chamber, these additional Members might well add a valuable complementary element to the Assembly which would compensate in some measure for the lack of a second Chamber. That of course is speculation, though, I venture to think, not wild speculation. It may be of more immediate interest to your Lordships to know how this additional Member system would work out in practice.
Perhaps the most valuable indication is to take as a basis the October 1974 Election results in Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord has already done, but to take them from rather a different point of view. It is estimated that, had that Election been contested on the additional member system, the seats in the Assembly would have been distributed between the four main Parties as follows: with 24.7 per cent. of the votes, the Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland would have had 24 per cent. of the seats (that is, 36 seats in a 150-member Assembly). The Labour Party, with 36.3 per cent. of the votes would have had 39 per cent. of the seats or 58 or 59 seats. The Liberals, with 8.3 per cent. of the votes and 7 per cent. of the seats, would have had 10 or 11 seats. The Scottish National Party, with 30.4 per cent. of the votes and 30 per cent. of the seats, would have had 45 seats, three times the number they would have had had they actually won in the last Election. No other Party would have attained the qualifying threshold of 5 per cent. of the
52
votes. In the event, as my noble and learned friend said, the Labour Party candidates won nearly three-fifths of the seats with only just over 36 per cent. of the votes. That would be equivalent to some 87 per cent. of the seats in the Assembly of 150 Members.
So far, I have tried to deal with the principles and the mechanics of the additional Member system, but it would be wrong to evade the Party political issues. The Royal Commission made a perceptive and penetrating observation in paragraph 759 of its Report when it said:
"The system of Parliamentary Government now in operation at Westminster depends on the Opposition Party having a real prospect of achieving power. But in some regions that might not be so".
It was for that reason that the Commission made its proposals. I would add this: one of the long-standing objections in Scotland to establishing a subordinate Parliament in Edinburgh has been that one Party would probably enjoy a permanent majority even though the majority might not always, or perhaps ever, be based on a majority of votes cast.
Few people would now deny that that Party might be not the Labour Party but the Scottish National Party. In the Second Reading debate of the Bill in this House there was not one speaker, I believe, who was in favour of the complete independence of Scotland. Yet by constant insistence on Scotland's grievances—real or imaginary—a Party might, on the first-past-the-post system, again and again win a more or less permanent majority, edging further and further towards separation and/or one-Party Government.
Even if the likelihood of such a situation is thought at present to be remote, it is a risk which ought not to be run. The present strength of nationalism in Scotland can, I believe, be exaggerated. So can the unity of the Scottish National Party's present followers in pursuit of the proclaimed objective of independence. But there is no more dangerous belief than "It can't happen here", not least where national sentiment is involved. We need go no further than Quebec Province to see what can happen when the true interests of a people are obscured and distorted by nationalism. There, at the last election, the Part Québecquois gained 70 per cent. of the seats with

53
just over 40 per cent. of the votes, and has aroused grave fears for the future unity and prosperity of Canada.
Whatever advantages there may be in setting up some kind of political assembly in Scotland—and I believe that there are advantages—there are also enough risks not to warrant courting more. I believe that the first-past-the-post system would involve a foreseeable and totally unnecessary risk. As a political institution, the Scottish Assembly is to differ fundamentally from the United Kingdom Parliament. It lacks the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. It is to be only marginally concerned—environmentally, if you will—with trade and industry, and economics in general. It is to be elected for a fixed term of four years. These are but three of many reasons for having an entirely different electoral system—though not too different in its workings—to provide a membership apt for the Assembly's functions.
In conclusion, I would stress that the system proposed in this Amendment is simple from the point of view of the elector; it entails no constituency complications not already in the Bill and is demonstrably far fairer than the relative majority system, the first-past-the-post system. It would diminish considerably the risk of some Government, based on a majority of seats but a minority of the people of Scotland, riding roughshod over the wishes of the majority of electors.
4.50 p.m.
Lord BANKS: I should like to support the Amendment and the subsequent Amendments which are related to it. I should like to underline briefly the arguments in favour of that Amendment as I see them and as, indeed, they have been explained to us already this afternoon. I think it is of considerable significance that, as we were reminded a little while ago, the Royal Commission over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, presided, unanimously recommended that the Scottish Assembly should have a proportional system of election. En doing so, they stressed the importance of proper representation for minorities in the Scottish Assembly and the need for a consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has reminded us that there are some five or six political Parties
54
operating in Scotland at the present time. Then there is a danger of distortion if the first-past-the-post system is used, with possible unfortunate consequences.
We know that in Scotland today, according to the present state of the opinion polls, the Conservative, Labour and Scottish Nationalist Parties are fairly close together; that it is not impossible for any one of those to project itself into the 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the electorate bracket, and that the Party that does that could well collect 60 per cent. of the seats. That raises the possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred, of having in the Assembly a Scottish Nationalist majority which was supported by only a minority of votes in the country and which may seek to move Scotland towards an independence which was riot supported at all by the votes of the people of Scotland. It seems to me that the arguments are overwhelming for a proportional system for the Scottish Assembly.
When it comes to systems of proportional representation, it is well known that we on these Benches favour the single transferable system as used in Northern Ireland at the present time and, of course, in the neighbouring country of the Irish Republic. But although that is what we consider to be the best system, and although we have explained its merits many times in the past and will continue to do so in the future, nevertheless we have felt it right to support this Amendment which incorporates the added Member system, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has told us and, indeed, as it has been explained to us by him. We believe that the added Member system is infinitely preferable to the first-past-thepost system and that it is important to have the widest means of agreement about the proportional system to be used in the Scottish Assembly. For those reasons we support the Amendment.
The Amendment which we are discussing and the series of Amendments which flow from it would involve the election of 100 Members on the first-pastthe-post system. There would be 44 of those initially in single-Member constituencies, including Orkney and the Shetlands, and 28 in two-Member constituencies; although those 28 would be divided up in due course, so that in the

55
course of time everyone would have his single-Member representative, which some people consider to be a very important matter. In addition to those 100 Members elected on the first-past-the-post principle, there would be the 50 top-up Members drawn from the regional lists and supplementing those elected on the first-pastthe-post principle, so that the final result was proportionate to the way in which the votes were cast. There would also be the 5 per cent. threshold to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred, and which would ensure that the political Parties represented in this way would be serious contenders for representation in the Assembly. There would be also the opportunity of amendment; so that if it were felt that the system, after it had been in practice for a while, needed some modification, that is provided for in this series of Amendments. I believe there is a strong feeling in the Committee that there should be a proportional voting system for the Scottish Assembly and I hope very much that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
4.55 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: On this Amendment I find myself very much in agreement with my noble friends, Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Drumalbyn. I am not going to concern myself with the method of proportional representation. I, myself, rather favour the single transferable vote but it may be that the added Member system proposed by Lord Drumalbyn has an advantage over it. I have an open mind on that. But I am much concerned with the unhealthy trend, as I see it, which has entered into the system of our Parliamentary democratic government based on Party. It is that the Government elected on a minority vote have interpreted their majority of seats, however small, as giving them the right to impose policies on the country for which the majority of people clearly have not voted. It is really a weakness that that has appeared in our democratic system particularly in recent years, and it has done a lot to bring politics into disrepute.
Whether or not it is proper, or a good thing, for the United Kingdom to adopt a proportional representation system is, to my mind, for today's debate, beyond
56
the point. It is not practical politics. It is my guess that, for a number of reasons, it will not be practical politics for five or ten years. But we now have the opportunity to prevent the abuses of the present system being imported into the new Scottish Assembly or Convention, or whatever it is we are going to call it. I do not believe that the majority of people in Scotland wish to be governed by any Party—I do not care which Party it is— elected on a minority vote.
My second reason for supporting the Amendment is the nature of what I call purely Scottish Bills. I hope that my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, who is to introduce an Amendment later, will give a clearer definition. I have been through hundreds of such Bills in some detail and, by and large, they are not the kind of Bills that lead to extreme Party clashes. I have served, as have many other noble Lords, for a good many years on the Scottish Standing Committee. It is longwinded almost beyond words, but you can count the occasions almost on two hands in which there have been serious clashes of principle on these kinds of Bills. I do not think, therefore, that they are the kind of Bills which ought to lead to great and serious clashes between Parties.
The last reason is that which was touched upon by my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn. In Scotland, as far as we can see ahead, it looks to me as though there are going to be three or four political Parties comparatively evenly balanced. I think that a system of proportional representation would give a fairer result, more acceptable as a whole, to the people of Scotland. I am, as I think the Committee knows, a devolutionist although I do not much like this Bill. I shall do my best to try to improve it with the help of my colleagues on this side of the Committee; but I am bound to say that my attitude to the whole of this Bill will depend very much on whether the Government agree to adopting some form of proportional representation for election to the Assembly.
4.59 p.m.
Lord BLAKE: I thought that I ought perhaps to speak although I promise to be brief. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn

57
referred to the Hansard Society's Commission on Electoral Reform of which I was Chairman and which recommended the additional Member system. The proposals in this Amendment are very similar, although not identical, to the proposals of the Commission and are also very similar to the Amendment which was proposed in another place by my honourable friends Mr. Malcolm Rifkind and Mr. John Mackintosh. They are all variants of the West German system.
There is this difference, I think, in what has been proposed under this Amendment: that some of the first-past-the-post constituencies will have two Members rather than one. There are special reasons for that connected with the minimum of administrative inconvenience and with avoiding the need for re-drawing boundaries and so on, but the basic principle is the same: the preservation of a link between Member and constituency. This is the advantage, I think—and the majority of the members of the Commission came to the same view—of the additional Member system over other systems of proportional representation.
I do not want to go into details about this because no doubt there will be some discussion later. It would be idle to pretend that I am not in favour of PR for Westminster, because I am and I came down clearly on that view; but it is perfectly reasonable for people who are thoroughly against having a proportional representation system of any kind for Westminster nonetheless to be in favour of proportional representation for Edinburgh. The circumstances are different and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said, one cannot even invoke that boring old sinner of an argument "the thin end of the wedge" on this. After all, we had PR on the STV basis—not the additional Member system—for Stormont in the 1920s and we have had it again fairly recently. It certainly has not shown any sign of bringing PR to Westminster: nor is there any reason why it should.
The two great dangers in having the first-past-the-post system in a devolved Assembly are these: the first is that minorities will be greatly underrepresented. That point was made in both the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission on the Con
58
stitution, and I will not labour it. Everybody knows that, whatever the merits of the first-past-the-post system may be, it does not give proper representation to minorities—or, if it does, it is by pure fluke. No-one has ever defended it on that ground: nor could they. Secondly, whatever the merits of the system may be when you have a two-Party system and the two major Parties take something like 90 per cent. of the vote, as used to happen in the United Kingdom as a whole from 1945 to 1970—and there may be advantages for it then—it becomes far more capricious in its workings if, as in Scotland today, you have five or six Parties and if, again as in Scotland today, the largest three Parties are extremely close to one another. The result could be a complete lottery. A Party with 37 per cent. of the popular vote could scoop the pool with a comfortable majority of members in an Assembly, Convention, or what-have-you, voted in on a firstpast-the-post system.
The matter becomes even more serious when one of those three Parties is divided from ail the rest by an immense gulf—for, after all, there is a Party which believes in total separation. There is no comparable division in any of the nationwide Parties in the United Kingdom. Under a first-past-the-post system, it would, as has already been said, be perfectly possible for a Party committed to a revolutionary change to win over half the seats although over 60 per cent. of the votes were actually against it. That is not just a remote chance or a possible statistical fluke; it is a possible and indeed probable outcome of a first-past-the-post election in Scotland in the near future. And who could blame the Scottish National Party if, having got in as a minority with a clear majority of seats in the House, it took that as a mandate? After all, that is what the present Government have done in very similar circumstances in England. The SNP could not be blamed for it nor, certainly, could this Government. It would be quite a different thing to do it in those circumstances. I cannot believe that anyone in this Chamber would wish to see such a result. There is really only one certain way of avoiding that highly undesirable result, which is to adopt some form of proportional representation. I very much hope that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division and carried.
5.4 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am sorry if I seem, as I shall, to be marring the apparent harmony, not to say unanimity, which has prevailed so far in this debate. In particular I find myself very unhappy at feeling bound to differ from my former Leader, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for whom, as he knows, I have such enormous respect and who, as he also knows, I always wished to remain my Leader for very much longer than he did.
I am very unhappy indeed about this Amendment, for reasons which I shall try to state as concisely as I can. It was of course moved with the highest authority and, if he will allow me to say so, the most effective moderation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. It has been supported by Members of the greatest weight and distinction in this Chamber, but I think there are very real dangers in it. The first of them is the likely reaction by what may well be the dominant Party in Scotland, the Scottish National Party. Your Lordships will know that this Bill would not be before us at all had it not been for the pressures and demands made by that Party. I would ask your Lordships to reflect on the possible reaction of members of that Party if we were to introduce into this Assembly, which is being introduced, it is said, to meet their wishes, rules which would be likely to have the effect of preventing their getting an effective majority, when we do not apply similar rules in our own legislature.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Would the noble Lord permit me? I think it should be pointed out, to their great credit, that many members of the Scottish National Party are in favour of PR.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord is right as of now, but I wonder whether he will reflect with me a little further as to what their likely reaction would be if this Amendment were carried: if they found themselves in a position in which, under the first-past-the-post system, they would have had a majority but we have devised rules which will inhibit them from getting their majority—which under that system they would have got, and which is after all the system that we adopt for the whole of the rest of our arrangements at Westminster and in this Island. Of
60
course, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that, for a reason which I find it very difficult to follow because I do not think it is in their own interests, some of the representatives of that Party have taken this view. But I would still ask your Lordships to consider what the reaction is likely to be if we introduce rules which it will be clearly suggested were for the purpose of inhibiting them from obtaining an effective overall majority in this Assembly.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said that if we were to accept this we would not be creating a precedent. I think his words were, "It would not be the thin end of the wedge". That is what one always says when one is creating a precedent and, with great respect, one is always wrong because, as the late A. P. Herbert put it,
"Nothing is a precedent until it is done for the first time".
If we do this I think we shall introduce the thin end of the wedge, because there will be many people who would argue—certainly noble Lords on the Liberal Benches—that what is right for the Scottish Assembly is right for the rest of these Islands. And what about the Wales Bill? Will not the same argument be adduced for the Welsh Assembly? Once that is established—and I am sure noble Lords fully understand the natural desires of noble Lords on the Liberal Benches to see some such system which is so obviously desirable from their own electoral point of view—we are kidding ourselves if we say this is not the thin end of the wedge. Therefore, with enormous respect, I differ from the noble and learned Lord on that point.
If we are to plunge into this Assembly and into PR, I suggest—I say this with great diffidence in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who I think invented it—that the additional Member system seems one of the least desirable forms of proportional representation. What is to be the position of these additional members? They will not have a constituency of their own. They will be elected on a Party list over a regional area and of course they will owe their election—let us be clear about it—to the position on their Party list which their Party managers put them in.
I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who referred

61
to the danger today from the increased growth of the Party machines. What greater reinforcement could one give to the Party machines than to have a number of persons elected not by an individual constituency, but because of the position on a Party list which the Party machine has conferred upon them? I was most interested in something that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said on this point, because I think that in his speech he was very conscious of this weakness. He said that it would be for the Parties—he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I paraphrase him accurately—to arrange the order of candidates on their lists. But he said that that would be all right, because there would be regulations to secure that this was democratic. I have immense admiration for the ingenuity of my noble friend, but the devising of regulations to ensure that Party machines operate democratically in respect of the selection of candidates seems to me not to be self-evidently very easy, and I think that we should not accept this proposal without at least being satisfied that this is feasible.
So I feel that the position of these added Members will be one of some embarrassment. They will be the creatures, in the strict sense, of their Party machines. I have no doctrinal antipathy to that. In a modest way, as President of the Wessex area of the National Union of Unionist and Conservative Associations, I suppose that I am part of a Party machine, and, if we were to evolve a system of this kind in England, I suppose that I might even have my own, modest racket in the selection of candidates. But, in all seriousness, this seems to me a very considerable defect in the system and I must confess that I am extremely unhappy about it.
Then my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn produced an argument which I hope I misunderstood, because I certainly found it difficult to follow. He said that it was all right to have this system for the Scottish Assembly, because it was not a sovereign body, and that because it was not a sovereign body it would be wrong for it to have an electoral system which was palpably unfair, the corollary to that being that only sovereign bodies can be based on an electoral system which is palpably unfair.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My noble friend is putting together two or three sentences of mine which, no doubt, he jotted smartly down on paper, in an order in which I did not put them, and drawing conclusions from the order in which he has put them.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My noble friend's intervention was, perhaps, more obscure than usual. I did jot down my noble friend's observations—I hope in the same order—and, with great respect to him, he has not explained what is the validity of an argument for saying that a non-sovereign body should be based on an electoral system which is not palpably unfair, with the plain implication as to what should be the position in respect of a sovereign body.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Will my noble friend forgive me for interrupting again? He is now referring to the summing-up, at the end of my speech. But I quoted from the Royal Commission's document, in which they said that the objection is not so substantial where an Assembly is dealing with purely domestic matters, as where it is dealing with other matters, such as foreign policy and so on. I think my noble friend is rather confusing the argument about fairness—which is the other argument, about consulting minorities and about minorities being represented—with the argument about sovereignty needing strong and consistent government. That is perhaps even more important, in certain circumstances, in a sovereign country than it is to have a body elected by proportional representation.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not want to continue the matter unduly, but I think that my noble friend has really confirmed what I was saying, that, in the case of a sovereign body, so important is it—and here I wholly agree with him—to have a Government that can govern, that one must accept, if necessary, for that greater end, the lesser evil of palpable unfairness, and that, therefore, because this is a non-sovereign body, it is, in his view, much more important to avoid palpable unfairness. He has only explained in even more polished language, though perhaps at slightly greater length than before, the view that he expressed in his admirable speech.

63
I have one final point to make, and here I draw the opposite conclusion from that of my noble friend. He said that, because under the Bill the Assembly will have the power to determine its own electoral system in the future, it was desirable that it should be elected under this kind of system at the first instance, and it could then decide to what system it went. I draw the opposite conclusion from that. I should have thought that, if you were giving this body—and I think that it is right to give it—the right to determine its own electoral system, you should elect it under the system which is the current system in this country for elections. Then, if it does not like it, it is in a position, if it wishes, to evolve a new system.
The Earl of PERTH: I think that the noble Lord is mistaken when he says that the Assembly will have such a power. It is my intention later to move an Amendment for this purpose, but in the Bill as it is drafted at the moment the Assembly has no such power.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I was misled by my noble friend, because it was his argument to which I was referring. But I will certainly bear in mind the noble Earl's warning when we come to his Amendment, because, if anything, he is strengthening my feeling that we should oppose it.
As I have tried to make clear, I am very unhappy about these proposals. If I may sum up what I have been saying, I do not think it is sensible in the present atmosphere to apply to the Scottish Assembly an electoral system which is different from that which we accept for the management of our own affairs in the United Kingdom, unless—and I come back to the noble Earl's point—and until that body, once elected, feels disposed to adopt it. But for us to impose it ab initio would be a mistake and would make an experiment, already very precarious, even more so. Secondly, I believe that, despite the efforts of my noble and learned friend Lord Kilbrandon, we should be creating a precedent, and a precedent which we should regret for many years to come.
5.18 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: There can be no doubt that I must be the sole Member of your Lordships' House who has failed to follow the logic embodied in the arguments adduced on both sides on this debate. I have an uncomfortable feeling that I may be called upon to vote at the termination of this debate without understanding anything at all about it. It all appears to be very complicated. My only possible consolation—and I have sometimes felt this in my experience on a public platform—is that one can speak better on a subject about which one knows nothing than on a subject about which one is fully informed. But I gathered, or tried to gather, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the proposition before your Lordships is related to the possibility of injecting some form of proportional representation into the elections which are to take place some day in connection with the creation of a Scottish Assembly. That is how I understand it.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has just resumed his seat, is quite right to direct our attention to the adverse reaction which might ensue from the creation of a new form of election in our country. There are dangers in any kind of election and, as we know from our experience, many changes have ensued as a result of our frequent elections since the beginning of this century.
During the course of this debate, there has been a great deal of talk about majorities and minorities. There are some people who dislike majorities, while others dislike minorities. Those who dislike majorities are usually on the side of the minorities—and vice versa. We understand exactly what is the motivation. I dismiss most of the arguments for the simple reason that for quite a long time I have felt that majorities do not matter very much and that minorities are of no value if we are to produce beneficial results. Therefore, it might be advisable to have some form of election which would lead to—I use the simple term—adequate representation of the electors in our country. It has happened elsewhere without any adverse reaction, except that, in some countries where the method of proportional representation has been in vogue for many years, they have some-

65
times failed to come to definite conclusions. That is not a bad thing. Sometimes it is far better not to come to a definite conclusion. Since the beginning of this century, we have had various Governments which came to definite conclusions and we see the results—some of them not altogether very satisfactory. So it might be advisable to take certain risks.
What is proposed, as I understand it, although I am open to correction, is not that in future elections in the United Kingdom or any part of it we should adopt in a wholesale fashion the principle of proportional representation. We are endeavouring only to introduce the thin end of the wedge—very thin. In my opinion, that is a very useful and desirable experiment. Whether the system that is advocated, based on the Amendment, is the correct one is a matter upon which the Government representative will express an opinion.
However, what I should like the Government to do would be this. They may have come to definite conclusions about every item in this Bill, but on this matter of the method of election for the Assembly in Scotland the important consideration, if we are to have less turbulence in Scotland—political, industrial, social and all the rest—is to have an Assembly that at any rate appears to be a fair one and likely to operate objectively and impartially, particularly as it happens to be an innovation. In other words, we take risks when we seek to introduce innovations affecting an old institution that may or may not have served its purpose over the years; but here is something new and it is worthwhile undertaking the risk.
Moreover, I fancy that it will suit the people of Scotland very much better than the normal first-past-the-post kind of election. A great deal of nonsense is spoken about unity in Scotland. I know Scotland fairly well. I am almost inclined to say that there will never be unity in Scotland until every clan wears the same kind of kilt. When I think of what Glasgow is like—and I have lived in it for more than 30 years— and how it relates to people in the Hebrides and other parts of Scotland, placed geographically as they find themselves and not as a matter of individual selection, I am bound to say that what Scotland needs is more fairness
66
and impartiality rather than a semblance of unity based on a majority Government.
For that reason, I am going to ask my noble and learned friend who is to reply to consider all the arguments that have been adduced in the course of this short discussion and to take them back and consider whether it is possible to introduce some element of proportional representation—either the one that is advocated in the Amendment or something similar. Let us experiment. In my judgment. it can do no harm. I do not believe that there will be an adverse reaction in any form. It will do a great deal of good.
May I say one last word on this matter. For Heaven's sake! we must not do this in order to please the Liberal Party. I have been wanting to say that for some time! It is not that I bear any malice towards the Liberal Party; far from it. However, it seems to me that if they had selected me as Leader of the Liberal Party—not that I should have been likely to accept the offer—I should have advised them quite differently. If you want to reach your objective, you must adopt diplomatic means and not be arrogant. Over the years, I tried arrogance and I failed. We must not do this merely because it is a Liberal proposition.
If the Government say, "All right, we will consider the matter and we will adopt something similar to what has been asked for", the Liberals will come along and say that it is a Liberal victory. This has got nothing whatever to do with the Lib-Lab pact—at least I hope not—nor should it disrupt that pact; let it go on, for what it may be worth. Therefore, let us decide this question quite objectively.
In my judgment, it will satisfy the people of Scotland and it will not trouble the people on this side of the Border. If we can create in Scotland an organisation that has a measure of autonomy, even if its operations are occasionally restricted in the interests of the wellbeing of the whole of the United Kingdom, it will be all to the good. For that reason, I ask my noble and learned friend to give careful consideration to the matter.
5.30 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: If the weight of voices in this debate in Committee has any effect on your Lordships' decision on this

67
Amendment, I shall be very glad of this opportunity very briefly to add mine in support of it. I think that, whether or not proportional representation is accepted in the final version of the Bill when it becomes an Act, the House of Commons should have a further opportunity of considering the matter. In my view it would be wrong if the prejudice in that House against proportional representation was allowed to guide a decision with regard to the Scottish Assembly.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter seemed to me to be a very good example of an argument which in fact should be used the other way round. If the opposition in the United Kingdom Parliament against proportional representation is allowed to dictate the decision of that Parliament in respect of the Assembly or Convention in Edinburgh, then the Scottish Nationalist Party, for instance, will have a very good argument that their interests are not being properly safeguarded and that it would be far better for the Scottish Assembly to have a different form, not only of constitution but of election, from that of the United Kingdom Parliament. I should have thought—and quite clearly my noble friend's argument was based on a misapprehension with regard to the point of view of the Scottish Nationalist Party—that in fact there would be a continuing grievance if we were to impose upon the Scottish Assembly the same form of election which happens to suit and to be part of the tradition, first of England and then of the United Kingdom.
I think we should not start this new experiment, which as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, is a new development in the constitution of our Islands, by depriving the Scottish people of what at any rate a large number of people think is the best system for ensuring that the Scottish Convention accurately reflects the whole spectrum of political opinion in that country. Therefore I hope that the Committee will support this Amendment, and I think we have a right to do so in view of the fact that its advocates include some of the most distinguished legal and constitutional minds in Scotland and in Great Britain as a whole.
It is quite unnecessary for me to try to repeat the arguments which have been
68
put forward so well by my noble friends on this side of the Committee and by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell; but whatever may be the ultimate outcome, I think it would be right for us on this occasion, and in view of the importance of the issue, to remit it to the House of Commons for reconsideration in the final stages of its enactment, so that they should have a second chance of considering something on which, by that time, there may be some expression of opinion so far as the Scottish people are concerned.
5.33 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I have no advice to give to the Committee but I want to say a few words in order to make my own position clear. I am unhappy about this Amendment and I am very unhappy about the Bill. I believe that in the world in which we live—a world of constant change—the one great asset that the British people have is their unity and anything which saps that unity must in the end be against the national interest. It may come—as these things do come—like a thief in the night. We may wake up to find that the consequences overwhelm us and that we have not realised what those consequences arc going to be. I must express my regret that advancing years and impaired hearing prevented me from doing what I wanted to do and intended to do, namely to object to the withdrawal of the Motion that was moved on second reading and to divide the House on that issue. That is what I feel about it.
I have listened to the arguments today and I must confess that they have passed right over my head. When people speak about democracy they are speaking of something which I see in quite different terms. Democracy is not a matter of mathematical formulae, of feeding something into a constituency and getting the answer out. All government, in its most primitive form or its most complicated form, be it democracy or authoritarian, can only be carried out by consent. The issue is, how do you get that consent? Under the Hitlerian system you get it through the concentration camp, the rubber truncheon and through brutality. In our society, thank God! for the last three or four hundred years we have got it by persuasion. What elections are about fundamentally is not deciding who

69
is at the top of the poll: it is a time when the British people educate themselves in the realities of the decisions which have to be taken in their name and which will succeed or fail to succeed to the extent to which they understand and accept them.
I should like to quote one example, not in order to raise Party feeling. Let us take the Industrial Relations Bill. After the 1970 election, I remember going to the centre of London and watching an immense parade organised by the TUC in opposition to that Bill. I knew from my own experience as a Member of the House of Commons that that parade had not taken place by accident. There was a deep feeling and I was quite convinced that, if a Conservative Government, even with a large majority, tried to carry through that legislation—and I said so in this House—they would fail, and fail they did. It may be argued that that Bill was soundly drawn; the principles were good but public opinion was not ready for it and so it broke down.
The arguments we have heard today are really quite extraordinary. We are told—and I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that this Bill had its origin in an attempt to "do down" the nationalist feelings which have been aroused in Scotland for good or ill reasons. It was a piece of political manoeuvring in order to buy time. But that it could be successful I gravely doubt. We are told today that we must have this Amendment in the Bill in case, as the result of an election for a Scottish Assembly, a majority of Scottish Nationalist opinion finds itself able to carry out its will. So what we are engaged in today is cooking up a means of stopping the Scottish Nationalists from having their way if they get a majority. The majority of the Scottish people are persuaded by their experience and by those who are seeking to guide them as to what to do, and at the end of the day they will do it. If your Lordships try to stop them you will not succeed but you will have worsened the situation. It will in fact intensify the feelings of Scottish Nationalists that what this House is setting out to do is to put in, as it were, a long stop.
One of the things that I am afraid of in these Islands is the emergence of a force which has not broken through for very many years—English nationalism.
70
Perhaps it will not come in my time but how much longer do noble Lords think that the measures which are being carried through can be continued without stopping to reckon the cost? For example, the day might come when economic disaster descended upon us, or even military defeat that came about because of the weakening of the political and emotional forces —all the forces which make up nationalism—and my Lords they are not all bad. Any force which makes a man look for something bigger than himself to serve is not wholly bad.
As your Lordships know, I have spent most of my life as a regular soldier. I come from a line of forebears with experience of soldiering and I want to put this to those of your Lordships who have shared my experience. There are forces that make a man think that ' A ' company is better than ' D ' company but, if at the end of the week he is transferred to ' D ' company and he thinks ' D ' company is better than ' A ', the fact that that man is finding an allegiance among those he serves and for whom in the last analysis men will give their lives, then for good or bad reasons he will be serving something bigger than himself.
Our job is to try to harness this to the realities of the situation, not to try to submerge it, or to bring in a measure of this kind, which we know in our heart of hearts, if we took a free vote in this House, we would turn down tomorrow. We are discussing the Committee stage of this Bill because the convention says we must all be very nice and must not vote against it on Second Reading. We are now being asked to pass an Amendment which we know in our heart of hearts, every man-jack of us, including the Liberals—and that is a great tribute by me, holding the views I do about Liberals—would be doing something which at the end of the day can only weaken the very forces, the very foundations, of our society.
I want to say one thing more, and it is this. I wonder if I could, with great respect, ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, to reflect on this. Democracy clearly does not end with the totting up of the votes; it is not a question of this batch of votes against that batch of votes. May I remind him of the Churchillian doctrine which is long since

71
forgotten, but which was a marked contributory reason for the heavy Conservative defeat in 1945, that there should be one vote, one value. At the 1945 Election the principle which had governed the drawing up of constituencies, the size of constituencies, from the end of the First World War up to 1945 had been turned upside down, because of the movements of population during the war and the fact that there had been no redrawing of boundaries, so that an urban vote became worth about one-and-three-quarters the value of a rural vote.
I can assure noble Lords that the Labour Government did not know what they were doing in the 1951 Election, which reversed it. I remember going, as a Member of the House of Commons, to a room upstairs and discussing the proposals. I did the sums and worked out what the consequences were going to be. Mr. Dick Windle, who was the national agent, came to me afterwards and said, "Look, young man, do not worry about this; this is a matter for Transport House". So they lost the 1950 Election, or nearly lost it, and lost completely in 1951, because the balance had been altered.
Here again, now in Scotland, particularly where you have sparsely built-up areas and very crowded urban areas, unless there is some attempt to secure an equality between the value of one vote as against another you are going to get the most grotesque results, never mind about your mathematical formula. I do not know whether the Committee is going to divide or not. If it divides, I shall certainly vote against this Amendment. I hold that if this Amendment is adopted we are starting on a course of action the end of which we do not see. We ought to be very cautious, very careful, before we take another step down this very slippery slope.
5.43 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: May I say that I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said. I believe there are two points here; the first is with regard to method. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said that this is not the thin end of a wedge. May I say I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this would
72
be interpreted in the country as the thin end of a wedge. I was in my time a member of four Speakers' Conferences on electoral reform. Certainly at the majority of those conferences we discussed proportional representation. At the last conference the decision of the Speaker's Conference by 19 votes to one was against proportional representation for the United Kingdom Parliament. That was, of course, the single transferable vote. This is the added Member system, which to my mind is a good deal less attractive than the single transferable vote system.
If you have this Assembly or Convention, you will have some Members who are elected and some Members appointed by the Party caucus. Therefore, you are going to have two classes of Member, and you will have Members who are appointed by the Party caucus who are not necessarily the most popular with the electorate. I should have thought that the conclusion of this matter ought not to be what my noble friend Lord Alport suggested. He said we should accept this Amendment and have it turned down by the Commons. That was the gist of it. I should have thought the happier solution, for those who are in favour of this and for those who are against it, would be to insert powers in this Bill, as I understand the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is intending to do, to give the Assembly themselves the power to regulate their own method of election. I cannot think that if they have that power they will choose this particular added Member system, although I think it is quite likely that if they had that power they would choose the single transferable vote system, which is the more attractive of the different forms of proportional representation. But leave it to their power, without the danger of attempting to put it into this Bill. I believe that would be a very grave mistake at the present time.
Lord ALPORT: May I correct my noble friend. I did not say it would be turned down by the House of Commons. I indicated that I know that the prejudices against this are very strong in the House of Commons, for reasons which my noble friend and all others in this House know. But I had hoped that the fact that we had passed an Amendment in this sense would at any rate indicate, not only to the House of Commons but also to the country in

73
general, that there was an increasing body of opinion in favour of a system of proportional representation, at any rate for the Scottish Assembly.
5.40 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I seek to speak at an early stage in this debate to express personal views on this subject, having already made brief references to them in previous debates on devolution in your Lordships' House, when I have recommended a system of proportional representation for any body that was to be set up. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in his speech expressed very concisely and cogently the objections which are raised to a system of proportional representation. I am one of those who believe that if it were introduced in Scotland it need not in any way prejudice the position of Westminster. The precedent of Northern Ireland has already been referred to, where proportional representation was introduced, and it had no effect at all upon our system at Westminster.
I would add to that by saying that if there were to be any changes in the methods of electing Members of another place here at Westminster a great deal of work would have to be done beforehand in order to inform people of the adjustments that would be necessary. The whole question of Election Manifestoes would have to be changed. Now it is a matter of honour that every point in an Election Manifesto is a pledge and must be carried out. In a system of proportional representation there would have to be adjustments to this approach to General Elections, because there would probably not be a clear majority afterwards. Also there would need to be a time for negotiations after a General Election. There is an enormous amount to be considered, requiring adjustments to be thought out, and about which the public need to be informed and prepared before any changes of that kind could be made at Westminster.
My point is that that does not apply here, because if this Bill goes through, or if a Bill goes through, setting up a body on these lines, it will be a completely new body—Assembly we call it for the moment—and it could start with its own system. The Assembly would not be
74
providing a Government, it would not be providing the Government of the country. Under the terms of the Bill it is to provide an Executive. So I personally support the principle in this Amendment which was introduced with such clarity by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon.
In Scotland the three largest parties are roughly equal in their support and have been over the past three or four years. That does not even include the Liberal Party which is another Party to be reckoned with in Scotland. My noble friends Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Blake have pointed out the danger of a minority of the electorate of this new body putting into control of this body, under a first-pastthe-post system, a Party which has as its aim the breakaway of Scotland and the disintegration of the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter argued that that might offend the Scottish National Party. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out that they are officially in favour of a system of proportional representation for this Assembly, but it is not the one here. From what one understands from what they have said they are in favour of the alternative vote system in single Member constituencies, but with added members. Therefore, it is not so different from what is proposed here.
My noble friend asks what could be their objective in supporting such a system? The answer is that I think they are over-confident—confident that they would, under this system, get a majority. What many of us are worried about—certainly I am—is a Party gaining control of this new Assembly which has a minority support of about 30 per cent., or even less. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel pointed out the dangers that have arisen in this country as a whole, because policies have been pressed through which had only minority support. However, as I indicated, we are not discussing Westminster and I believe that a great many other adjustments would be necessary before any question of changes at Westminster could be considered. Therefore, I agree with the proposition that proportional representation should be introduced at the beginning if an Assembly of this kind is brought into existence.
The question then is: What is the best system? The Amendments propose that

75
there should be 150 Members, that is, falling in with the numbers suggested in the Bill as at present drafted; that 100 of those should be elected by single constituency election as at present; but that there should also be a system, which we can examine in detail when we reach later Amendments, of adding 50 because each elector would have a second vote which would be for the Party.
I am very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Blake speaking on this matter, because his Committee, sponsored by the Hansard Society, recommended the additional members system as their preferred one for a system of proportional representation. My noble friend reminded the House in a debate on religious education last summer that many years ago I had had the pleasure of teaching him mathematics and ballistics, which seems an improbable event as he is a very eminent historian. But, of course, it took place in the early days of the war, in 1940, when he was an officer cadet at the OCTU base school of artillery where I was an instructor. I can return the compliment by saying what an agreeable exercise it was to undertake that task, and I can also say that the Blake Committee got its mathematics right. It represents and reflects the wishes of the electorate to a very high degree of accuracy. However, at the same time it preserves the system familiar to the British and the Scottish electorate of a member representing a constituency being directly elected.
Another point that I should like to bring out is that a system of this kind will encourage people to vote, because every vote will count towards the result. Sometimes now in constituencies which are massively safe for Labour or massively safe for Conservatives many people know that they are wasting their time if they vote. However, under this system anybody voting in any part of the country will be making some contribution to the result. In countries where a system of this kind has been adopted, such as West Germany, the number of people voting has increased—the percentage has increased enormously, and that must be healthy for democracy. Moreover, the number of those abstaining has fallen.
I have mentioned West Germany. There the AM system has now reached a
76
stage where half the Members are on a list. That was increased. They started originally with a system where there were less, but they decided that patronage and other things did not enter into this situation as much as some noble Lords have feared, and they actually increased it. However, that is not suggested here. Here the proportion is 50 added Members to 100. Should there be changes in the Bill—some of my noble friends have put down Amendments which may be accepted—which would reduce the total number of Members of this Assembly to about 100, which was the number recommended by the Royal Commission of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, then of course this system could be adapted in the same proportion in order to meet that situation. It is not wedded to the figure of 150.
I believe that these Amendments, which I personally favour, would provide the other place with an opportunity to discuss a system which is an alternative to the one which it discussed previously, because it has the lists based on regions. I think that that would be something which would be welcomed by many not only in another place but also throughout the country. It would give the other place a chance to consider an alternative to the proposal put forward there by the honourable Members, Mr. Rifkind and Mr. Mackintosh. Therefore, I quite understand the objections which have been put forward by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but with this new situation, a new body in Scotland and a special situation in Scotland I should favour a system of proportional representation.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Before my noble friend sits down, is he aware that his lucid and well reasoned argument in favour of the additional Member system in general does nothing to diminish the apprehensions of those of us who feel that, despite the assurances of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, this is a pretty thick end to a wedge?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I hoped that I had said at the beginning that I thought that we were considering this matter quite separately from Westminster and that if there were to be changes suggested of any system of proportional representation—not necessarily this one

77
at Westminster—an enormous amount of other connected work, such as the whole approach to General Elections and the whole system of what happens after General Elections, would not only have to be worked out but would have to be described to the public, and the public would have to be ready to accept it. If the public were not ready to do so, then changes would not happen. However, that is not the situation in Scotland: in Scotland this is something new. It is a quite new body and I believe that proportional representation would be appropriate for that kind of body, and ought to be introduced at the beginning when one can start with a system which would then he adapted and right for proportional representation.
5.59 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: I should like to begin by saying that I have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who apologises to your Lordships because, although he was one of the signatories to the Amendment, he has had to go to the Far East. He makes his apologies for being unable to take part in the Committee stage on this particular Amendment.
I hope that it is in order for me to mention the Scottish Peers' Association which some of your Lordships will know is an all-Party body concerned with Scottish interests. It is not all of a mind; that is to say, it is no secret to tell your Lordships that some of the Members are not at all happy about the Bill and not in favour of devolution. However, on all sides they have agreed that, in the event of there being a devolution Bill, it is of the greatest importance that the way it is chosen should be the right one. Indeed, at our meetings over the last three years I think we have discussed this question more than any other. We have had the advantage of advice from various sources telling of their particular systems and whether they would like proportional representation in the form of the single transferable vote or many others. In the end, we came to the conclusion that in the circumstances the Amendment which is before us today is the right one. Necessarily it is not perfect. We know that the Liberals would have liked something more on the single transferable vote system, but all recognise that, in an
78
event like this, the whole is more important than the part. That is why we have this Amendment before us today.
The main factor which brought the Amendment to your Lordships was that of fairness. We felt that it was of the greatest importance that in the first assembly the composition should clearly be a fair one. Incidentally, on the question of fairness, I think I am right in saying that the Scottish National Party, who have supported some form of proportional representation, have said that they themselves would not want to bring forward their doctrine—whatever it may be, or however extreme—unless they were sure that they had the majority of Scots behind them. I think that is the reason why, out of a sense of fairness, they are ready to support this Amendment.
We also felt that it was very important that the Amendment should be different from that which was turned down in another place. I am sure your Lordships will recognise why we wanted that, and this Amendment meets that point. Again, we thought it was of great importance that the regions of the countryside should have considerable weight, and that is the reason why, in the short time that was available to us, we adopted a system of regions for the 50 seats that are mentioned.
I recognise the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Tranmire and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it results in two kinds of MPs. While that is perfectly true, I think that by its very nature, the Parties would try to nominate people who were particularly popular in a region. If I am wrong in that, and if a further Amendment were accepted later on, then, if the Assembly wanted to change this method, it would be open to them to do so.
I would ask the Government to accept the Amendment in the way that it is meant; that is, because we believe it is for the best advantage of a new Assembly. In saying this I would point out that the Amendment gives the Government two-thirds of what they want; and I should have thought on the basis of having two-thirds—that is to say 100 out of 150 being chosen in the ordinary first-past-the-post method—they should be satisfied.
Lord DIGBY: The reason why this Bill is before your Lordships is that the nation is divided, politically, socially and

79
industrially, and I believe that this division is the chief cause of our poor industrial performance. This provides the impetus that makes for nationalism. It is difficult to be proud of being British; therefore one wants to be proud of being Welsh or Scottish. The Bill itself is divisive, but if it is passed let us not make it more divisive. First-past-the-post is divisive and decisive. Proportional representation is less decisive but also less divisive; therefore, I support this Amendment.
6.5 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I rise to support this Amendment. The basis for my authority to invervene—and I do so with considerable trepidation—is that I have twice been elected first-past-the-post to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and I have also once been elected to an Assembly on STV and once to a Convention on STV; so probably in this one case my experience is fairly unique. Before I begin my support to this Amendment may I say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that, unfortunately for him, the wedge is there and it is very thick. Northern Ireland is expected to have STV in the European elections and is also expected to have STV if again it has an Assembly, Convention, or call it what you like, and we are part of the United Kingdom.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My noble friend has referred to me. Would he not agree that were we to insist on this provision in respect of the Scottish Assembly the wedge would be even thicker?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I entirely agree with my noble friend, but that does not mean that I do not think that the situation is entirely relevant and correct. The fact that the Constitution or the Parliament of Northern Ireland has been suspended should not cloud the success of that Parliament during the period it existed. It provided an administration for that Province which was unrivalled in its humanity and accountability. It should also not prevent us from looking at the lessons and trying to derive some benefit from those lessons and applying them to this Bill.
80
The first objective of the Bill is to maintain the Union and I, having lived all my life in a Unionist Ulster, consider that that is of paramount importance to this United Kingdom. The second is to provide for better government for Scotland; and it is on that issue that I want to examine the question of the method of voting. I reckon that if this Parliament chooses first-past-the-post as the method of election for the first Assembly we will be adversely affecting both those objectives. If Scotland is to prosper—and we all hope that it will under a devolved Parliament—the first task which faces that Assembly is to establish good relations between the sovereign Parliament and its own executive within Westminster, within Whitehall and Edinburgh. This is a vital task, and one which it is not easy to achieve.
The number of lessons to be drawn from Stormont are many. Stormont was formed at a time when Government interference in everyday life was at a minimum. It was formed because it was the only method by which Ulster could remain as part of the United Kingdom. I do not think that that is the driving reason why we are suggesting devolution in Scotland. Even with that advantage, at times there were strains placed on the administration, on the inter-governmental co-operation; and it is to the great credit of the administrations in Westminster and Stormont that those strains never ended in any form of weakening of the Constitution.
If the relationships between the two Governments were excellent during the pre-war period, there did come a time immediately post-war, with the arrival of the Socialist Government, when the question of the relationship between Stormont and Westminster was raised. It was raised publicly and also in the Cabinet. The Socialist Government with their welfare legislation, were elected, and the question arose as to whether it was right for a Unionist Government to pass socialist legislation. Indeed, various options were examined in great detail. The solution canvassed most publicly was called "Dominion status", which undoubtedly would have weakened the link within the Union.
After considerable debate the Prime Minister of the day—and this is recorded

81
in the Cabinet minutes—acknowledged the fears of the Unionist Party. To some extent the Unionist Party was a coalition. It had these vast working-class votes in Belfast and other industrial cities and, therefore, it was not in fact a doctrinaire Party in the accepted sense of the word. The Prime Minister acknowledged the fears of the Unionist Party but pointed out that, as a Unionist, he was determined to maintain that Union. Although accepting that the subordinate Parliament ought not slavishly to follow Westminster in every respect, he said that it was important that parity continued between the various parts of the United Kingdom:
"We are therefore committed to following Westminster in the extension and improvement of our social services, no matter what Party is in power. We must face the fact that Westminster is supreme."
That conclusion is relevant today in that it lays down the guidelines for a devolved Parliament in its relationship with the sovereign Parliament. It must follow that, if we are to establish those good relations between the two Governments, we must choose a form of election which will not produce large and aggressive majorities. The limited area in which a devolved Parliament has to operate will lead inevitably to a desire for independence if we have these large aggressive majorities. To my mind it does not matter very much where the conflict arises because there are only two possible permutations which could not arouse controversy; namely, if we have a Conservative Government here and a Unionist Assembly in Scotland, or a Socialist Government here and a Socialist Assembly in Scotland. Those are the only two; all others would produce conflict of some description. It seems to me to be very important that on first election we should do as much as we can to enable that Assembly to have a form of PR which will, therefore, blunt that aggressive approach. Therefore, I am convinced that we should have some form of PR.
I now come to the method of proportional representation. I have said that I have twice been elected on the first-pastthe-post system and twice on the STV system. There are many Members of this noble Committee who know the thrill of the count, who know the fight of the election, but I think that they would find the thrill of a PR election rather different.
82
One starts off on a tumbril. In the constituency which I represented there were 97,000 people and it stretched for 90 miles. Four of you start off in the same Party and all end up making the same speech. Each one begins by speaking totally differently from the others, but inevitably, in the end, each makes the same speech.
Some noble Lords may know about a Lambeg drum, which is the Irish war drum. When a Lambeg drum competition is held there are two, three or four teams of Lambeg drums and they all start with a different rhythm. Throughout the night as the drums beat the aim is to ensure that everyone ends up with the same beat. The beat that usually wins is, "There are no public houses on the road to Lambeg, Lambeg, Lambeg". That is just about what happens when one takes part in a PR election. All find themselves making the same speech, and one has to say to someone on the STV, "I am a better man than he is "—I do not find it a very nice thing to say"—I am for number one, put him or her number two". That is the disadvantage of the STV system.
However, there are more disadvantages, because when one is elected one is elected for a constituency of 100,000, and in the case that I am discussing two-thirds of that majority is within 20 miles of one point. So all the Members look after that 60,000 of the population. The other 30,000 are basically totally inelective.
Therefore, under the STV system we have transferred the fairness of our election from being normal coverage over the whole country to being an urban-dominated representation. Further, when one is elected one finds that because each Party, or most of the Parties, has someone elected, the only people who come to you as a Member are those of your own Party because they can go to one of their Party. To my mind this is a negation of our form of democracy, where an elected Member is the elected Member for the whole electorate and not just for his own Party. I believe that to he wrong. I do not believe that it serves democracy any more than it does the question of looking after the 60,000 as opposed to the 40 per cent. of the community. From my experience I believe that the AM system serves fairness and makes sure that the

83
community is represented overall. There fore, I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment.
6.16 p.m.
Lord POLWARTH: I am sure that we would all agree that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has done us all a very great service in giving his personal experience on an issue which has been hotly argued by both sides today, but largely by those with a theoretical background. His remarks have been an enormous help to us. The noble Viscount did us a further service by drawing attention to the dangers of what he called the "large aggressive majority" and one which can be elected on a minority vote. I should simply like to link what he has said with the very solemn warning—and I should like to fortify it—of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn when he referred to the experience of the Province of Quebec. In that provincial Parliament a Party is in power, elected on 40 per cent. of the votes, holding 70 per cent. of the seats.
As I said on Second Reading, I have some experience there; I have been there on average four times a year over the past three years. Obviously, I hesitate to say anything that might be construed as criticism of the political system and workings of a fellow country. Nevertheless, I have many friends there, in both the English-speaking and the French-speaking communities. Not one of them would dissent from the view that in their province in Canada they see a potential tragedy unrolling. Here is that government, with a large aggressive majority elected on a minority of votes, in the process of tearing apart both a province and a country. They have not yet reached a state of separation, though that is their avowed objective. But even ahead of that we are seeing the disastrous consequences to the economy of that country—industry keeping away from the province, companies moving out and general disruption, uncertainty and unhappiness among the populace. If that can happen in circumstances of this kind, we should pay very close heed to it before we decide how we shall put the Bill into operation.
I believe that the real moral from what my noble friend has just said and from the example of the Province of Quebec
84
is that we are tinkering with something which may appear to be a little like a cosy, comfortable, safe little family car but which is liable to turn into a juggernaut, run off into all sorts of unforeseen directions and create untold havoc. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, did well to remind us of what we are doing in considering this Bill at all. Nevertheless, we are considering it, so let us send it to the people of Scotland for them to make their decision on only in a form which will give them the fairest opportunity of making their will heard in the deliberations of this Assembly, if it comes to pass.
6.20 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: This proposal that we should adopt proportional representation is put forward in an Amendment in the names of four highly esteemed Members of this House. But what we might call a remarkable coincidence is that the same four highly esteemed Members are also putting forward Amendment No. 21. They are urging us in Amendment No. 2 to adopt a system which is untried, and I reasonably ask myself whether they themselves have full confidence in that system. I suggest that they have some doubts. Why? Let me read what Amendment No. 21 says. It is on page 4 of the Marshalled List. I shall not read the whole of the Amendment but I shall read the third paragraph, which is paragraph (4C). This is what it says:
"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 shall prescribe…".
It seems that they have some doubts about the workability of the system that they are advancing. It seems they have some doubts about its fairness, otherwise why are they proposing to move Amendment No. 21?
Lord DRUMALBYN: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Does it not occur to the noble Lord that the word on which he should have placed emphasis is "Assembly". Here we are legislating for the electoral system to be set up. The idea of this Amendment is that it would allow the Assembly either to endorse that or to change it. Is there any thing wrong with that?
Lord LEATHERLAND: Why does the noble Lord wish to allow the Assembly to do that? If he had no doubts at all about the fairness and workability of this system, it would be quite unnecessary to confer that power upon the suggested new Assembly. In putting forward this proposal, the noble Lord and his collaborators obviously have some slight doubts about the suitability and fairness of the system, otherwise they would not have mentioned those two words. Now I yield to the Liberal Benches.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The noble Lord surely must have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. He no doubt listened to him with great care. He clearly said that he had been chairman of a boundary commission, and that there was no time at all to arrange, for example, an STV system for the first election. Therefore, this system was the fairest which could be devised in the time available. To give the power to the Assembly to assess it thereafter seems to be reasonable.
Lord LEATHERLAND: That is to say that we would have a half-baked system for the first election and a better system later on. That does not add to any confidence that I may have in the system being put forward.
Amendment No. 21 suggests that the workability and fairness of the system may have to be inquired into, so obviously the proposers have some doubts. But by the time that first election, with its possible unfairness and possible unworkability, has taken place, some electoral calamity may have occurred. It will then be too late to put that right. We have a system of elections now. It is under that particular system that we are passing this Bill.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Could the noble Lord elucidate what he means by an "electoral calamity"?
Lord LEATHERLAND: Yes. You might get the wrong Party chosen. I am saying that here we are in this House at this moment in 1978 administering a Parliamentary system which was elected on the first-past-the-post basis, and we really ought not to try to change the rules in the middle of the game. Otherwise, one Party or the other in Scotland, after having
86
had the rules changed on the eve of the election, might legitimately say, "We were robbed". If they were able to say that, it would create a dangerous situation in Scotland. That is what I want to avoid.
6.24 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: We have had a discussion on proportional representation. People feel strongly about it. I think it was my noble friend Lord Alport who said that some of the most distinguished minds in the country, both legal and constitutional, support proportional representation. Indeed, we have heard many of them today. I would only say that the views I give are entirely my own. I should like to be able to follow along those who have felt so strongly that proportional representation is the right thing, but I am bound to say that I share the doubts that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter expressed.
Proportional representation does not of itself mean that the result is better, or more democratic, or is more likely to give better government. It merely produces a different answer. In the end politics, whether it is Parliament or the Assembly, are about personalities and people. The Party machines play a vast and important part, but General Elections—and indeed I should have thought Assembly elections—should all be about electing a Member, although of course he is a member of a Party. Any form of proportional representation inevitably relegates to some degree the status of the Member and advances to some degree the status of the Party to which he belongs. Some may say that this is a reflection of what happens in life and therefore it is correct that it should be reflected in an Assembly. But I agreed with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that in an era when people criticise the super-influence of the Party machines, proportional representation will lend weight to that trend and not diminish it.
The system we have at the moment is tried, and it is known and understood. Any form of proportional representation is inevitably complicated, straining, as it does, to try and get hold of the perfect answer. That inevitably makes it difficult to understand. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn explained the Amendment and

87
said that, if we found it difficult to understand, perhaps we could read it in the morning in Hansard.
Under the system which is suggested one inevitably—and I cannot see that one can do anything else—gets a system of first and second-class Members. You vote for a Member and then you vote for a Party. The Members are elected, and then you get the numbers made up by additional Members. The additional Members will presumably represent groups of constituencies and one wonders who then represents the constituents. Is it the constituency Members, or the additional Members? Perhaps it is a combination of both.
I could not help but agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, when he referred to the system of one man, one vote. I think it was only in 1949, or thereabouts, that we achieved this remarkable state of affairs when we had in this country one man, one vote. Of course under this system we are going to get one man with two votes, and in order to get over political problems in Scotland there will in fact be one man and three votes; one for the Member of the Assembly, one for the additional Member, and one for the Member of Parliament—whereas in England there are some people who get "one man and no vote", such as Members of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I cannot think that we are getting closer together; we seem to be getting further part. Of course, proportional representation inevitably leads in some form to coalitions. That is indeed what people want. That is what has been explained today.
Lord SHINWELL: Does the noble Earl realise that what he is doing now is to make the case for proportional representation? There is a split in the Conservative Party on this and, as we have noted, there is a split on this side of the Committee. So should he advance the case for proportional representation?
Earl FERRERS: We did detect, I am bound to say, a significant split in the views that were mentioned from the Benches opposite because there were only two views that would portray it. Therefore it was not very difficult to discern that there was not total unanimity between them. I am sure that they will in turn
88
be representative of the cross view that is taken in the Party opposite as well as indeed in our own Party.
I could not help but agree with something that the Lord President of the Council said, because one of the disadvantages of any form of coalition is that we get an arrangement between the Parties afterwards. What he said was that the very issues that were presented to the electorate one month were the issues that were to be denied the following month. This is, of course, foreign to our system. Proportional representation, I would suggest, therefore tends to fudge the issue and not give strong leadership. That is, of course, the argument why many people want it. Indeed, one can understand and accept that argument. But there are those who say that proportional representation should be for Scotland alone and that this would not have any effect at all on Westminster. Again I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this is possibly the thin end of the wedge, and for this reason: that if we do this we shall gradually undermine, in my view, the whole principle of the political system not only which we have got used to but which people understand, despite its idiosyncracies and aberrations. It has served us well.
This is the danger. If we have two systems operating in a big way—and this will be a big way in the United Kingdom—proportional representation for Scotland, and first-past-the-post for England, inevitably people will say "This one", whichever it may be, "is the better". That will encourage them to say that the other is therefore inferior, less good, ineffective or undemocratic. So there will be clamour to change either one of the systems.
If we introduce proportional representation for Scotland, I am bound to say that I cannot see there being a clamour for change, for it being brought about within 10 years, and so it will therefore be there for keeps. But we could get a situation where, if it works successfully for Scotland, efficiently, there would be those who would say, "Because it works for Scotland, it should be used for the United Kingdom". So we should get the state of affairs that if we introduce proportional representation in the Bill, and it is proved to be bad, then of course we should not have introduced it. But if we introduce it and it is proved to be good then the argument will go that

89
there should be increased demands to change the United Kingdom system which, although it is in a totally different context, may nevertheless be ascribed or considered by many to be similar.
In conclusion, I see so well the arguments most persuasively put forward by noble Lords on all sides of the House with which one cannot help going along, with a great deal of sympathy. I conclude in my own mind that there is a real fear that if, for mathematical niceties and precisions, we introduce the new, complicated and untried system, we shall at the same time he undermining and damaging our own political institutions. Whether that is desirable or not, your Lordships will come to your own conclusions. But of course another place discussed this issue. They turned down proportional representation by a fairly substantial majority. I accept that the situation for Scotland may be peculiar to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that this was a United Kingdom Bill. How this affects Scotland will inevitably affect the United Kingdom.
6.34 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The Committee stage is a time for putting personal experience which is relevant to what is being discussed. It was interesting to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who gave his experience as to the single transferable vote. He came down very much against the single transferable vote from his actual experience. What does that confirm in one's mind? The suggestion as to whether or not we should alter our voting system is not new. It has been discussed and examined for years. My noble friend Lord Tranmire, who was the oldest serving Member in the other place until he left to join your Lordships, sat, as he said, four times on a Speaker's Conference. Each time they came out overwhelmingly against proportional representation. That has a significance that ought not to be overlooked. One recognises that it may have been Party considerations that caused it, but the fact is that the evidence from this impartial body on the occasions when he was present was overwhelmingly against proportional representation.
The Amendment suggests that we use the added list system as an alternative to
90
the present system. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has said that he certainly would not want a single transferable vote.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: Would the noble Lord give way? If I gave that impression I apologise to the Committee. What I want to be quite clear is that for a subordinate Parliament proportional representation is going, to be a vital product in the establishment of a good relationship between the two Executives in Whitehall and Edinburgh. If one was discussing which method, then I was very much in favour of the added Member system. But for a subordinate Parliament to establish good government for Scotland I am convinced that they must have some form of PR in order to establish those good relationships which I think are vital.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I did not misrepresent the noble Viscount. He has just confirmed what I said. He gave a dramatic description of how well your compaigning and single transferable vote all say the same thing, of the twisting and turning in order to be No. 1 on the sheet. He came down, as I understood it, very much against it. He said that he wanted proportional representation, and the alternative vote system, of which he has had no experience, may be the one that he would accept. It was King Midas who was called to judge two flautists. It was said that there were only two entrants on whom he had to give judgment. He heard the first one and gave the prize to the other. I merely wanted to say that we have evidence in this country where the additional list system seems to carry dangers and be very unsatisfactory.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Segal, is in his place. When he was the representative of Preston, it was a two-Member constituency. It was only afterwards that it was split into two constituencies. At the time the noble Lord was elected to another place there were two Members at the same vote. Later on I was brought in as a candidate. I saw the repercussions that flowed from that so far as my Party was concerned. We had the system during the war, when there was an electoral truce, in which people were not elected to Parliament. They entered Parliament under the truce. We had two Conservative Members for Preston at the same time.

91
One died, and Mr. Randolph Churchill was, under the truce, not voted as the Member for Preston but was made the Member for Preston, and co-opted, which is similar, indeed identical, to the added list.
Lord SEGAL: If the noble Lord will permit me, I wish to intervene merely for the record. Whereas it is quite true that I did sit in the 1945 Parliament as a Member for a two-Member constituency, during the actual Election time I was very grateful for a university vote. That was a completely antiquated procedure, which we all admit now. Otherwise I might have been completely disenfranchised.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I was hoping that the noble Lord would be my witness. I do not think his evidence fitted into the particular point that I wanted to make. All I can tell your Lordships now is that the truculence and unsatisfactory partnership—
Baroness BACON: I think that the noble Lord is misinforming the Committee. Is he saying that during the Election truce Members were not elected but they just came automatically to the House? That really is not so. Perhaps I could say to the benefit of the noble Lord, who is misinforming the Committee, that I was a Parliamentary candidate from 1940 to 1945. There was an Election in the constituency. I would have fought and a fascist stood against the Conservative candidate, and so the person had to be elected. It was only that there was an Election truce between the two political Parties, and one candidate stood down. But it did not mean to say that the Member was not elected.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: That is precisely what I am saying. In my then constituency of Peterborough there was an election because the truce did not work, but in Preston the truce worked and Mr. Randolph Churchill took his seat not on the basis of being elected, not as a result of going through the ballot box, but in the way I described. The only point I wish to make, because it is relevant, is that the antipathy and truculence between the elected Member, who can say, "I am sent here by the votes of the people through the ballot box", and Randolph
92
Churchill, who could not, hit the headlines, as noble Lords may remember, and the unsatisfactory nature of the representation at that time, because of that antipathy, was very real. I am saying that that is an example sufficiently near to the added list system for us to take it into account.
I am convinced that, if one had in a consituency, or in the Assembly, a Member who was elected on the votes of the people through the ballot box and somebody who got there because he or she was on a list and had not been personally elected, one would have first and second-class terms of representation, and that would not be good. Unless one can feel when one is representing a constituency that one truly has the mandate of the people, properly and clearly given by the people—not by Parties or groups who may set themselves up—I am certain that the sort of Parliamentary representation we have developed in this country will be that much weaker.
I see the attractiveness in theory of proportional representation; in theory, it is attractive. Indeed, it looks almost to be ideal, but I cannot see how it is possible to remove those other weaknesses, namely the weakness of the single transferable vote which my noble friend Lord Brookeborough mentioned and the weakness of the added list to which I have drawn attention. Thus, one is driven back to the point of having to think twice before changing a winning team. In other words, the system we have now has worked. It has its quirks and weaknesses, as it will no doubt have in future, but it has worked, and I believe that, before we think of changing it—thick or thin end of the wedge, whatever one likes to call it—we should recognise that it will be the beginning of a change for the United Kingdom if it is carried out in Scotland. I believe that the evidence so far is such that we in this Chamber should not consider recommending a change on the evidence we have heard so far.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE rose—
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES: If I speak—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I defer to the noble Lord.
Lord HUGHES: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. If I speak from this side of the House it has the effect of increasing the percentage of speakers from these Benches by 50 per cent.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): Oh?
Lord HUGHES: I beg my noble friend's pardon; I should have said 33⅓ per cent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ha ilsham of Saint Marylebone, who on any reckoning is a heavyweight, nevertheless in terms of numbers adds only about 5 per cent. to the number of speakers from the Benches opposite. I am anxious to make a few remarks because the effect of them is to emphasise a division on this side of the Committee, though, given what has happened on the Benches opposite, that does not matter a great deal.
I wish to point out at the outset that I am a strong supporter of the Bill. I support the Bill not because I believe it will guarantee for all time the unity of the United Kingdom but because I am firmly convinced that if there is not something like this Bill the unity of the United Kingdom will undoubtedly be in peril within the next decade. Having said that, I must go on to say that, when support the Amendment, I do so not because I am seeking to alter what I regard as a bad Bill but because I am seeking to improve what I believe is a necessary Bill.
Much has been said about the minority position which exists in the present Parliament, and that has been pointed out as if it were the first time it had happened. In fact, there has been only one General Election, if that, since the war when any Party had an actual majority of votes cast in the country. But the difference between the situation in the Westminster Parliament as it was in the past with a mainly two-Party system, and the situation that we are likely to have for perhaps five or 10 years in Scotland is a three or four-Party system, and what works reasonably effectively on a first-past-the-post basis with a two-Party system becomes a different horse altogether in a four-Party race.
Some noble Lords who have spoken against the Amendment—for example the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—emphasised that this may be the thin end
94
of the wedge. I do not dispute that; it may be the thin end of the wedge, but it can become the wedge itself only if people this side of the Border want proportional representation. And if they want it, who are we of all people to say they should not have it? After all, I would certainly not venture to put forward the criticisms of the Party system in the added-Member vote system voiced by Lord Boyd-Carpenter because, if there are people who are not entitled to criticise the operation of a system under which the Party chooses people, they are surely Life Peers: we are here by reason of the Party system.
Not only that; we are here at the choice of certain people in the Parties. I would not suggest that it was the electors of Dundee who selected me to be a Life Peer. Hugh Gaitskell did that. There are others here who were chosen by Ted Heath and some more recently by Margaret Thatcher. That does not mean to say it is not a good system.
When people talk, as my noble friend Lord Leatherland did, about this being an untried system, we must remember that it is not untried; it has worked perfectly satisfactorily in Germany for many years. I must say right away that the fact that it works in Germany is no guarantee that it will work here; other things have worked in Germany which we should never have tolerated, so I do not argue that as a justification for it. However, I can say in truth that it is not untried.
If we are to look at the thin end of the wedge argument, we must see where it takes us. It means that, if we are not prepared to take the risk of proportional representation for the House of Commons, we must maintain uniformity and therefore the Assembly must have the same system as the Commons. But if we are to argue that, then we must give the Assembly the same rights as the Parties choose for themselves in the House of Commons. It is not just the Labour Party which works on the doctrine, "If it is in the manifesto and you get a majority of seats you have a mandate to carry it out". I guarantee that, if the next General Election results in Mrs. Thatcher becoming Prime Minister, she will not scrap her programme if she does not have 50 per cent. of the votes cast in the country; she will regard her mandate as arising

95
from the number of seats she has in the House of Commons.
If we are to have equality of treatment between the method of election between the House of Commons and the Assembly, we must accord to the elected Members of the Assembly the same rights as the Parties claim in the House of Commons. And where does that take us? Noble Lords must remember that there is only one Party in Scotland that is for the break up of the United Kingdom, and that is the Scottish National Party. They have made it perfectly clear that they will regard a majority of seats in the House of Commons—36 out of the 71 seats—as a mandate to go ahead with their claim for complete separation. I suggest that inevitably they will say exactly the same in the Assembly; namely, if they have a majority of seats in the Assembly, they will say, "We have a mandate to press on for the next stage". I have no doubt whatever that, so far as the Scottish National Party are concerned, the Assembly is only the first stage on a road which I believe the great majority of people in Scotland do not want to take.
When the 40 per cent. figure was moved in the House of Commons, I regarded it as a wrecking Amendment, and I think it was intended as such. However, on reflection, I do not now object to it. Indeed, if an attempt was made in your Lordships' House to take that out of the Bill I should vote for it to be retained because, on a 75 per cent. or SO per cent. vote in Scotland—if we got that in the referendum—something in excess of 60 per cent. of the people of Scotland would have said that they wanted devolution. That is the answer to my noble friend Lord Wigg, whose philosophical treatise on the subject I much enjoyed. He pointed out that it does not matter what a majority in Parliament says; if people want something else, they will get it. Fortunately, in the Bill the opportunity is there for the people of Scotland to decide what they want.
I should now like to return to the merits of the Amendment. I believe that if the Assembly is successful, the Scottish National Party will diminish in importance election after election, and we may get back again to a system nearer the two-Party system. But probably for a decade
96
ahead there will be substantial division, and, with an effectively three-Party system—or, if there is a Liberal revival, a four-Party system; but certainly a three-Party system—35 per cent. of the vote will deliver, on a first-past-the-post basis, an effective majority in the Assembly. Who is to say that that 35 per cent., under existing protest circumstances, is beyond the capabilities of the Scottish National Party? Alternatively, to look at it from the point of view of the Conservatives, who is to say that 35 per cent. would be a mandate for the Labour Party to carry through policies to which the other two Parties were totally opposed, and where 65 per cent. of the electorate had not supported them?
I do not join my noble friend Lord Leatherland in regarding the subsequent Amendment as a defect, because it seems to be reasonable that the Assembly should have the right to express a view about its own electoral procedures, subject to the safeguards included in that Amendment. But, until that is done, it is absolutely vital that the Assembly should not appear to become the implement of one Party carrying perhaps less than one-third of the votes, and, given even a 75 or 80 per cent. poll, with substantially less than a quarter of the people of Scotland behind it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, said that the first objective of the Bill was to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. I agree wholeheartedly with that view. I believe that, if the Bill works, that will be its result. It if does not work, there is nothing we can do as an alternative which would stop the move to separation, which I believe would in the long run be the greatest disaster which could befall the people of Scotland. I am prepared to rely on the result of the referendum in due course to demonstrate that they will reject that alternative, whereas there is no guarantee, for instance, that the first-pastthe-post system in a by-election will achieve the same result.
6.54 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I apologise that there should be a third speech from the Opposition Front Bench. It is manifest that this is to be a free vote. It could hardly be

97
anything else in view of what we have heard, and I believe it is no bad thing that Members of your Lordships' House should vote on this issue. But we must face the fact that the Commons had a free vote, too. Of course they voted on a different system from that proposed in the Amendment. If I remember aright, I think they voted on the STV. I interpreted that free vote, rightly or wrongly, as a fairly definite vote on the principle of a reformed system of voting for the Assembly. Therefore, as realistic people, I think we must also face the fact that when we have expressed our opinion, should it be in favour of the Amendment, it is quite unlikely to be endorsed in another place.
None the less, I think it is a good thing that we should take this matter to a Division, if only to record the individual views of Members of the Committee. Sitting as I do between my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I recognise that I adopt a slightly intermediate position. To begin with, I should like to slaughter what I believe to be one or two sacred cows. I am not myself impressed with the "thin end of the wedge" argument. I believe that there are two quite different reasons for rejecting it.
The first is that we are going to have the thin end of the wedge in any case; do not make any mistake about that. I say this because, whatever else is certain, the European Parliament is not going to be elected on the first-past-the-post system; and not this time perhaps, but next time it will not be open to us to determine which method we are to adopt. The one thing which is quite certain is that it will not be our system. Therefore, the thin end of the wedge is going to be inserted fairly definitely anyhow.
Will it be a thin end of the wedge? I find it rather surprising that those who oppose change should think that it would be. After all, surely what is most likely to happen is this. If the system, whatever it is, succeeds, no doubt other people will want to extend it to the House of Commons. But if it fails, if—to adopt the rather charming coinage of Sir Richard Marsh—it produces a rather "shambolic" result, I hardly think that the wedge will be hammered in very much further. Therefore, whether or not it is
98
treated as a precedent which we shall follow for the House of Commons will, after all, depend to some extent on whether the system, if adopted, succeeds.
I am a profound agnostic here, as noble Lords may recognise, but I must say that I regard the attempt at fairness in all these systems as the will-o'-the-wisp. Of course everybody is in favour of fairness, whatever it may mean. But there are, I think, 14 or 15 systems of voting adopted in different democratic countries, and they are all rotten until one looks at the others. Then one selects the system which, on the whole, one prefers. I remain impenitently of the view that so far as the House of Commons is concerned, our present system is best. I think so for two reasons, which I believe are not applicable to the Scottish Assembly, with respect, or to the European Assembly.
The first is that a Member represents a single constituency in the House of Commons, and the relationship between the Member and his constituency seems to me to be of value so great that it is worth preserving, at a very high cost if necessary. The second reason is that, despite its assumption that it is omnipotent, the main function of another place is to select the political colour of the Government of the day; that is its main purpose. I do not see, and, with respect to the Liberal Party, I never have seen, any reason at all to see anything objectionable in the largest organised minority controlling the Executive of the country. On the contrary, it seems to me to give precisely the element of decisiveness that I want to see in the executive government of the country. What I object to is their treating their presence there as a total mandate to carry out general legislation against the will of the majority. That is no function of an Executive and, with respect, it is no part of the function of a single Chamber which is elected on the first-pastthe-post system. I therefore remain impenitently of the view that I wish to preserve the present system in the House of Commons. I will now give way to the noble Lord.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: By that does the noble and learned Lord mean that if a Government introduce a Bill, which is an obvious fiasco, to deal with the trade unions, they are not entitled to do so

99
because they happen to be a Government without an absolute majority in the country?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: What I would have said was that there is a need for a strong Second Chamber in such circumstances; but that would take me too far away from the Amendment which we are now discussing. What I should like to say is that in fact we must grow up to the point at which we cease to look for the ideal method of voting in all circumstances for all types of assembly. I regard that approach as an extremely naive and unsophisticated way of approaching this particular problem. I think, on the contrary, we have got to ask ourselves, "What is the function of the Assembly we are going to elect?", and also, "What is the nature of the population which is going to elect it?"
I do not regard fairness as a real issue here, because all the existing Parties, including the Liberal Party, with great respect to them, and the Scottish Nationalists, are in fact, in their present representation and organisation, the product of the electoral system we now have, and nobody can tell that they do not represent permanent minorities demanding representation in exact proportions. They are in fact the product of the system; and, if you adopt another system, probably all the existing Parties will disappear or give rise to other minorities. On the other hand, where you have strong permanent minorities—for instance, a population partly comprised of Roman Catholics and Partly of Protestants—it may be that they do demand a proportional system in preference to first-past-the-post. I do not believe it is possible to dogmatise and to say in advance, "This system is ideal and fair; that system is wrong and unfair". I think that is a pure will-o'-the-wisp.
That brings me to Scotland. The danger in Scotland, I think, must he examined in relation to the state of the Parties and of opinion in Scotland. As I see it, the state of the Parties and of opinion in Scotland is something like this. There are two national Parties, the Conservative and the Labour Parties. On 19 issues out of 20 they are at daggers drawn. They are not going to form a coalition. But they are united upon
100
one issue, and that is that we want, both of us, to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom; and we almost certainly—I speak subject to correction—represent the great majority of the people of Scotland if you add us together. If you add the Liberals, too, as we have every right to do from what has been said from the Liberal Benches, we represent an overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland. Now there is a danger—it is undeniable that there is a danger—that in the state of opinion which exists, with the Conservatives and the Labour Party about equal and at daggers drawn, with the Liberals united with us both on this one point and with a Scottish National Party about equal in voting strength, so far as one can judge, as the Conservatives and the Labour Party, they might obtain a majority and use it against the will of the majority in the nation for the purpose of disrupting the United Kingdom.
I say this to the Government, that this is not a Party issue at all. It is well known that very distinguished members of my Party take a totally different view from that which I am now expressing; but I think that, at any rate on the first occasion the Assembly is elected—after that it may he a matter for them, but the first time—we, representing as we do (so far as we can honestly judge) the immense majority of the people of Scotland on the vital issue, have a right to see that they shall not in fact be represented by a majority of Members who do not represent their opinion on that vital point at all. Therefore, having expressed my view that this is, I believe, to some extent an academic issue, because I think almost certainly the House of Commons will repeat its expression of opinion on a free vote, I none the less come to the conclusion that in this particular instance, and not believing for a moment in proportional representation for the House of Commons at Westminster, we shall be running very grave risks if we reject it here.
7.5 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We have listened with interest to powerful and moderately presented arguments from all parts of the Committee, and if I present some of the arguments again I hope I shall not be accused of being uncompromising or intransigent. The system which has been

101
put forward by those noble Lords who have moved and supported this Amendment is a system which is detailed in a number of other Amendments following on Amendment No. 2. I shall have to refer to some of the speeches made on those Amendments in replying to this debate, but let me make it plain at the outset that, so far as the Government are concerned, they will not seek to instruct their supporters to go into one particular Lobby. I say that with a certain humility, because I know that if I tried to instruct some of those who sit behind me I would not succeed in persuading them to follow me into a particular Lobby. It is perfectly clear that in the Bill the Government propose the first-past-the-post system. That, I can just mention, is clear from Clause 1(4). That applies in all elections bar the first election. The first election is slightly different because to introduce the system proposed for subsequent elections would cause unnecessary delay. Of course, this Amendment would not cause any delay, and I do not attack it at all upon that ground.
Let me suggest first of all that direct elections, first-past-the-post elections, do not necessarily produce a markedly non-proportional result, though of course I acknowledge that they can, and the Quebec example is a good example, perhaps, of how they can. May I perhaps just say this as I have mentioned Quebec. If under the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, the additional member system, one had a Quebec-type result, the position would be this. As I understand it, in Quebec 40 per cent. of the votes went to the Parti Quebecquois, and they got 70 per cent. of the seats. Under the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if the SNP got 40 per cent. of the votes, as I understand is his apprehension, they would therefore get 70 per cent. of the 100 seats, and then they would get 40 per cent. of the remaining 50.
Lord DRUMALBYN: No.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, shakes his head.
Lord DRUMALBYN: It does not work like that. The two are not in equilibrium; the number of votes that you
102
have is not in equilibrium with the number of seats. The more seats you win in the constituencies the fewer the scats you will get of the remaining 50 per cent.—possibly none at all, as the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench says.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am happy to be assured on that point. Proportional representation systems, to be workable, have to depart from perfect proportionality, and the system proposed here is a good example of that. As I understand it, two-thirds of the Assembly Members would be elected as ordinary constituency Members on a first-past-the-post system, and the one-third of additional Members elected on a PR basis would be elected on a strictly Party basis, excluding those Parties which did not win 5 per cent. of the votes. So there is already the 5 per cent. threshold which interferes with perfect proportionality. In a sense, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and others have acknowledged, these proposals are a compromise. They have been evolved to take account of practical considerations and of political possibilities; and I do not say that as a criticism at all. But we are not being asked to choose between a PR system which embodies perfect proportionality, on the one hand, and gives equal weight to every vote, and, on the other hand, the first-past-the-post system, which denies equal weight to every vote. We are dealing in each case with a mixture of arithmetical, equitable, political and other valid considerations. We must not lose sight of the political context and many noble Lords have reminded us of what the political context is. We must not lose sight of the way in which first-past-the-post has worked, and worked well, in the United Kingdom over a great many years.
May I mention—and I need not take up the time of the Committee at any length by doing so—some of the arguments 'against proportional representation. It is very likely to lead to a coalition, or the possibility of a coalition, and coalitions tend to be weak and unstable and they tend to be lacking in authority.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I am sorry to keep educating the Committee, but the Minister must know that there is proportional representation in the Republic of Eire, and there they have a

103
strong majority Government. Here we have a first-past-the-post system and we have a minority Government in this country; so that the argument of the noble and learned Lord does not stand up.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I said that they tend to lead to that result but not that they always do so or that a different result is necessarily achieved under a different system. One tends to get weak coalitions and to get Parties elected without the power to implement the policies on which they fought the Election.
Another tendency is to put fairly small Parties with relatively small electoral support into powerful positions holding a balance between other Parties and so perhaps give to the smaller Parties a bargaining strength out of all proportion to their electoral support. The other point that I would mention is that the general case for proportional representation which has been spoken of in relation to this Amendment makes the implicit assumption that political Parties are themselves great monolithic institutions pursuing doctrinaire aims with unanimous internal support. That is not so. All the political Parties we know in this country are broad coalitions of people of the Left and of the Right, people who are reactionary or reforming, idealistic or scheming. They are just many varieties of people forming together to support one political Party.
There is another general point. The system of devolution proposed for Scotland under this Bill is itself an experiment. It involves many problems of a new and unprecedented character and it might be a pity to add to that experiment a new experiment in relation to the voting methods, with all the novel snags and problems which might arise and with no useful precedents in our political experience.
I echo what was said by other noble Lords, that the first-past-the-post system is
well tried and understood, that it has worked, and that it should not be abandoned except for the most compelling reasons. I know that at a later stage we shall come, as I understand the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and others, to look at the particular details of this system regardless of what may happen in any vote which may take place, so I will not take up the time of the Committee by looking at those details at the moment. Several noble Lords, however, specifically drew attention to the fact that the other place has repeatedly debated proportional representation in relation to different systems. I would remind the Committee that on each occasion when it has done so it has, by rather massive majorities, rejected any system of proportional representation.
Your Lordships may consider, along with the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and others, whether it is wise to send this matter back to the other place knowing that the almost certain position would be once again, for the reasons already given in relation to a system very like this one as well as to others, that that House will reject the Amendment made by this House. I cannot add—it would be vain of me to suppose that I could—to what has been said already, but I would remind the Committee that the Government's position is as stated in the Bill. There is a free vote and your Lordships will vote in accordance with what you judge of the debate.
Lord KILBRANDON: I agree so entirely with what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—that the Committee must divide.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 64.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness STEDMAN: I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SCOTLAND BILL
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 221 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3 to 23.
8.31 p.m.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert —
("(2) There shall be fifty-seven members of the Assembly.
(3) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme dividing Scotland into fifty-seven constituencies.").
The noble Lord said: Some of your Lordships will be aware that 1 have never done this kind of thing before. However, my considerable fears are somewhat relieved by the certain knowledge that should the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, even consider rebutting any argument I might put, he will do so with his customary gentleness.
Your Lordships will recall that the main theme which emerged in your Lordships' House during the memorable Second Reading debate of the Scotland Bill was summed up most eloquently by my noble friend Lord Ferrers when he said:
"…implanted in this Bill are the seeds of destruction of the United Kingdom ".—[Official Report, 14/3/78; col. 1200.]
Should the Bill remain in its present form, I believe that that statement is in no way

115
an exaggeration. I will not pursue the argument further; it is well known to your Lordships. However, I will make the point that in believing in that principle—as did the overwhelming majority of your Lordships and those in another place, and all outside Parliament other than the lunatic fringe—it is imperative that we, the watchdog of our Constitution, must do and must be seen to do our duty. If we must have this Bill we must get it right.
Both my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel and my noble friend Lord Ferrers have brought to our notice the paradox that, although we live in a world of sophisticated communications which bring us closer together and compel us to live closer to each other, there is manifest throughout the world a strong reaction against centralised government and a profound desire to assert the influence of the individual, the family and the smaller groups of people, tied in blood, in culture and in language. It is in this sense that I am a keen devolutionist.
I believe that because of improved communications we are constantly brought face to face with and are made more aware of the massive size and complexity of the world and its problems, the ever-increasing size and influence of Governments and bureaucracies and the multiplicity of legislation, and consequentially how very little as individuals we are and as individuals we count. This fear lies in the hearts of many. We see Government wagging the tail of Parliament. We fear that the faceless bureaucracy might well be wagging the tail of Government. And what do we now see? We see in this Bill more government, not less government, more bureaucracy, not less bureaucracy. It is in this spirit that I move the Amendment.
The significance of the number 57 is quite simply that it is the number of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies to which Scotland is entitled on numerical grounds. In Volume I, paragraph 1147, the Kilbrandon Report stated:
" Scotland and Wales will continue to be represented in Parliament. Their representation in proportion to population would be the same as that of England, subject to any allowance which might be found appropriate for special geographical conditions. The probable effect would be to reduce Scotland's representation from 71 to about 57 and that of Wales from 36 to about 31 ".
At this stage I feel that I must point out that equal representation has always been the Liberal Party's policy. As Mr. Steele said on 16th November of last year in another place:
" I would accept the Kilbrandon proposal of reducing the number of Scottish MPs to the correct number proportionately ".
One might be forgiven for thinking: what relevance has the size of Scottish representation at Westminster to a Scottish Assembly? The claim that the 150 Members of the Assembly as against the 71 at Westminster would be more representative of the Scottish people would be impressive indeed, and even more so if the new constituency boundaries were closer to being actual communities. If the Scottish Members of Parliament do not wish to lose their influence, then they should look very carefully indeed at the size of the Assembly.
The historical precedent for basing representation on a population basis is sound. The third Reform Act of 1884 based the reallocation of seats strictly on population, and Scotland, with 72 seats out of 670 seats, was justly represented. The representation of the People Act 1918, based on the 1911 Census, redistributed the seats and gave Scotland 74 seats out of 707 for the whole of the United Kingdom. Scotland's total then corresponded to her relative population; but Wales, with 36 seats, was slightly over-represented, and Ireland, with 105, greatly so. England, with 492 seats, was in turn under-represented. Scotland's seats were reduced to 71 out of 625 seats by the loss of her University Members through the Representation of the People Act 1948.
On the grounds of economy; on the grounds that there will in the main be three representatives doing the work now done by one; on the grounds that it would prove difficult enough to find sufficient men and women of goodwill and quality to serve their country should there be only one Assembly man, let alone three; on the grounds of the difficulties of liaison between the Westminster Members, the Assembly men, local government and the constituents, who will be multiplied; on the grounds that self-mutilation is against human nature—namely, that it is totally unrealistic to suppose that an Assembly will decrease itself in size; and on the grounds that, as the Kilbrandon Report stated, the over-representation of Scotland

117
is both undemocratic and constitutes a grave injustice to the people of England, I believe that it is essential that the size of the Assembly should be kept to a minimum.
It may be that, in the light of experience, it will later be felt better to increase the membership of the Assembly. That is as may be. If the Government's proposals for the size of the Assembly remain as they are, Scotsmen can look forward in fear to a lessening of the influence of their Members of Parliament at Westminster and in Scotland; they can look forward to gross over-government and to a gross consequential increase in governmental interference in their daily lives. I would not wish this upon anyone, let alone upon my fellow men. These are the reasons for moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
8.39 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: This Amendment is associated with other Amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 4, 9, 13, 15, 18, 22, 31, 32 and 59, all standing in the name of the noble Lord who has moved Amendment No. 221. Certainly they have a cumulative effect. The effect, as I understand it, is that, taken together, they would provide a Scottish Assembly of 57 members only. That Assembly would not be elected until the Boundary Commission had produced a satisfactory scheme for dividing Scotland into 57 constituencies. In saying that, I am looking at Amendment No. 221 which includes as sub-section (3):
" The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme dividing Scotland into fifty-seven constituencies ".
Lord MORRIS: It might be of assistance if I were to let the noble and learned Lord know that I shall not be moving the Amendments in my name up to and including Amendment No. 22.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Following that intervention by the noble Lord I should like to understand the position, which I believe is that the only Amendment he intends to move is Amendment No. 221.
Lord MORRIS: That is so.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I would also ask him to confirm or otherwise make the position clear about subsection (3), reading:
118
"The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme dividing Scotland into fifty-seven constituencies".
Lord MORRIS: Of course that is consequential upon the first part of my Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As I understand that part of the Amendment which is proposed and which the noble Lord says is consequential, that would certainly seem to mean that one could not have the first election to the Assembly until the Boundary Commission have sat and considered the whole question of the constituencies in Scotland, and I believe that would lead to an extraordinary delay in the setting up of the first Assembly. If that be the effect of the Amendment and if I read it rightly —and the noble Lord will surely correct me if I am wrong—the Government must resist that, and I would hope that the Committee would take the same view.
On the face of it, the Amendment dealing with the 57 Members of the Assembly does not affect the Parliamentary constituencies. As I read the Amendment—and again the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong and if I am misunderstanding him—the noble Lord wants to have 57 constituencies, each electing one member to the Assembly, but this Amendment does not itself propose any alteration in the Parliamentary constituencies for the United Kingdom Parliament. That point is raised I think by subsequent Amendments, some of which will be dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
I am sure we shall shortly have a debate on the question of what is the appropriate number of Assembly men because the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be moving an Amendment which raises this question quite sharply and it may be that I can deal with the matter rather more fully at that time. If that be correct, it may be sufficient to say at the present time that the Government recognise that there is no ideal size for the Assembly. The system proposed in the Bill I have to defend at greater length when we come to the Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I would submit that that system is practical and realistic and it certainly appears to have been accepted in principle by the noble Lord, Lord

119
Drumalbyn, and others who moved the previous Amendment, and indeed by the Committee, which envisaged a membership of 150 voted into office on the additional Member system, described by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
In short, on this particular Amendment a 57 Member Assembly would be far too small to carry out the responsibilities which are being devolved and, in particular, far too small to form any sound basis for selecting an Executive to carry out the duties imposed by the Bill. It can hardly be seriously argued that an Executive of, say, 16 to 20 strong, including two Scottish Secretaries, with adequate Back Bench support and an effective Opposition, could be obtained from so small a number of Members, particularly in the likely electoral and political situation obtaining in Scotland.
With the permission of the Committee, I will confine myself to saying only that at the present time. I hope the general question of United Kingdom representation will be dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in relation to Amendment No. 25, and I hope we may have a fuller discussion upon the number of persons who might properly be elected to the Assembly in relation to those Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl.
One other thing that perhaps I should say is that other bodies than the Government have considered this matter. For example, the committee which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Home, at an earlier stage, and recommended the creation of an Assembly of a somewhat different character I think envisaged an optimum size of 125, mentioned in paragraph 289. Also the Kilbrandon Commission envisaged a membership of about 100. For those reasons, I submit that the number of 57 is far too small and the delay inherent in this Amendment is quite unacceptable. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment and, by so doing, perhaps then prevent further debate upon the number which might take place upon subsequent Amendments.
8.46 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: As there is a principle behind this, I do not think it ought to be allowed to pass with quite the
120
amount of speed that there appears to be at the moment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord HarmarNicholls—but of course he will exercise his own judgment—that there is a principle and I acknowledge it. It is a principle in which he is interested and the Committee is very interested, but it arises quite sharply on subsequent Amendments and it may be that it would be more suitable to deal with it on those subsequent Amendments.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: That may be so but I do not think the noble and learned Lord ought to be allowed to get away with one of his "alibis". While one may agree that the actual figure mentioned in this Amendment could be questioned and, as the noble Lord has said, has not even got the support of the Royal Commission, the defence that I want to try to dispose of is the argument that there would not be time to do what might be right. The argument put forward by the noble Lord was that this Amendment envisages that there has to be some redrawing of the boundaries and the time that would take would mean that the Assembly could not come into being at the time when the noble Lord and the Government think it ought to come into being. One knows that that is the standard excuse from every Government if they can find any reason to produce it.
The truth is that if the Boundary Commission and Parliament wanted to get through a redrawing of these boundaries, if the principle were accepted, it could be done. I am never prepared to accept the argument that the time for carrying out something that is right ought to be taken into account. One has seen Parliament get through far-reaching and important legislation in the space of two or three minutes when they wanted to do so. If it has to go through the normal procedures in the normal way of course it can be made to take a long time. In this case the figure mentioned is 57. I do not support that figure, because my subsequent Amendment relates to a figure of 100; but I do not think the Committee ought to accept that the time it takes to do what is light ought to be a reason for not carrying out a principle that is sound.
I hope the noble Lord will not feel that he can get away completely with that

121
particular argument when we know that the Boundary Commission and Parliament and the people instructed to do these things can carry them out with greater speed than normal if the principle behind it is important enough to justify it. If the Government get this Bill on to the Statute Book there is no doubt that the representation from Scotland cannot remain as it is, otherwise it will cause trouble. Even if the Bill is right from every other point of view, if this unfairness exists where Scottish Members can talk about English matters and English Members cannot talk about Scottish matters, it will bring about the clash which has already been mentioned in regard to previous Amendments, which will be dangerous and unnecessary.
I merely wanted to intervene to say that the principle behind this Amendment is an important one. The figure may have to be open to discussion and amendment, but 1 hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will not think that the argument of delay is one that carries any weight at all if it is desired to do what is considered to be right in connection with the principle behind it.
8.49 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I think the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is rather a moot one, but since the noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned the Liberal Party I should like to say it is absolutely correct that we should be perfectly prepared to accept reasonable and equal representation in the British Parliament if we had an Assembly in Scotland which was working satisfactorily. It is a perfectly fair point that he has made, that Scotland, stemming from the Act of Union, is over-represented, but if you have a smaller country in a much larger conglomeration, however nice the Members may be they do strive for as large a representation as is legally possible. Therefore I think his argument that Scotland may be over-represented in the British Parliament is right. But in this case I do not think it is relevant to the numbers in the Scottish Assembly. In the Scottish Assembly it appears that 57 would be rather too low to extract a number of people for the Executive and leave some Indians as well as chiefs. So while I appreciate his point, perhaps in this case it is irrelevant at the present time.
Lord KENNET: May I start by completely detaching myself from everything said from the Benches opposite. I have no idea whether the Heinzian 57 is a better number for the Scottish Assembly than that proposed in the Bill. I do not believe that Governments, and especially Labour Governments, habitually say that delay is a reason against doing things. Nor do I go along automatically with the Liberal point of view that 57 is too small and therefore a higher number would be better.
I want to point out one apparent inconsistency between different arms of Government policy on the Election Bills now before this House. My noble friend has told us that if this Amendment were to be passed, and we were to wait while Scotland was divided into 57 constituencies for their own Assembly, the delay while the Scottish Boundary Commission carried out this work would be extraordinary—an "extraordinary delay" was the phrase he used —and would, therefore, be unacceptable. I take the point. If legislation is before the House, and if the Government think they have got the right Bill, they want to get it through as quickly as possible.
Let us compare the Government's attitude on that with their attitude on the European Assembly Elections Bill, where it is proposed that precisely such a delay should be faced by the country. The proposal there is precisely the same, that we should wait, that a delay should be incurred and that the delay should not be regarded as extraordinary, while the Boundary Commission divides up the country, in what we have been told would be a minimum of 10 weeks' work from the passage of the Bill into law, into the new extra large constituencies necessary for direct elections to the European Assembly.
My own attitude to the present Amendment, moved by Lord Morris opposite, will depend very largely on what answer my noble friend can give the Committee to the question why it is an extraordinary and intolerable delay to contemplate Scotland being divided up according to new boundaries, and why, on the other hand, it is an ordinary tolerable delay to contemplate the whole United Kingdom being divided up into new boundaries and to postpone the direct European elections until the time when that has happened.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not want to deal with the matter of the European Assembly; it is going to be debated in this House, as I understand it, probably on Thursday. When I spoke of delay and extraordinary delay, the Committee will know well that the Government in their Election Manifesto proposed the creation of a Scottish Assembly, and they did that in 1974. The working out of the scheme necessarily took some considerable time, and the Committee is fully familiar with the Parliamentary problems which the first Bill, the Scotland and Wales Bill, faced, and the necessity for the introduction in the present Session of the Scotland Bill. There has already been considerable delay. If the present Bill were to pass through this House and through the other place and go on to the Statute Book, perhaps amended in some way, it would be possible to proceed to elections to the Assembly some time later this year. That would certainly not be possible if one accepted the present Amendment and the Boundary Commission had to be instructed to redraw the entire constituency map of Scotland, which has stood substantially the same for a good many years. That was the kind of delay I was talking about, and it is a delay which the Government regard as unacceptable. I hope the Committee will see that to write such a delay into the Bill, as this Amendment would do, would certainly be seen by those who support the Assembly —and there are many in Scotland, without trying to quantify them—as a wrecking Amendment.
Lord MORRIS: I am very greatly reassured by what the noble and learned Lord has implied, that he will seriously reconsider the whole question of the size of the Assembly when considering other noble Lords' Amendments which touch on this subject. In those circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is one of a series of Amendments—it goes with
124
Amendments Nos. 10, 16, 19, 21, 23 and 33—the sole purpose of which is to add after the word "initial" and before the word "members" the word "constituency", so as to distinguish the Members who are elected as constituency Members from those who are elected as Party Members. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Do I understand the noble Lord to be saying that this is really consequential on the Amendment the Committee has carried?
Lord DRUMALBYN: Yes.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
8.57 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, leave out lines 13 to 15.
The noble Earl said: I put this Amendment down merely as an inquiry as to the philosophy of the Government in regard to this paragraph. It may be that other noble Lords would like to speak on this Amendment because it covers some of the same points as Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. The point which occurred to me was that setting the initial numbers for each of these areas of which the electorate is more than 125 per cent. of the quota means that some constituencies would be of the order of 50 per cent. bigger than others. That is the mathematics of it. I have not been into the exact figures. It is quite true, of course, that constituencies change; sometimes they become bigger and sometimes they become smaller. But to start off with a variation of 50 per cent. strikes me as rather high. I wondered why the Government had selected 125 per cent. It seems to me rather a lot. There may be some good reason for it, but I have not thought of one.
The second point is that according to the Government—and there may be Amendments made on this in due course—where the 125 per cent. of the quota exists you will have three Members to each constituency. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that that is the direct antithesis of any form of proportional representation, because if all the Members of the Party, whatever the Party may be,

125
vote according to the Party call, readily do so, you will get three Members of the same Party in the same constituency. That is the very thing which proportional representation wishes to avoid. I wondered, therefore, why they selected that particular course.
The third point is that according to Schedule I they want to make this a permanent system. All these things struck me as being rather odd. I dare say the Government have a perfectly fine explanation of this particular philosophy; I do not know what it is. I would be interested to know what is the basis of this constituency organisation. I will say straight away that I have not the slightest intention of pressing this Amendment. There may be some remarks from other noble Lords who have Amendments down on this paragraph, and, if so, perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee and to the noble Lord that we discussed them together. I beg to move Amendment No.7.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should say that if Amendment No. 7 is agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Earl FERRERS: I do not know what would be for the convenience of the Committee. I have an Amendment down, which is No. 8, which calls into question the whole size of the Assembly. I should be quite happy to speak to that now, unless the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would prefer to deal with my noble friend's Amendment forthwith.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Of course, it is for the noble Lord to judge because if this Amendment were moved into the Bill his Amendment would not be called. It may, therefore, be for the convenience of the Committee—and it certainly would not inconvenience me to make my position plain—if the noble Earl were to speak to his Amendment at the same time.
Earl FERRERS: In that case, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer to my Amendments at the same time. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 12 and Nos. 28, 29, and 30. Those two groups
126
of three Amendments each in effect reduce the number of Assembly men from 150 to about 100. Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 12 refer to the initial Members. Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 refer to the Members elected at the second and subsequent elections. That, of course, brings into question the whole size of the Assembly such as the Government have proposed.
The Royal Commission said that it was in favour of an Assembly of around 100 people. Quite correctly, it was hesitant to put forward a precise figure. Although the Royal Commission was not unanimous about everything, no one, in fact, demurred about the figure of around 100. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that he would defend what was in the Bill and I shall look forward to hearing him defend it. He equally laid great store on the Royal Commission, because, in the very first Amendment, he claimed as regards the word "Assebly none other than the wholehearted support of the Royal Commission. However, the fact is that the Government have proposed in the Bill a figure half as large again for the number of Assembly men. There has never yet been an adequate explanation as to why there should be such a substantial increase.
I have three overall objections. The first is one of cost because the more Members we have, the bigger what might be described as the infrastructure needed to serve them, and the bigger the cost. The second objection concerns the necessity. I cannot see the necessity for such a large Assembly. The third is the prudence. Is it wise to have such a large Assembly? At present Scottish affairs are looked after by 71 Scottish Members of Parliament. For a variety of understandable reasons, Scotland has a greater representation of Members of Parliament per capita than any other part of the United Kingdom. Those people look after all Scotland's interests. Whatever may be the argument for the Bill, no one has ever said that it is because the Scottish Members of Parliament are not fulfilling their duty adequately.
Therefore, to this effective and efficient body of 71 elected representatives, we are now to add a further 150 elected representatives. They will, of course, be elected to the Assembly. They will not

127
cover all the work which the Members of Parliament cover, but only part of it. Therefore, we get a curious situation where the powers which are devolved—and only the powers which are devolved—go from 71 elected representatives to 150 elected representatives. That leaves the powers which are not devolved—and only the powers which are not devolved—to be looked after by the 71 Members of Parliament who are, at present, as I have said, in some respects over-representative. So we are producing a new Assembly in which twice as many people do half the work. Those MPs who remain have half the work that they had before. So we end up by having 221 people doing the work which 71 did previously. I fail to see the logic of that.
Of course, it may be said that it is necessary to have such a big Assembly because by the time we have a number of different Parties represented—and certainly if the Amendment which we have just passed as regards proportional representation is carried into the Bill we shall have more Parties represented—and by the time we have taken out the Members of the Executive from the governing Party, there will be no Back-Benchers left on the governing Party's Benches.
The proposed size of the Assembly in the Bill, therefore, prompts the question: how many Executives do the Government visualise having in the Assembly? There may be a Cabinet or a Scottish Executive of possibly eight or nine Scottish Secretaries and I would hope that the noble and learned Lord would be able to explain this when he comes to defend the proposals in the Bill. Those eight or nine Scottish Secretaries may have Assistant Secretaries. Therefore, one could quite easily reach the state of having 19 or 20 Members of the governing Party who are, in fact. Members of the Executive. However, at present, all Scottish affairs are looked after by one Secretary of State, two Ministers of State and three Under-Secretaries—a total of six Ministers. Therefore, I wonder whether those 19 or 20 Scottish Executives are really necessary to do only part of the work which six Ministers did previously. Presumably, they would be additional to the six Ministers who are in the United Kingdom Parliament.
128
Of course, it may be that the Government will visualise reducing the influence of Scotland in the United Kingdom Administration by reducing the number of Ministers. If that is their intention, perhaps we could know it, because it may well be that the Government would prefer to have not six Scottish Ministers in the United Kingdom Parliament, but perhaps only two. Even if they had only two, that would give a total of somewhere around 22 Ministers of one kind or another to do the work at present done by six. Therefore, one gets the curious situation that, at present, there are six Ministers out of 71 Members of Parliament. In order effectively to devolve, the Government say that we must have Scottish Secretaries as well. In order for the Scottish Secretaries to carry out their job effectively, they must have Assistant Secretaries; in order for there to he enough people in the Scottish Assembly from whom to fill all these posts you must have an Assembly of 150 people—more than Kilbrandon ever envisaged.
I remember going to a play once called At the Drop of Another Hat by Michael Flanders and Donald Swann and in it there was a nice little song called "The Gasman Cometh" in which there was the line, "It all makes work for the working man to do"; one rather wonders whether there is not a bit of that in this. It does not necessarily mean that it will be more efficient or more effective. As my noble friend Lord Morris said, it will certainly mean more bureaucracy and not less, more expense. not less. It will not necessarily be more effective or give more satisfaction.
If we look around the world, we find that almost every other subordinate legislature does with fewer people than is proposed in the Bill. Scotland has a population of about five million people and the Assembly is proposed for 150 members. In Canada, in the State of Ontario, there are not five million but nearly eight million people and they have a legislature not of 150 but of 117. In Quebec, with a population of six million, they have an Assembly of 108 people. In all the other provincial legislatures in Canada they have between 42 and 75 members. If one looks at Australia, in New South Wales, with a population of 4.6 million (nearly five million), they have only 96 members. In Victoria, with a

129
population of 3·5 million, they have 73. In all the other provincial legislatures in Australia, there are between 35 and 82 members in each. In Bavaria, which is the largest of the subordinate legislatures in West Germany and which has a population of nearly 11 million, which is twice that of Scotland, they have 204 members, which is the equivalent of about 100 members for five million people. On the basis of what other subordinate legislatures throughout the world are doing, 100 members would seem about the right number; on the basis of Kilbrandon, 100 members would seem about the right number.
If I may draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 789 of the Royal Commission report, we read:
"The Northern Ireland House of Commons had 52 members. This number was acknowledged to be too small".
It goes on later to say,
"On the other hand a regional Assembly very much larger than this would be unwieldy".
This Assembly is three times the size of that mentioned in the Kilbrandon Report. The report then goes on to say,
"The precise number of members needed would depend on the extent of the devolved functions, the geographical area covered and the method of working, but we think that something of the order of 100 would be about right".
The Government's proposals are based solely on doubling the present number of seats held by Scottish Members of Parliament, not on any real assessment—atleast to date—of the appropriate size of the Assembly.
I would ask the Government to look again most seriously at the size of the Assembly for these reasons: first, the precedents in the other parts of the world to which I have referred; secondly, the people to be represented; thirdly, the work already done by Members of Parliament who will continue to do their work in the House of Commons; fourthly, on the basis of cost; fifthly, on the basis of the Royal Commission report. On all these counts, one would have thought that the Government, to put it delicately, had slightly over-egged the pudding.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, even if he defends the present system, will nevertheless not close his ears to these suggestions and many others which other noble Lords may care to make. These are supposed to be
130
helpful Amendments. They are not in any way motivated by Party political instincts. It is merely an attempt to try to get the Bill, if it is put into operation, as right and sensible as possible. At the moment I, for one, think that the Assembly is far too large.
9.14 p.m.
Lord BANKS: As I understand it, by passing the Amendment relating to a proportional voting system which we did, we appear to be agreeing in principle to the figure of 150, because the subject matter of the debate was a system which would involve 100 directly elected Members with 50 Members topping up that 100 in order to produce a proportional result. I want to support Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 12 because—as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said—they reduce the numbers of directly-elected Members to about 100. However, later I want to add the 50 topping up Members. Therefore, for completely different reasons from those put forward by the noble Earl, I want to support the Amendment which he will propose. Because I want to do that, I wish to oppose Amendment No. 7, which is now before us, which would prevent that possibility.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I should explain that I moved this Amendment only for the purpose of inquiry. I have no intention whatever of pressing it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether it would assist your Lordships if we could have a statement from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, of exactly which constituencies would have the three initial Members; that is, how many would be involved, having over 125 per cent. of the electorate? It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could tell us that. As I understand it, in round figures 125 per cent. would give a quota of 65,000—those being the constituencies entitled to have three initial Members. As a starting point, that at any rate is a pretty low level of membership per constituency.
At present I think that one of the smallest constituencies is Orkney and Shetland which has an electorate of 26,000; it is almost as small as the constituency which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, used to represent. However, that seems

131
to be a fairly small number. The one difficulty on which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will comment, relating to these Amendments with which I am associated for the same reason as the noble Lord has just explained, is that there is a sharp jump from one initial Member to two initial Members, which is rather steeper than the jump from two initial Members to three initial Members. That would give a good many constituencies with a very small number of voters per Member—admitting that under the Amendment there will be two initial Members for each area more than 110 per cent. of the electoral quota. It would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord could so to speak draw a picture here, putting in the buildings and giving a complete structure of the constituencies, so that we can see exactly how this would affect the map of Scotland. It is not easy to do, but I have no doubt that he can paint such a picture.
Lord GRAY: Before we leave either the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Selkirk or the point in general, I should like to raise one matter which very much concerns me. It relates to the size of the Assembly and the number of Members per constituency. I am most concerned with the cumulative effect of departing from the principle of one Member per constituency. Quite obviously, constituencies are very large in area in the North and West of Scotland in particular, but have fewer electors than some of the constituencies in the industrial and central belts. The discrepancies in Scotland run from over 90,000 in the case of Midlothian down to 22,000-plus in the case of the Western Isles.
It is the disparity of representation between one constituency and another to which I wish to draw attention. If we have very large constituencies with three Members and smaller ones with two Members—and I believe that 31 of the constituencies will fall below the electoral quota—I see a serious risk of a cumulative under-representation of the interests of the rural and remoter areas of Scotland.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Would it not be better if the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, dealt with the probing Amendment tabled by the noble Earl,
132
Lord Selkirk, so that we could go on to discuss the Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which we wish to support while at the same time criticising some of his reasons?
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am perfectly ready to withdraw my Amendment if that will help the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Earl said: As I have already burdened your Lordships with the principle of what was behind my Amendment, I beg to move that Amendment No. 8 be approved.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think the old-fashioned phrase was that it was infra dig to talk about cash. However, how much is it going to cost if we have all these Members in the Assembly? I was looking at Clause 31 where it says:
"There shall be paid to members of the Assembly, Scottish Secretaries and assistants to Scottish Secretaries such salaries and allowances as the Assembly may from time to time determine".
We know that nobody comes cheap nowadays. If we are going to have the vast numbers that the Bill suggests will exist, I should like someone to hazard a guess as to what the remuneration is going to be, so that we can see what sort of charges are going to be put on the legislation we are now passing. I remember the time in England when you sat on a local council and did precisely the same work that councillors do today and you did not get any money for it. You did not want it; it was part of a service. Now the payment put in the form of allowances is a very expensive item indeed.
Earl FERRERS: May I interrupt my noble friend? I hesitate to do so, but it is in order to keep our procedure correct. I moved the Amendment, but I do not think that the Amendment was actually put.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment proposed,

133
page 1, line 13, leave out "three" and insert "two".
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My argument remains as it was when I first made it. It is all very well to talk of high principle and of how desirable things are in theory, but when it comes down to cost one finds later on that that is a very important part of the decisions that are taken. Apart from the points made by my noble friend, the potential cost of having such numbers in the Assembly as are now envisaged ought to be taken into account. I should have thought, in anticipation of what is almost certain to happen once you start setting out what your own remuneration is going to be, that it would be very wise indeed to keep the figure at the lowest possible level, otherwise the Chancellor will not be able to balance his books.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I shall not detain the Committee for long. On the question of costs, and on the question of large numbers in this Assembly, of course we entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the lower you keep the cost and the fewer people you have about, within reason, is right and proper. The reason we are supporting the Amendment is because we consider it more important to have the fair system which we think PR will give us. Therefore the 50 additional Members will make a big difference to the standing of the Government in Scotland.
The Scots are not rash, impulsive, free-spending people—or at least we are only that when compared with Englishmen. When we get an Assembly, I know that the first thing that the Assembly will look at is the worst expense we have had in recent years in Scotland; the enormous increase in the cost of local government due to the reorganisation recently carried out. There is no question that with the Assembly, the regions, and the districts we in Scotland will be very much over-governed. But do not think for one moment that the Scottish Assembly, which will not be composed of mutts, will put up with this for very long. I confidently expect that a Scottish Assembly will save a great deal of money in administration. Certainly if they find they are too large themselves, under the provisions of later Amendments they will cut the
134
Assembly down to size. In order to be fair, to give an impression of fairness in Scotland and to make the Assembly acceptable, I think that we will support the Amendment if it is tied to the extra 50 Members which will make PR work.
Lord HUGHES: It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is this side of the Border, because he is displaying admirable qualities that would make him very suitable to be a Member of the Assembly. As I understand his reference to Clause 31, it would seem to imply that you decide how much money you are going to allocate for the salaries of the Assembly. You then decide how much should be paid per Member. You divide one by the other. That determines the number that should be chosen—the number of constituencies. It is rather ingenious but 1 doubt whether it would work.
9.26 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: It might save time if I were to get to my feet at this stage, particularly because I am about to be drowned in a sea of bits of paper which are floating in my direction in answer to the many questions that I have been asked.
First, dealing with the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to give the Committee some information, one must of course look at the electorate as it is on the day when the electoral quota falls to be assessed. Based on the 1977 register, there would be five constituencies. The 100 per cent. figure is of the order of 53,337. I say "of the order" because a lot depends on whether or not you include Peers. If you do not, it becomes 53,336! The 125 per cent. figure is of the order of 64,000. The five constituencies are Dumbartonshire East, Kilbride East, Midlothian, Renfrewshire West and West Lothian. I might just mention that the largest of these is Midlothian, with an electorate at the present time of 96,254.
The smallest constituencies are both Orkney and Shetland which together have 27,748 in the 1977 register. But I think that Glasgow Central, which is smaller still, has 21,011 in the 1977 register. So there are quite considerable disparities between Glasgow Central on the one hand and Midlothian on the other.

135
I have already indicated that the Government would not claim that there was a right size for the Assembly. The figures quoted from the Kilbrandon Report, and indeed from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Home, some years ago upon a different kind of Assembly, indicate that there are obviously different views. One can quote many international examples. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, quoted some. In a sense, I could play the same game and quote others which would tend to support the Government's figures. The noble Earl mentioned New South Wales. In fact, New South Wales has two chambers at State level, with a total of 159 representatives, for a population which is rather smaller than that of Scotland. So, looked at more closely, perhaps that is not so good an example as he suggested.
The reasoning behind the formula in the Bill is this: first of all, Assembly constituencies should be based on Parliamentary constituencies. Any other system, it is thought, would be impracticable. Secondly, because Members of Parliament are, in the Government's view, to some extent overburdened with constituency work, it would be desirable if each Member represented fewer voters than do Members of Parliament. Thirdly, it was thought that there should be some weighting arrangement to try, at least to some extent, to reduce disparities in the size of electorates. Of course, having given you the figures, you will see the enormous disparities that exist.
The 25 per cent. above-average figure—this deals with the point raised by the noble Earl in his previous Amendment, which he withdrew—and entitlement to a third Member, is justified because it represents a figure at which, in straight arithmetical logic, that area would become entitled to an additional Member. Therefore, if 100 gives two, 125 ought to give two and a half. So one becomes entitled, on that basis, to three Members. No comparable reduction should be made for constituencies which are substantially below the average because some at least—although it does not apply to them all, particularly to Glasgow Central—tend to be large and remote areas.
In the Government's view, an Assembly of the size produced by the Amendments
136
would be too small to carry out its new responsibilities. If one compares the size of the Assembly proposed under the Bill with the size of the regional councils in Scotland—and I have in mind particularly Strathclyde, which was set up under the local government legislation and which has 103 members to carry out the local authority duties—it is hardly surprising that the Assembly, with its nationwide responsibilities, should have rather more members.
One of the principles underlying the Government's proposals is the intention to bring Government in Scotland closer to the people affected by Government, and that is why the Government propose that Assembly Members should represent fewer constituents than do Members of Parliament. Under these Amendments, 41 Members of the Scottish Assembly would each represent one whole Parliamentary constituency, and the Government's intention of making each Assembly Member responsible to a smaller number of constituents than is a Member of Parliament, so as to forge more direct links with the electorate, would be lost.
The question of cost has been raised by a number of noble Lords. The Government do not accept that the Assembly should be smaller simply to save a modest sum of money. The Assembly will have an important job to do and will be responsible for a very large budget, and while of course it is important not to spend public money unnecessarily, it is surely equally important to ensure that the Assembly is adequately equipped to fulfil its role. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred to Clause 31(1) which provides, as he said:
"There shall be paid to members of the Assembly … such salaries and allowances as the Assembly may from time to time determine".
If he had looked at subsection (6) of that clause he would have seen that it says:
"Payments under this section shall be made out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund".
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is right to say that money will not be thrown away to all who want it; that fund will have many people making claims on it and the electorate will judge very harshly indeed if the members of the Assembly are seen or seem to pay themselves unduly out of the fund which is available to cover all the matters which

137
are devolved and which have to be paid for out of the fund.
As to the number of Executive Members, a subject to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred, that is a matter for the First Secretary to decide, and again the same principles apply as a political restraint on the First Secretary; he must choose the numbers and of course he will be scrutinised very carefully by his colleagues and the Opposition in the Assembly in relation to that matter. Of course, until one knows how much the Members of the Assembly are to be paid it is impossible to assess what the cost is likely to be. As to the question of the number of Ministers, of course that is a matter for the Prime Minister of the day to determine in the light of the circumstances.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble and learned Lord will be aware, of course, that it is laid down in Acts of Parliament within what limits the Prime Minister can operate.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am obliged to the noble Lord for making that point, but at the end of the day the Prime Minister of the day can decide whether or not to fill all the offices which are available to him under the legislation, and no doubt in the light of the existing circumstances he would consider whether he needs the number of Ministers who at the present time are thought to be necessary. I would say in relation to the number of Ministers at the present time that many people feel that the Ministers in Scotland are overburdened because of the range of their responsibilities.
I am asked whether the Government will reconsider this matter and I can say, Yes. I can say that not for any other reason perhaps than this. Having regard to the fact that this Committee has moved into the Bill an Amendment on proportional representation, which seems to involve the number of 150 and to some extent affects all these provisions in the Bill, the Government must obviously reconsider their position on that particular matter, and in that context I think the Committee will understand that they should look at this matter at the same time. I hope noble Lords will accept that. All the arguments will of course be studied and perhaps the matter could be left there for the present.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am sorry I absented myself for a moment or two earlier. What the noble and learned Lord said may he very reasonable, but what I want to be clear about is exactly where we are going. We have carried an Amendment relating to proportional representation and that was very much on the basis that there would be 100 elected Members and 50 additional Members. At least that was my understanding of the debate.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has now made a proposal the effect of which would be to reduce the elected Members from 150 to 100, and that would leave it open to the Liberal Party to say consequentially that there should be at some later stage 50 additional Members. Of course I realise that the Government have to think out their position, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will agree with me here. I have not had the time to discuss the point with him at any length.
I do not want it to be said that we have created deliberately a nonsense as a result of this Committee stage. I am wondering whether the reasonable course may be to accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, without prejudice to the Government's reconsideration. We could then discuss, and if need he pass, the Liberal Amendment, which would then be consequential to what had already been done. If the Government want to come to us with an alternative scheme, or to revert to their old position, if they think they can carry it, that may be more sensible than simply allowing to remain in the Bill an Amendment relating to proportional representation which would become nonsensical, if we either retain the status quo as regards 150 elected Members, or carry the full range of my noble friend's Amendments. I am anxious that we should be, roughly speaking, sensible at each stage of the Bill. I do not know what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, thinks about this.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord says. Whether one likes or does not like what will be in the Bill at the end of the day, it ought to make as much sense as it can when it reaches us again at the Report stage. I think that in the circumstances

139
it would not be unreasonable if, prefacing the matter, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, without prejudice to the Government's ultimate position, I were to say that the Government would not resist the Amendments. Then the Bill would at least make more sense when we come to reconsider it, and we can all reconsider our positions and hope that we can make progress.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to say that the more Members there were of the Assembly, the nearer the Assembly would be brought to the people, but I have suffered under Strathclyde. I have a place in the Western Highlands, and I find that Strathclyde is crawling with officials. Certainly it has not brought the people nearer to local government; it has taken them much further away. All that has happened is that the rates have been trebled since that reorganisation. What worries me is that the additional Members for the Assembly rather appear to be in Labour areas. If we are to have 150 Members, I should prefer to see more Members in rural areas. From the point of view of transportation, for instance, presumably more Members would be needed in an area like Argyll than in a small area in Glasgow. I am surprised to see that the additional Members are to come from urban areas. I do not think that this ought to be based entirely on population. My grandfather was the Member for Argyll for a long time and he had the largest geographical constituency in Scotland. He managed all right with one Member—himself.
If we are to have extra Members, for Heaven's sake! let us have them in rural areas where they can cover the ground more evenly. I do not say that I smell a rat, but it seems rather odd that the additional Members for the Assembly are to be mainly in Labour areas. I do not wish to impugn any motive for that; I merely wish to make the point.
9.40 p.m.
Lord WIGG: Whether the Minister smells rats or follows red herrings, I would ask him to take note of the fact, when talking about the number of the electorate in relation to the number of
140
Members, that if the number of the electorate remains constant and you increase the number of Members you have altered the value of the vote. In my submission—I am speaking entirely for myself—what is fundamental is the value of the vote. In terms of democracy and means of communication, there is no case whatsoever for increasing the value of a rural vote at the expense of an urban vote. I am not asking the Committee to make up its mind: what I am asking for is information.
The Minister has told us that the Government must reconsider their position in the light of the Amendment which the Committee has chosen to accept, and that he is going to go back and do the sums afresh. I would not ask him to put his civil servants to a great deal of trouble to work out the value on a hypothetical basis, but would he be good enough, either when he comes to your Lordships' House to report the results of his reconsideration or at some other appropriate moment, to tell us between what extremes the value of the vote is going to vary in the light of whatever proposition is going to be advanced? Because, may I submit to the Liberal Party, you can get a totally different result if there is in fact even a modest variation in the value of the vote. I do not want to go back to what I said earlier on, but any noble Lord who cares to take the trouble to examine the statistics which are available in the Boundary Commission reports in relation to the 1945 Election and the 1950 Election will appreciate exactly what I mean.
So far as I am personally concerned, I am standing on the Churchillian doctrine that the basis of British democracy ought to be one vote and one value; and if there is a variation of that then at least the Committee, if it accepts it, ought to know within what tolerance that variation will take place.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I may say shortly in reply that all the suggestions and observations which have been made, whatever their animal connections, will be taken into account in the Government's reconsideration.
Earl FERRERS: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for stating the position and for saying that he will agree to the six

141
Amendments I am to move being incorporated into the Bill on the quite clear understanding that it will give the Government the opportunity to think again in the light of the Amendment which was accepted earlier on.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 13, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: I can assure your Lordships that I have changed my locality, and not my Party, and that only temporarily. I beg to move Amendment No. 10, which is consequential on previous Amendments. It is the same as Amendment No 5.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("125") and insert ("110").
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("two initial members") and insert ("one initial member").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, too, is consequential. I would have wished to move it formally, but I think my noble friend Lord Lyell wishes to ask
142
a question of the Minister and, therefore, it will not be quite so formal. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to enlighten me. He mentioned figures earlier about the difference between 125 per cent. and 110 per cent. He mentioned a figure for 125 per cent. of the average electorate in Scotland. Now I not only smell a rat, but I think I have found one. My calculations did not match with what he said. If the figure that the noble and learned Lord had given was taken according to the list of electorates and constituencies that I have, I think it would make a difference of four or five seats over the Government calculations. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord—not necessarily tonight—could verify the figure that he has given?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall certainly seek to do so. I have a large piece of paper with many complicated calculations on it. They are not my calculations. My noble friend now offers me another large piece of paper covered with calculations, including some in a fair hand; but perhaps I shall take advantage of the noble Lord's invitation, check for myself and give an answer on another occasion. We shall certainly have another occasion, for there are many Amendments consequential on Amendment No. 8.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
9.47 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 80(3) below,").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment we come to another area altogether. We are not here talking about the proportion of electors to elected persons in the Scottish Assembly, nor about the system by which they should be elected, nor about the relative roles the Parties might play in Scotland after devolution, but about the position of the Orkneys and Shetlands after the Bill is passed, assuming that it is passed in whatever form it comes through. The effect of my Amendment I believe to be—I am working without legal advice, and the Government will doubtless correct me if I am wrong—the following.
Clause 80(3) is to over-ride, according to the Amendment, the provision by which Orkney and Shetland have one initial Member each. The purpose of that in my mind—and I hope I am right—is that if in the referendum Orkney and Shetland declare that they are against the application of the Act which we shall have passed—that is to say, against devolution for Scotland—it will not apply to them. That is provided for in Clause 80(3), the Grimond Amendment from the House of Commons.
The purpose of my paving Amendment is if that happens they should not then have their one initial Member each in the Scottish Assembly. Clause 80(3) says that if they vote "No" in the referendum then there will be a kind of interregnum or pause during which a Commission of Inquiry, starting from the beginning, will inquire what ought to happen next. I think the assumption is that it will be tabula rasa and the Commission will be allowed to recommend what it thinks fit about the future of the communities of Orkney and Shetland. The effect of my Amendment would be to leave that future open but to bar off one way only; namely, that they should be represented in the Scottish Assembly. It will leave them open to he represented at Westminster as they are now.
Why do I propose this? It is for the following reason. The Bill, as we have
144
it before us, does leave us with the awkward situation whereby a number of Scottish MPs at Westminster will be able to affect by their voices and votes, English, Welsh and, indeed, at the moment Northern Irish legislation on health, education, housing and all the other subjects which appear as devolved subjects in Schedules 11 and 12 to the Bill. The argument of the Government in the House of Commons (where the issue was fully discussed) was that although this was untidy and, indeed, unjustifiable in strict democratic logic, yet it was the worst of many evils because the only alternative to it was to have the system of so-called "in and out" voting. That is to say, that there should he Scottish Members in Westminster after the passage of the Act who would have their full voice and vote in United Kingdom legislation, and especially in defence, foreign policy and all the other reserved subjects under Schedules 11 and 12 to the Bill before us, but that it would be insufferable by reason of the complication thereof if they had to abstain on all discussions of health, education, housing and the other devolved subjects as they affected the rest of the United Kingdom and, notably, England.
The Government said that one could not have the Speaker ruling debate by debate, Division by Division and even intervention by intervention, in the House of Commons whether or not the subject of that intervention or vote was devolved, it being supposed that if it were devolved then the Scottish Member would not have a right to a say in it, and if it were reserved, then he would have a right to have a say in it; and it would simply be too complicated to settle such a matter vote by vote in the House of Commons.
Let us pause and look at that for a moment. Schedules 11 and 12 taken together, which say what is reserved, what is conditionally reserved, what is concurrently reserved and what is not reserved at all and therefore fully devolved, runs to some 24 pages. Somebody has to interpret those 24 pages on a strategic scale before any measure is introduced either into the Westminster Parliament or into the Scottish Assembly after the Bill is taken through Parliament. If we accept the Government's contention that it is possible to decide into which Legislature a given measure should be introduced or,

145
look at it another way, what measures would be susceptible of introduction into one Legislature or the other, and if we then further accept that, although that is possible, it is impossible for the Speaker to rule on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis in the House about a given intervention on what is reserved, we see that the situation, though conceivable, is going to be extremely difficult.
The Government's main argument against "in and out" voting (which of course would abolish the difficulty) is that it was tried by Gladstone in the case of the Irish Members of the House of Commons. It was abandoned because it was too complicated. I would only say at this stage, since I am straying somewhat wide from the subject of my own Amendment (though I shall come back to it in a minute) that the precedent was long ago, and the result of adopting the course taken by Gladstone—that is, of allowing the Stormont Members since 1921 to have a say in the English legislation and not vice versa—has not been entirely reassuring when one considers the reproduction of the experiment on another and larger scale in the case of Scotland, though I know of course that Scotland is not a divided community like Ulster.
The conclusion that I draw from all that is that the system by which the Scottish Members in Westminster have a say in English legislation, and the English Members have no say in legislation on the very same matter in Edinburgh, is going to be a doubtful, dangerous but possibly a manageable one. Should we then, in view of its doubtfulness and dangerousness, willingly contemplate the reproduction of the system in miniature in Edinburgh? Without this Amendment that is precisely what we should do. We shall have two Orkney and Shetland Members in Edinburgh who, because Orkney and Shetland will have voted against the devolution Bill altogether—the application of the Act to Orkney and Shetland—will not be affected by it. We shall have these two people with a voice and a vote on Scottish devolved issues. But the Scottish Members—the other 123, or whatever the figure is, the majority of the Scottish Members—will have no voice or vote on legislation affecting Orkney and Shetland because they will be out under Clause 80(3). We
146
shall therefore have a muddle in Westminster, which we may survive, and that will be duplicated on a smaller scale in Edinburgh, which they may or may not survive: who knows
I move this Amendment now in the hope of drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that if you tolerate a "maxi-muddle" in Westminster, it has effects all down the line and raises the question: should we tolerate also a "mini-muddle" by the Orkney and Shetland Members having a voice and vote in matters which do not concern them in Edinburgh? I do not pretend to know what is right, either on the major or the minor issue, and the purpose of my Amendment is to draw attention to the undeniable fact that they go together. If we are to have the one, we have to take a decision as to whether we also have the other. Who knows whether or not there may be others down the line which will follow from it? I cannot see that far, but perhaps other noble Lords can. Do we want the muddle in Westminster with the muddle in Edinburgh? Do we want the muddle in Westminster without the muddle in Edinburgh? I put the point forward for solution in debate at this moment because it seems to be the right time to do so. I beg to move.
9.57 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not know whether this Amendment is technically necessary and therefore I must reserve my own views until the Minister has guided us. Subject to that, I am entirely in support of what is plainly the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in moving this Amendment. His purpose, plainly stated, is to avoid "a muddle ", as he put it, in Edinburgh, resulting from a reproduction in miniature of the same sort of possible confusion that is going to arise as between Westminster and Edinburgh. But I do not know, until the noble Lord has enlightened us, whether in fact, as the Bill now stands, this would arise.
Clause 80(3) makes provision in the event—I understand the quite likely event—of the vote in Orkney and Shetland being against participation in this measure, that the Act shall not apply to them. If the Act does not apply, presumably that

147
non-application covers Clause 80(3) to which the noble Lord's Amendment applies. If the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite can reassure me as to that, I shall be perfectly happy about it; but if there is any doubt at all perhaps the matter should be investigated further.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question of the noble Lord before he replies? Would it not be more satisfactory to your Lordships for him to indicate at this stage what he proposes to do about Clause 80(3)? It seems to me that, as that clause now stands, there is going to be a terrible muddle anyway, and I should have thought that, either at this stage or at the next stage, he would have to put down an Amendment to Clause 80(3). If that Amendment were made, perhaps it might not be necessary to have this Amendment which is being proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Viscount THURSO: I do not think that it is really necessary to put in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. It seems to me to be an "extra", because as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, Clause 80 does allow the Act not to apply, and if the Act does not apply then it does not apply at this point. However, I see no harm in including the Amendment because it merely dots the i and crosses the t.
What I hope is that, when and if the referendum under Clause 80 of this Bill is held, the people of Orkney and Shetland will see that their future lies with the Assembly in Edinburgh. If we make a good job of our Amendments in this Committee, and if we improve the Bill, we may send back to the other place a Bill to which the Orcadians and Shetlanders can agree, which should be our aim. But if they wish to opt out of this new arrangement and stay with the Westminster Parliament; I see no great difficulty in doing that, any more than there would be for the Isle of Man or the States of the Channel Islands, and so on, to come into association with the Parliament in Westminster. We on these Benches would certainly agree to leave in this Amendment, and would not oppose it, but I do not think that it is entirely necessary.
Lord WIGG: There is something more in this than just dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made it quite clear that his Amendment was to deal with the interregnum after the people of Orkney and Shetlands may opt out under a referendum. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, that if they do that Clause 80(3) will not apply. Subsection (3) states that "the Secretary of State shall lay … an order ". But the Secretary of State may take a long time to lay an order, and what will be the situation then?—because if the Bill goes through unamended there will be an initial Member for Orkney and another for Shetland. The people of Orkney and Shetland will, I hope, opt out under the referendum, and until an order is laid the Bill will apply. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, say that there will be an interregnum, and there must be a pause, between the decision of the people of Orkney and Shetland and the laying of an order by the Secretary of State. That is what the Amendment is about. Perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong.
Lord KENNET: No. I confirm that that was the point.
10.2 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: I also confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that his interpretation of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Kennet, as it applies to Clause 80(3), is indeed correct. I should also say to your Lordships, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Kennet, that the Government are impressed by the strength of feeling on this matter which has emanated from the Orkney and Shetland Islands; and that, following the decision taken in the other place, the Government accept that some special provisions relating to the Islands should find a place in the Bill.
But the Government see considerable problems arising from the approval of any order made under Clause 80(3). These have already been spelled out in some detail to the Islands' Councils, and were referred to in considerable detail in the other place by my right honourable

149
friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that the fact that I make this point is a confirmation that the Government are looking closely at Clause 80(3). The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, directed my attention to that.
I think it is fair to say that the Government's intentions towards the Islands are entirely honourable, but the position is still very open and discussions with the councils continue. I might emphasise that it is only at this stage that we know that the Shetland Islands council, and only the Shetland Islands council, has taken a positive decision. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland hopes to visit the Islands, and continues to have discussions with them.
I do not think that I should say anything more in your Lordships' Committee this evening which might pre-empt what is a continuing dialogue, and I therefore think that these matters should be left just as they are at this time. I do not think that it would be useful for us to continue further on this point at this stage.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not know whether he can go a little further, because that would certainly determine my attitude to his noble friend's Amendment. He said that Clause 80(3) needs amendment. Looked at technically, I am trying to see reasons for agreeing with him. But can he say now, and give an assurance to the Committee, that any Amendment that the Government bring forward will preserve the essence of this subsection; that is to say, if the Islands vote by a majority not to come under the Assembly, the Government will so provide that they should not come under the Assembly?
Lord KIRKHILL: No; at this stage I could not give an unequivocal assurance of that kind. It is part of a particular discussion which in the meantime continues. It would be wrong of me to go further than I have already gone at this time.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Would the noble Lord not agree that his refusal now to give an assurance is much more serious than his ever agreeable manner would allow one to suggest? He is always so plausible and kindly; we are always
150
rather relaxed when he comes to the Box and takes us into his confidence. However, a very serious issue is at stake. In effect, what the noble Lord has said is this: If the Islands choose to stay out we, the Government, are not going to let them do so. That is what the noble Lord said and that is how it sounded. Of course, the noble Lord did not mean it to sound like that, because he is much too nice, much too smooth, much too agreeable, much too plausible and much too friendly; but that is how it sounded.
Lord KIRKHILL: I think that the noble Earl is putting his own highly yet always interesting interpretation upon my remarks. I do not think that I went so far as the noble Earl suggested—certainly, I am convinced I did not. However, may I say this. All kinds of problems are attendant upon a decision of this kind, with both the Shetlands and the Orkneys saying, "We want nothing to do with the Assembly". Yet one must keep in mind that the honourable Member for the constituency does not take quite that point. He is on record as saying that he thinks that the Islands will have to work with the Assembly, and so much of their present position is totally related to the Edinburgh scene. These are the clear, practical politics of the situation. Having said that, one must then go on to say that a meaningful discussion is taking place. It would be wrong of me to go further because I do not want to prejudice these discussions.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I appreciate very much what the noble Lord has said and I know that he is trying to be helpful, as he always is. However, the sheer fact of this matter is that the Scottish National Party argument for independence is based on Scottish oil, two-thirds of which is Shetland oil. That is the heart of the matter and everybody knows it. The noble Lord is burking the issue.
I want to say only this: while we shall all give him the benefit of the doubt in anything he says, particularly with his smile, his courtesy, his urbane charm and the rest, still there are some of us who are very concerned indeed to make sure that there is no ambiguity in the matter. Before we leave the Amendment, I hope that we shall be satisfied that the Government are not waffling and fudging but are saying firmly that if Shetland or Orkney,

151
either or both, want to opt out, they can, and will, and shall.
Lord KIRK HILL: That is not the present Government's position. Therefore, I could not confirm that that is the Government's view.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Could the noble Lord help us in one way while we are discussing the Amendment. I understand and appreciate the problem which the noble Lord and his colleagues face over Shetland and Orkney. We are surprised, knowing the Minister's charm and that he is from Aberdeen, that Shetland and Orkney, which have very close links with Aberdeen, seem to be escaping. However, to be serious, it is very important that when we come to a later stage in the Bill we should know what are the Government's thoughts about these two Islands. It will be very awkward for us if we are told whenever we come to these hurdles that the Government are still thinking about this. I hope very much that decisions can be taken soon.
Lord KIRKHILL: As the Committee knows, the noble Lord is a former Secretary of State for Scotland, and he recognises the demands which are placed upon that role. However, he will be aware, because it is on public record, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to visit the Islands. He has already met the Islands' Council and he hopes to visit the islands. Certainly he is continuing the dialogue. At this time I cannot go further than that.
10.9 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Would not the noble Lord go an inch further along the line?—although I know it is very difficult for him to do this. I remember being chastised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving the impression of questioning the integrity of the Government. I am not doing that. The purpose of a Committee stage is to probe. Already we have had the experience of the Government changing the rules half way through the game. We had this experience on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The point we were putting was perfectly sound. However, in another
152
place the rules were changed, which completely altered the whole basis of the argument we were having.
The question posed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is quite clear. If the position is as he explained it, then he accepts the Government's position and there must be some Amendment; but he merely asked whether we could have some indication, if not an undertaking, that there is no question in the Government's mind of altering the rules should Orkney and Shetland decide not to join the Assembly, thus making it impossible for them to give effect to not wanting to join it. The noble Lord can speak about talks going on, but if it is that talks are going on in such a way that the threat of this sort of thing will cause Orkney and Shetland to make a decision they would not otherwise make, then I think it is the duty of your Lordships and indeed the other House to clarify the position.
Lord KIRK HILL: All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, at this point is, that if he would address his mind to the hypothetical proposition he has put to me he will see the enormous practical difficulties that would emerge were such a situation to develop.
Lord HUGHES: Surely what my noble friend has stated to the Committee is that the Secretary of State is having discussions with the people in Orkney and Shetland. It is possible—I would not put it higher than that—that there may be agreement with these authorities about Amendments to the Bill which would meet their requirements. If that is the case then presumably we shall be told at the earliest opportunity the Amendments which the Government would propose. I hope that before we reach Clause 80 the Government may be in a position to say something about their intentions, and certainly by the Report stage of the Bill. I think the fears expressed that the Government may be seeking to "do the dirty" on Orkney and Shetland are quite unfounded because the remedy is in the hands of this House. If the Bill goes back to the Commons, in so far as Orkney and Shetland are concerned, in its present form, then the position of Orkney and Shetland is absolutely protected. If noble Lords opposite think that the Government are attempting to do Orkney and Shetland

153
down they can guarantee by their very numbers that the Government will be frustrated, so there is nothing to fear in that direction.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like to say on behalf of my right honourable friend who is the Member for the two constituencies, and from my own discussions with the local officials, that what they feel in Shetland and in Orkney is that Clauses 3 and 80 give them protection at this moment, and they are satisfied that they are protected from their fears—and they have great fears as to what will happen in Scotland. If they come under the Scottish Assembly they fear that they will not occupy quite the special position that they do at the present time. I personally feel—and I think I can speak for my right honourable friend—that these fears are not justified, but he agrees that some special precautions and protection should be laid down.
I would ask the Government to endeavour to speed up the discussions. I do not think they should wait for any new bodies but should simply discuss with the present authorities and arrive at a conclusion fairly quickly. We might then get a tidy clause in the Bill which will satisfy the councils of both sets of Islands and enable the immense difficulties with regard to health, education, transport and everything else to be sorted out in a sensible way.
10.14 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think a further assurance is needed from the Government at this stage because I think what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said admirably summed up the situation. We understand that the Government are having discussions particularly with the Shetland Islands Council, and I think we in this House are all agreed that the position should be protected. But at some point the Government will have to take action and will have to make some special arrangement for the Shetland Islands if the situation remains as it is in the Bill. There will be administrative arrangements to he made and I can quite understand that they will be difficult and complicated. The assurance which I seek is that the Government are not trying to force the Shetland Islanders to change
154
their minds under duress, by saying that it is going to be much too difficult for St. Andrew's House and the civil servants to make the special arrangements, either during the interim period or later while they are working out with the Commission a new form of association.
I would just remind the Government that they are in this Bill proposing the greatest change in our constitutional affairs since 1707, and this, surely, is an appropriate moment for these two groups of Islands to be able to reconsider their own special position within the United Kingdom; they are not seeking to break away. For that they need a certain amount of time, and I congratulate them on taking a little time and not trying to do things very quickly, as many of us have been forced to do with this Bill. I do ask the Government to give that assurance, that they will not just go on talking and then, towards the end of June or July when this Bill is due to be considered again in another place, say: "We must make these Amendments because we have not put into train all the special arrangements which will be needed if Orkney and Shetland are to be kept in a special situation of their own".
Lord KIRKHILL: I can only confirm yet again to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is in communication with, and has been discussing the position with, the present Island Councils. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the Government feel exactly as he does in the latter part of his comment; namely, that we cannot go too quickly in a matter of this kind. There is a question of judgment and balance, and the rights of the Island communities, as they see it, to a certain position; and the absolute difficulty which faces the Assembly and a new administration were they to opt out, and the consequential problems which flow from that kind of discussion. That is the present position.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Could the noble Lord make this little addition: Could he not assure the Committee that the Government in their consultations—and the word "consultations" can mean a whole range of things—will not try to twist the arm of Orkney and Shetland?
Lord KIRKHILL: The Government are behaving with the highest standard of moral probity in the matter.
Lord WIGG: What worries me is not what the Government say or what the Government do; what worries me is what the Government do not do. If later on, in six months' time, a Minister wanted to find a justification for doing nothing, the scene has been well set by what the Minister has said. He has stressed all the difficulties: we must not hurry, we must not go quickly. I have heard that one before. Going quickly probably means there are two speeds, dead slow and stop. What I am concerned about is the simple issue. If the Government want to drag their feet—I am not saying they do—if the civil servants want to drag their feet, then, very good, Orkney and Shetland take their decision, and then the Minister shall lay an order. It does not say when he shall lay the order.
When the Minister is questioned in another place in a year he can draw attention to what the Minister has said tonight about these insuperable difficulties; he can say the House was warned of the difficulties, that "we are struggling, working 116 hours a week to overcome these difficulties and we will overcome them as soon as we can". In the meantime nothing happens. And, of course, if the Government were not altogether playing fair, they could go to Shetland and say: "Be very careful. You may fall between two stools. You may opt out of the Assembly and you will not be back in Westminster because the order has not been laid".
There we are, Orkney and Shetland becoming more and more dissatisfied. I am not saying that that is what the Government intend—far from it; but what I am saying is that they could dispel all fears. All the Minister has to do is to say, "If Orkney and Shetland opt out the order will be laid with the least possible delay"—not immediately, but with the least possible delay—"All the difficulties they now foresee will go, and the order will be laid at the earliest possible moment". If he will say that, I shall be satisfied.
Lord KIRKHILL: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is at this
156
present period arranging further meetings with the Island Councils. It may be that subsequent to these meetings Amendments will be laid before your Lordships' House. Beyond that point I cannot comment this evening.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: May I say that, coming from the very far north in Scotland, much farther north than most noble Lords who have spoken, I know Orkney and Shetland. Anybody who thinks that they can twist the arm of Orkney, or particularly Shetland, will find it rather difficult. It does not happen that way. The only thing I fear is that if we go on talking they will opt back for joining up with Norway, and that would be a great loss to Scotland.
Lord KIRKHILL: They have, of course, a tremendous administrative bond with the Edinburgh situation at the present time.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think I am right in saying that the particular subsection to which we are referring—Clause 80(3)—has not yet been debated at all in Parliament. Am I not right in saying that? Can the noble Lord give us any assurance that when we come to this matter at the Committee stage he will be able to say something about it—even only an interim statement? It does not seem to me that the Bill is satisfactory in its present state. We are trying to find out what Amendment he is going to make to it and when. We quite understand the delay, but will he be able to do anything about it during the Committee stage?
Lord KIRKHILL: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not think me unnecessarily pert if I say that I certainly shall be able to say something during the Committee stage, but quite what, I am not able to say at this time.
10.22 p.m.
Lord KENNET: This debate has been well worth while as a pre-run for the debate which I confidently expect the Committee will have on Clause 80(3). I picked out the following points from this most interesting and, to me, unexpected debate. First, my noble friend said that there might be difficulty in approval of any order made under Clause 80(3), by which

157
I assume he meant difficulty in approval by the Westminster Parliament of any order which might be laid by the Secretary of State. I wondered what kind of order would run into difficulties in Westminster, given the existence of Clause 80(3)—the Grimond Amendment coming to us from the Commons—and given the evident feeling of this House about the rights of the Orcadians and Shetlanders to settle their own future. What kind of order might run into difficulty?
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I suppose that the noble Lord appreciates in saying that, that so far as this Committee is concerned, under Clause 80(4) what this Committee does, does not really matter, because the House of Commons can override us in 10 days.
Lord KENNET: That applies to almost anything else this House does. However, we have legislation before us and I shall come to that in a moment. The other matter that I picked up from the debate was the statement by my noble friend that the Secretary of State was having discussions with the Councils of the two authorities up there; that he intended to visit the Islands; tliat the discussions were meaningful and that he could not say, and could not be induced to say, anything about the Amendments which the Government might or might not propose to Clause 80 at the time when we come to discuss the matter, either in Committee or on Report. I also picked up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that if the Secretary of State for Scotland were now to come to an agreement with the local authorities of the counties of Shetland and Orkney, then it might be possible to introduce an Amendment to the Bill in this House, on the basis of an agreement between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the local authorities of the Islands. I do not think so.
What is before your Lordships now is a stipulation about a referendum under which the people of the Islands will, to put it shortly, have the right to settle their own fates. I believe that I am right in saying that the people of those Islands did not elect their local councils on any given plan one way or the other, about going with the devolved Scotland or staying with the unitary United Kingdom. If I am right about that, then it would,
158
of course, be quite wrong for the Government to frame any Amendment to the Bill now before us on the basis of an agreement struck between themselves and the local authority.
Having said all that and leaving now the dress rehearsal for the debate that will clearly be a crucial one on Clause 80 when we reach it, my Amendment is not an Amendment to Clause 80—it neither confirms Clause 80 nor changes it nor denies it. It has nothing to say on Clause 80. It simply subjects the existence of one or two initial Orkney and Shetland Members at Edinburgh to the operation of Clause 80.
It was pointed out by the first speakers in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and speakers from the Liberal Benches, that if Clause 80 is left as it is and the Government are wise enough not to amend it, and if the people of Orkney and Shetland choose to opt out, then this is a Bill which does not apply to Orkney and Shetland. That is the case to which I ask your Lordships to address your minds. We have before us a Bill which does not apply to Orkney and Shetland. What kind of an Act do we wish that Bill to be? Do we wish it to be an Act which lays specific rights and duties on Orkney and Shetland or an Act which does not mention Orkney and Shetland in the section dealing with specific rights and duties? Unless we adopt the Amendment we risk having before us an Act of Parliament which does not apply to Orkney and Shetland but which specifies that Orkney and Shetland shall send one Member each to the Edinburgh Assembly.
That is a nonsense, and I think that given that Clause 80 has no Amendments down affecting it, either from the Government or from anyone else, and since in Committee we must consider the Bill as a whole and the interaction of one part upon another, it would be safer now to carry the Amendment which I have moved in order to make the Bill one which could logically not apply if in the referendum Orkney and Shetland decide it should not.
10.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 226) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Auckland, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Abinger, L.

Avebury, L.

Belstead, L.

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Blake, L.

Aldenham, L.

Balerno, L.

Boothby, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ballantrae, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Amory, V.

Banks, L.

Burton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Barrington, V.

Byers, L.

Caithness, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Platt, L.

Camoys, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Polwarth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hughes, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hylton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Chelwood, L.

Jacobson, L.

Rochdale, V.

Chesham, L.

Jacques, L.

Rochester, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kemsley, V.

Romney, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Collison, L.

Kilbrandon, L. [Teller.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Seear, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmany, L.

Segal, L.

Cottlesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Selkirk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinross, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Croft, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shackleton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lindsey and Abington, E.

Sherfield, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Shinwell, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Simon, V.

Digby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sligo, M.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Snow, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Somers, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McCarthy, L.

Stamp, L.

Elton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strathspey, L.

Foot, L.

Macloed of Borve, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gage, V.

McNair, L.

Swaythling, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mancroft, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Garrer, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Glendevon, L.

Middleton, L.

Teviot, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mills, V.

Thurso, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Minto, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vickers, B.

Grey, E.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Gridley, L.

Moyne, L.

Wade, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Walston, L.

Newall, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Halsbury, E.

Northchurch, B.

Wardington, L.

Hamnett, L.

Ogmore, L.

Westbury, L.

Hampden, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Willis, L.

Hampton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hives, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Windlesham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Perth, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alanbrooke, V.

Greenway, L.

Parry, L.

Bacon, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Pender, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Phillips, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redmayne, L.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Spens, L.

Castle, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crooke, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Thorneycroft, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Torphichen, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

McCluskey, L.

Tweeddale, M.

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

Macleod of Fuinary, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Monck, V.

Wigg, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monson, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fulton, L.

Morris, L.

Wolverton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Northfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hylton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Kemsley, V.

Romney, E.

Banks, L.

Kennet, L. [Teller]

St. Just, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kinross, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Burton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shackleton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Linlithgow, M.

Snow, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

de Clifford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swansea, L.

Digby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Middleton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Minto, E.

Thurso, V. [Teller]

Faithfull, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monson, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Fortescue, E.

Morris, L.

Wardington, L.

Fulton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Gray, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wigg, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Windlesham, L.

Hives, L.

Polwarth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pearl, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Birk, B.

Gregson, L.

Perth, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hewlett, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Crook, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Walston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

McGregor of Durris, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

George-Brown, L.

Parry, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness STEDMAN: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY (ENGINEERING) ORDER 1978
7.27 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY rose to move, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd February, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are a somewhat dwindling band to deal with a very important order. This is the first time that an industrial training levy order has been brought before Parliament for approval. It may help your Lordships if I explain in some detail why this is necessary.
The levy is the main instrument by which industrial training boards can encourage companies in their industries to raise the quantity and quality of training. Under the Industrial Training Act 1964, as amended by the Employment and Training Act 1973, an industrial training board can, with the approval of the Manpower Services Commission and the Secretary of State for Employment, raise a levy on companies in its industry up to 1 per cent. of emoluments—that is, of a company's wage bill. Parliamentary approval must be sought, however, for any proposal to raise a levy of above 1 per cent.
The proposal before the House is that for the major part of the engineering industry the levy on employers shou1d remain at 1 per cent., as it has been in previous years. The engineering industry training board is proposing however to raise a levy of 2 per cent. on large employers in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction section. This part of the industry includes those employers involved in building power stations, petroleum refineries, chemical plants and the structures which are necessary to exploit the North Sea. The order before the House sets out in detail the conditions which may have to be met before an employer is liable to the 2 per cent. levy: first, he must be engaged wholly or mainly in engineering construction activities; second,
108
the 2 per cent. levy will only be raised in respect of site employees; that is not those working in a company's head office but those actually working on construction sites; third, the 2 per cent. levy will apply only to large employers whose payroll for site employees exceeds £500,000. Where the above conditions are met an employer will be assessed for levy as follows: no levy on the first £50,000 of his payroll for site employees; 1 per cent. on the next £450,000; and 2 per cent. on the payroll above £500,000. The board estimates that in effect this will mean for a large employer an average levy on the total payroll of about 1·5 per cent.
Why is a higher rate of levy necessary for the engineering construction sector'? Basically the answer is that in the past there has not been sufficient training by employers in this sector, partly because training in the industry is difficult to organise due to the great mobility between sites. The engineering industry training board hopes to be able to use the 2 per cent. levy to raise the standard and level of training in the industry. It will be giving particular attention to maintaining and, if possible, improving the level of apprentice intake into the industry. And the Government's further year of support for special training measures to maintain apprentice intake at a time of recession should help the board in its task. Other priorities for the board in 1978–79 will be management and supervisory training, the training of professional engineers, and training in other important skills like welding, non-destructive testing, site draughtsmen, and instructional skills. Safety is another priority for this industry and I understand that all the training done to the board's standard must include a substantial element of training for safety.
These are all important areas for the future of the engineering construction industry and of those people who work in it. This sector contains a very high proportion of skilled workers: 75 per cent. of the workers on engineering construction sites are skilled. This makes it doubly important for the reputation of the industry abroad as well as at home that they are trained to a high standard, so that their job is done as well and effectively as is possible. Training is important also to ensure that the job is done as safely as possible. Work on

109
engineering construction sites is high risk work, but proper training can help to reduce the risk of accidents to site workers. I am therefore particularly pleased to see the importance which the engineering industry training board attaches to safety training.
My Lords, we must also look ahead for the future supply of trained people in the industry. The Engineering Industry Training Board will, as I have said, be giving priority to first and second year apprentice training in the industry. The Government will also be making funds available in 1978/1979 to encourage companies to maintain apprentice intake at a time of recession. In the last three years, this aid has amounted to about £135 million over industry as a whole; and in 1978/1979 a further £41 million is being made available. I understand also that discussions have been held between the Manpower Services Commission and the Board to see what other support the Commission can give to key training activities in 1978/1979. Areas to receive support are initial off-the-job training for apprentices, adult operator training and training of professional engineers, draughtsmen, managers and supervisors. The Engineering Industry Training Board is not starting from scratch in this sector. The Board and the Manpower Services Commission have already devoted a good deal of attention and resources to the engineering construction industry. The Board has set up a separate committee for the engineering construction sector representing both sides of the industry, and has made available to it £1 million on a loan basis to help it to get things moving. The Manpower Services Commission has also provided £3½ million over three years to the Board to help them begin the job of improving training in this difficult part of their industry. When the Commission provided the money, however, it made it clear that a gap was being filled and that in due course the firms in the industry would be expected to shoulder the main part of training to meet the industry's needs. This is why the Board has now come forward with these levy proposals.
In moving this order, I should like finally to draw attention to the support which the 2 per cent. levy has received from both sides of the industry—from the Engineering Industry Training Board
110
itself, on which unions and employers are represented; from the AUEW, the major union in the industry; and from the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Oil and Chemical Plant Construction Association, both of which have provided evidence of substantial majority support among their members. I very much welcome this support from employers and unions. It is important that both sides of the industry should co-operate to tackle the problems of training in the engineering construction sector. I believe that the support which this proposal has received marks a recognition that training is essential to the long-term good of the industry and of those who work in it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd February, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, now that the captains and the generals have departed from the arguments over devolution, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the information which he has given us over this particular industrial training levy order this evening. One thing is quite certain: we are very happy to see, from these Benches, that the employers and the unions are in agreement over this vitally important training scheme levy. There can be no better way of helping those in the engineering construction industry. Many of us on these Benches know the difficulties entailed in the long training that some of these people have to bear and also the difficulties of financing themselves in one way or another.
The noble Lord mentioned the safety rules that must apply throughout the engineering construction industry, and certainly these are of vital importance because of the new technological equipment that is used. Anything that can be done to train these people will be of great importance for the future of the industry.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. If he can answer it now I shall be grateful, but if he cannot answer it tonight perhaps he will be able to do so at a later date. My question concerns the figure for those using this scheme—the number of people wishing to take up apprenticeships under this training levy

111
scheme. I think it would be valuable if we could get some idea of how many people are coming forward. It would be important for the industry as a whole to be able to know how many people are interested and wish to learn more by means of this scheme. We on this side of the House are deeply grateful for this order and for the idea behind it. We can only hope that in future more people, whether male or female, will be able to make use of the scheme.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of my noble friends, should like to say that we are glad to be part of this cosy little group, and we wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for the clear way in which he has explained the terms of the order. We have little to say upon it but, like the noble Viscount, we should like to say how glad we are that the proposals it contains have clearly been the subject of much consultation within the Engineering Industry Training Board and among employers' and trade union representatives, and that the proposals themselves have been approved by the Manpower Services Commission before coming to this House.
We understand why it is that, in the case of engineering construction activities, the levy should be of a relatively high amount, and we endorse the view that is being taken that this should be a help both as regards safety training and, more particularly, as regards training more people for skilled occupations. We hope that it will do something to meet that shortage, particularly of skilled engineering workers, that was identified only last year by, I think, the National Economic Development Office as being a serious potential constraint on the further growth of output.
I, too, have only one question to put to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace; it relates to the exemption of small employers from payment of the levy, as defined in paragraph 5 of this order. Small firms are defined, generally speaking, as being firms whose employees do not exceed 60 in number. In winding-up the debate—and this is a point of which I have been able to give the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, notice—on the Second Reading of the Employment Subsidies Bill in another
112
place recently, the Under-Secretary of State recognised that the exemption of small firms from payment of levy, on account of the difficulties in dealing with them through industrial training boards, presented special problems regarding the provision of adequate training facilities in those small firms. As the noble Lord will recall, he promised to examine that question very carefully. I realise that this is a general point which I am raising, and that it is not confined to the engineering industry. But I wonder whether the noble Lord has anything to say as to any progress that may have been made in looking into that question. Subject only to that, we on these Benches are happy to approve the order.
7.42 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for their very kind remarks and for the welcome which they have given to this order. I should also like to thank them both for giving me advance notice of their questions. In the case of the noble Viscount, it was somewhat short notice, but I am glad to tell him that we have managed to get the information for which he asked. He asked for a general idea of the number of people using the scheme. The number of apprentices who started training in the engineering industry in 1975–76 was 25,200; in 1976–77 it was 24,500, and in 1977–78 it was approximately 25,000. Although the last figure is, of course, an estimate, it will give him some idea of the number of people using the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who very kindly gave me notice of his question, which is not strictly related to the levy order, raised the very important point of encouraging training in small firms. I shall not be too long in replying, but there are special problems and I feel that the matter deserves a fairly lengthy answer, although it is not too encouraging. There are special problems in encouraging training in small firms. Most of the industrial training boards have arrangements whereby small firms below a certain size are excluded from paying levy. They take the view that levy exemption systems do not usually suit small firms, which have very individual and intermittent training

113
needs, and that it would not be cost-effective for a number of board staff to be employed on the administration of the levy for a very large number of small firms.
This does not mean that the boards ignore small firms. Most consider that the best help they can give them is through their advisory services, through grants for key training activities and through the organisation of courses of management training. For example, the engineering industry training board makes available to small firms grants for off-the-job craft training, using partly its own funds and also funds from the Manpower Services Commission. It also organises management training courses for managers in small companies, and projects for individual firms where a training adviser goes into the company to advise on management training and development.
The present intention of the Manpower Services Commission is to review the working of the levy arrangements in 1979, when it has gathered sufficient experience of how the arrangements introduced by the Employment and Training Act 1973 are working. One of the matters that it will no doubt want to consider is the effect of the levy system on training in small firms. In the meantime, discussions are taking place between the Manpower Services Commission and individual training boards on the implementation of the Manpower Services Commission's "Training for Skills" programme. These discussions will be concentrating on the future needs and provision of skill training in industry, and this will inevitably cover the present arrangements in both large and small firms. I readily recognise, and am not surprised to find, that this will be a continuing subject for discussion in the not too distant future.
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to Hugh Scanlon for the work that he has put in in leading the engineering industry training board. His work and experience have been extremely valuable and have been appreciated greatly by employers, in particular. Let us hope that his services may be available for some time to come. But I do not think that it would be out of place to pay tribute here, as indeed both Government and Opposition did in another place.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Sitting suspended from 7.46 p.m. until 8.30 p.m.]

GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  ALIEN PLANTS AND ANIMALS
  ALIEN PLANTS AND ANIMALS
  MINK
  MINK
  MV "TORREY CANYON": COMPENSATION
  MV "TORREY CANYON": COMPENSATION